Can anyone point me to web or print resources with discussion of how to
best utilize two pilots in small airplanes? Who does what, etc. I have
found lots of airline-level material but really nothing that relates to
flying light singles. Or maybe someone who regularly flies with a pilot
spouse? How do you split the workload?

"Mitty" > wrote in message
...
> Can anyone point me to web or print resources with discussion of how to
> best utilize two pilots in small airplanes? Who does what, etc. I have
> found lots of airline-level material but really nothing that relates to
> flying light singles. Or maybe someone who regularly flies with a pilot
> spouse? How do you split the workload?

I fly with a nonpilot spouse who shares my workload. She has a copy of the
checklists, and some items are her responsibility. In preflight, she checks
switches etc. on her side (all identified on the checklist), verifies vacuum
at runup, watches me to make sure I don't miss things, issues certain
reminders at various planned times. After takeoff, she calls altitudes at
which I have actions to take (typically 400AGL and 1000 AGL), watches my
heading and altitude for compliance with clearance, calls attention to
deviations, announces approaching clearance altitude. She tunes the radios
to in-flight assigned frequencies, reminds me to make the call if I got busy
and forgot. She monitors the various checklists to make sure I don't miss
things (which I never do, of course <g>). She times the fuel tanks and
tells me when to switch. She gets out approach plates when I call for them.
etc.

Works well for us. The only problem is that I feel lost when flying alone.

Stan

Mitty wrote:

> Can anyone point me to web or print resources with discussion of how to
> best utilize two pilots in small airplanes? Who does what, etc. I have
> found lots of airline-level material but really nothing that relates to
> flying light singles. Or maybe someone who regularly flies with a pilot
> spouse? How do you split the workload?

Since I fly a fair bit of single pilot IFR, I want to retain proficiency
at that and not get dependent on another body in the cockpit. I use
another pilot or passenger to simply do things like hand me charts and
confirm altitudes and watch for traffic. I continue to perform ALL
flying, navigating and communication chores so that I stay proficient
for single-pilot flight.


Matt

Is your wife available to train other wifes?

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mitty" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Can anyone point me to web or print resources with discussion of how to
> > best utilize two pilots in small airplanes? Who does what, etc. I have
> > found lots of airline-level material but really nothing that relates to
> > flying light singles. Or maybe someone who regularly flies with a pilot
> > spouse? How do you split the workload?
>
> I fly with a nonpilot spouse who shares my workload. She has a copy of
the
> checklists, and some items are her responsibility. In preflight, she
checks
> switches etc. on her side (all identified on the checklist), verifies
vacuum
> at runup, watches me to make sure I don't miss things, issues certain
> reminders at various planned times. After takeoff, she calls altitudes at
> which I have actions to take (typically 400AGL and 1000 AGL), watches my
> heading and altitude for compliance with clearance, calls attention to
> deviations, announces approaching clearance altitude. She tunes the
radios
> to in-flight assigned frequencies, reminds me to make the call if I got
busy
> and forgot. She monitors the various checklists to make sure I don't miss
> things (which I never do, of course <g>). She times the fuel tanks and
> tells me when to switch. She gets out approach plates when I call for
them.
> etc.
>
> Works well for us. The only problem is that I feel lost when flying
alone.
>
> Stan
>
>

Stan Prevost wrote:

> "Mitty" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Can anyone point me to web or print resources with discussion of how to
>>best utilize two pilots in small airplanes? Who does what, etc. I have
>>found lots of airline-level material but really nothing that relates to
>>flying light singles. Or maybe someone who regularly flies with a pilot
>>spouse? How do you split the workload?
>
>
> I fly with a nonpilot spouse who shares my workload. She has a copy of the
> checklists, and some items are her responsibility. In preflight, she checks
> switches etc. on her side (all identified on the checklist), verifies vacuum
> at runup, watches me to make sure I don't miss things, issues certain
> reminders at various planned times. After takeoff, she calls altitudes at
> which I have actions to take (typically 400AGL and 1000 AGL), watches my

What do you do at 400 AGL? I'm curious as I don't do anything until
1000 (fuel pump off, power set to climb, etc.).


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

>
> What do you do at 400 AGL? I'm curious as I don't do anything until
> 1000 (fuel pump off, power set to climb, etc.).

You should be turning when you reach 400 feet.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> What do you do at 400 AGL? I'm curious as I don't do anything until
> 1000 (fuel pump off, power set to climb, etc.).
>
>

I make any required initial turn to follow an IFR departure procedure or
follow an ATC departure clearance. I also transition to climb power at that
altitude. Waiting until 1000 AGL for climb power is also a good practice;
some say to not fool with the engine until you can turn back to the field.
I just like to slow the prop as soon as I can for noise reduction.

Stan

If the copilot is not familiar with the aircraft (radios, etc) then
it's difficult to have them do the communications, setting freqs,
etc. I had that happen with an instructor. I own a cherokee and have
upgraded (not hard, since few of the avionics worked anyway) the
radios, added an intercom and PS 6000, etc. Most instructors around
here are familiar with the King environment and not the PS/Garmin/UPSAT
configurations. Hence the inability to change freqs on a timely
basis when flying with me.

CRM only works if both parties are familiar with procedures and
equipment and agree to use the procedures.

Mitty wrote:
> Can anyone point me to web or print resources with discussion of how to
> best utilize two pilots in small airplanes? Who does what, etc. I have
> found lots of airline-level material but really nothing that relates to
> flying light singles. Or maybe someone who regularly flies with a pilot
> spouse? How do you split the workload?

Mitty,

I routinely fly IFR with a crew partner in our 172. I've long
considered writing up the procedures we've honed over the last several
years, but I never seem to find the time.

A year or so ago, however, I wrote up a travelogue of a flight that
demonstrated some of what we do. Though we've changed a few procedural
details since this was written, it may still be of help if you're simply
looking for ideas on how to write up your own procedures. Go to my site
and click through:

Aviation->Articles->Travelogues->Exercise in Crew Coordination

Safe flying,

-Doug

--
--------------------
Doug Vetter, CFIMEIA

http://www.dvcfi.com
--------------------

> Can anyone point me to web or print resources with discussion of how to
> best utilize two pilots in small airplanes? Who does what, etc. I have
> found lots of airline-level material but really nothing that relates to
> flying light singles. Or maybe someone who regularly flies with a pilot
> spouse? How do you split the workload?

Nobody seems to have mentioned being certain who is flying the plane. Have an
agreed on protocol for exchanging control.

P1: You take the controls.
P2: I have the controls.
P1: You have the controls.

I like Stan Prevost's list of things that can be delegated to a nonpilot
frequent passenger. That's a clip-and-save. Thanks, Stan.

Dave

I agree. When I have another pilot in the airplane they are a passenger. I
might ask them to set the pressurization since it is on their side but that
is about it. All my flying and all my simulator training has been single
pilot and I don't think that changing for one or two flights a year is
safer. If it is a VFR trip then that is different.

Mike
MU-2


"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Mitty wrote:
>
> > Can anyone point me to web or print resources with discussion of how to
> > best utilize two pilots in small airplanes? Who does what, etc. I have
> > found lots of airline-level material but really nothing that relates to
> > flying light singles. Or maybe someone who regularly flies with a pilot
> > spouse? How do you split the workload?
>
> Since I fly a fair bit of single pilot IFR, I want to retain proficiency
> at that and not get dependent on another body in the cockpit. I use
> another pilot or passenger to simply do things like hand me charts and
> confirm altitudes and watch for traffic. I continue to perform ALL
> flying, navigating and communication chores so that I stay proficient
> for single-pilot flight.
>
>
> Matt
>

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>
>> What do you do at 400 AGL? I'm curious as I don't do anything until
>> 1000 (fuel pump off, power set to climb, etc.).
>
>
> You should be turning when you reach 400 feet.
>

I don't need a checklist item to make a turn.


Matt

Stan Prevost wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>What do you do at 400 AGL? I'm curious as I don't do anything until
>>1000 (fuel pump off, power set to climb, etc.).
>>
>>
>
>
> I make any required initial turn to follow an IFR departure procedure or
> follow an ATC departure clearance. I also transition to climb power at that
> altitude. Waiting until 1000 AGL for climb power is also a good practice;
> some say to not fool with the engine until you can turn back to the field.
> I just like to slow the prop as soon as I can for noise reduction.
>
> Stan
>
>

I've used 1000 as that is what Flight Safety recommended.

Matt

"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
...

> I like Stan Prevost's list of things that can be delegated to a nonpilot
> frequent passenger.

I was in a hurry when I made the other post and left out a few things. My
nonpilot spouse also handles passenger issues. We have a printed passenger
briefing, she makes sure they read and understand it. She helps them with
how to use the headsets, seatbelts, and doors, and our sterile cockpit
protocol. I give her guidance on seating for W&B, she works to that in
seating the passengers. I just verify with her that all that is completed.
She also handles in-flight passenger issues unless it is something that
requires PIC involvement. She handles any waivers that may be required,
such as for Angel Flight missions. She makes a pretty good flight attendant
also, serving snacks and drinks. Oh, and she also copies ATIS/AWOS/ASOS.

I just fly the airplane.

I agree with other posts about the risk to single-pilot proficiency in
handling the total workload, and I observe that from time-to-time when I fly
alone. But it is uncommon for me to fly without her (other than
instructional flights) or without another pilot with whom I have flown a
lot. I have not observed any problem with my wife accomodating to another
airplane. We normally fly a Saratoga, but also sometimes fly an Arrow or a
Cessna 182. She easily switches from one to another, it takes just a few
minutes to learn where things are on the panel. Even fixed gear vs
retractable gear has not been a problem, she asks before the flight how to
tell whether the gear is up or down.

This works for us, YMMV.

Stan

<snip>
>
> A year or so ago, however, I wrote up a travelogue of a flight that
> demonstrated some of what we do. Though we've changed a few procedural
> details since this was written, it may still be of help if you're simply
> looking for ideas on how to write up your own procedures. Go to my site
> and click through:
>
> Aviation->Articles->Travelogues->Exercise in Crew Coordination
>
> Safe flying,
>
> -Doug
>

Good article; thanks. Impressive web site too. I got tired just
thinking about the effort involved ...

Geo.

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote
> I agree. When I have another pilot in the airplane they are a passenger. I
> might ask them to set the pressurization since it is on their side but that
> is about it. All my flying and all my simulator training has been single
> pilot and I don't think that changing for one or two flights a year is
> safer. If it is a VFR trip then that is different.

I used to have the same attitude, and for the same reasons. Working
on my ATP changed my views; it may change yours.

Offloading tasks is fundamental to managing (rather than simply
handling) workload. Yes, a second pilot in the cockpit is not
absolutely reliable, and yes offloading tasks does not actually allow
you to offload responsibilities for those tasks. On the other hand,
the same is true of the autopilot, only more so. For example, a
second pilot asked to hold heading and altitude may flub the task -
but he's not going to go hard over on the ailerons and not say
anything. An autopilot might. Is that a reason not to use the
autopilot?

For all that we train for all sorts of system failures, the number one
cause of IFR accidents is still pilot error. The more you have to do,
the more likely you are to make that error. It therefore makes sense
to reduce your workload. Of course there is the flip side - if you
fly at reduced workload all the time, you may lose the ability to
handle an increase in workload. You need to strike a reasonable
balance between training yourself for dealing with the workload
(maneuvers training) and for managing workload (CRM).

The DE who gave me my ATP ride told me up front that if I did not use
him as a cockpit resource, we would have a long debrief. He said he
wouldn't actually flunk me for not using all available resources
(including him) but that the tolenraces on the ATP ride were such that
doing everything yourself made it somewhat unlikely that you would
remain within tolerances at all times - and there would be no slack.

At the airline level, an ATP/type ride is now handled in two sections
- the maneuvers training (where all sorts of stuff is thrown at you
and you have to demonstrate your ability to fly and deal with it) and
the LOFT (where you have to demonstrate your ability to manage the
cockpit workload). At least this is the description I get from a
former DE in transport category jets and captain for a major airline -
who also says that over 99% of the flying failures occur on the LOFT
portion rather than maneuvers training.

Michael

Michael wrote:

> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote
>
>>I agree. When I have another pilot in the airplane they are a passenger. I
>>might ask them to set the pressurization since it is on their side but that
>>is about it. All my flying and all my simulator training has been single
>>pilot and I don't think that changing for one or two flights a year is
>>safer. If it is a VFR trip then that is different.
>
>
> I used to have the same attitude, and for the same reasons. Working
> on my ATP changed my views; it may change yours.

I'll be curious to see if it does change Mike's POV.


> Offloading tasks is fundamental to managing (rather than simply
> handling) workload. Yes, a second pilot in the cockpit is not
> absolutely reliable, and yes offloading tasks does not actually allow
> you to offload responsibilities for those tasks. On the other hand,
> the same is true of the autopilot, only more so. For example, a
> second pilot asked to hold heading and altitude may flub the task -
> but he's not going to go hard over on the ailerons and not say
> anything. An autopilot might. Is that a reason not to use the
> autopilot?

I now have an airplane with an autopilot, but I almost never use it. I
flew 6 years of IFR (often in IMC here in the sunny northeast) and I
just feel more comfortable hand flying at all times. I also don't need
to worry about AP failure. I do use it when I need to do an extensive
GPS reprogram, but I can do that without the AP, it just takes longer.


> For all that we train for all sorts of system failures, the number one
> cause of IFR accidents is still pilot error. The more you have to do,
> the more likely you are to make that error. It therefore makes sense
> to reduce your workload. Of course there is the flip side - if you
> fly at reduced workload all the time, you may lose the ability to
> handle an increase in workload. You need to strike a reasonable
> balance between training yourself for dealing with the workload
> (maneuvers training) and for managing workload (CRM).

I believe more strongly in the flip side. I believe the greatest
likelihood of pilot error is when in a high workload situation, often
caused by an emergency or at least an anomoly in flight. At such times
having a higher level of competency is essential. I see it like a
sprinter who only trains by running long distance. He will have much
more endurance than other sprinters, but they will beat him at the
sprints. I want the capability to sprint at a moments notice and I
believe that hand flying solo at all times keeps my sprinting ability
(ability to handle the occasional high workload situations) at a much
higher level.



> The DE who gave me my ATP ride told me up front that if I did not use
> him as a cockpit resource, we would have a long debrief. He said he
> wouldn't actually flunk me for not using all available resources
> (including him) but that the tolenraces on the ATP ride were such that
> doing everything yourself made it somewhat unlikely that you would
> remain within tolerances at all times - and there would be no slack.

I can see this being either a very good or very bad policy depending on
the context. If you are seeking the ATP in an airplane that requires
two pilots or plan to fly in a two pilot operation, then I think the DE
is right on the money. If you plane to fly exclusively or even
primarily in a single-pilot operation, then I think the DE is way off base.


> At the airline level, an ATP/type ride is now handled in two sections
> - the maneuvers training (where all sorts of stuff is thrown at you
> and you have to demonstrate your ability to fly and deal with it) and
> the LOFT (where you have to demonstrate your ability to manage the
> cockpit workload). At least this is the description I get from a
> former DE in transport category jets and captain for a major airline -
> who also says that over 99% of the flying failures occur on the LOFT
> portion rather than maneuvers training.

At the airline level this makes tons of sense as they fly only multiple
pilot operations. If that is what you are going to fly, then you should
be able to fly your best using another pilot. However, as I wrote
above, if I let a DE know that I will be flying single-pilot all of the
time and he doesn't test me that way, then he's doing me a real disservice.


Matt

In article >,
Michael > wrote:
>the same is true of the autopilot, only more so. For example, a
>second pilot asked to hold heading and altitude may flub the task -
>but he's not going to go hard over on the ailerons and not say
>anything. An autopilot might.

That's not going to happen in a MU-2! No ailerons! *rimshot*

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

Matt Whiting > wrote
> I now have an airplane with an autopilot, but I almost never use it. I
> flew 6 years of IFR (often in IMC here in the sunny northeast) and I
> just feel more comfortable hand flying at all times. I also don't need
> to worry about AP failure. I do use it when I need to do an extensive
> GPS reprogram, but I can do that without the AP, it just takes longer.

I too have an airplane with an autopilot now. I fly IFR a lot, and
have for the past 4 years I've owned the airplane. I installed the
autopilot two years ago. I first used it in IMC on my ATP checkride,
and I'm still on my white temporary. I, too, can reprogram my GPS
without the autopilot. I can perform ALL normal tasks without the
autopilot, though it does take slightly longer. I certainly believe
that you should be able to complete the flight uneventfully if the
autopilot fails, and I train to that standard.

> I believe more strongly in the flip side. I believe the greatest
> likelihood of pilot error is when in a high workload situation, often
> caused by an emergency or at least an anomoly in flight. At such times
> having a higher level of competency is essential.

No argument - but that is what recurrent training is for.

> I want the capability to sprint at a moments notice and I
> believe that hand flying solo at all times keeps my sprinting ability
> (ability to handle the occasional high workload situations) at a much
> higher level.

I used to believe exactly the same thing, and practiced accordingly.
Now I'm not so sure. I'm not convinced that the little bit of extra
edge is worth the continuous increased workload. Most IFR accidents
occur with no equipment failure at all.

> I can see this being either a very good or very bad policy depending on
> the context. If you are seeking the ATP in an airplane that requires
> two pilots or plan to fly in a two pilot operation, then I think the DE
> is right on the money. If you plane to fly exclusively or even
> primarily in a single-pilot operation, then I think the DE is way off base.

I can think of no single-pilot operation that requires an ATP. The
ATP is not really a pilot certificate - it is a pilot manager
certificate. It is assumed that you can fly proficiently going in.
It is assumed that you can handle the workload going in. The big
question - can you MANAGE the workload, rather than just handling it?
Can you effectively make use of all available resources - including an
untrained copilot. This is far from unrealistic - a new hire copilot
straight out of sim is, at least according to my friend the airline
captain, often worthless. If you can get him to tune a radio for you,
that's good.

> At the airline level this makes tons of sense as they fly only multiple
> pilot operations. If that is what you are going to fly, then you should
> be able to fly your best using another pilot. However, as I wrote
> above, if I let a DE know that I will be flying single-pilot all of the
> time and he doesn't test me that way, then he's doing me a real disservice.

And once again - if you will be flying single pilot all the time, what
earthly use is an ATP certificate to you?

Michael

Thanks for your perspective.

I am a strong believer in "train the way you fly and fly the way you train"
and so are FlightSafety and Simcom. Actually this applies to all endeavors.
If you want to be a better runner, then you are better off running than
swimming. After having done things the exact same way for 1400hrs in the
MU-2, I don't think safety would be enhanced by doing them differently one
time or one percent of the time.

I can't and won't disagree with any of your points except to point out that
unless your copilot is trained in the aircraft, it takes longer to teach
them how to do things than to do them yourself. If the copilot happens to
fly with the same GPS that I have, then it would make sense to have them
program in the flight plan. To use your autopilot analagy, I view the
unknown skills of a copilot the same way that I would view a new
installation of a 20yr old working-when-removed autopilot. If it makes the
examiner happy, I will asign him the duty of reading checklists. If I flew
with the same person a lot my attitude would be different. Perhaps my
attitude would also be different if I flew with experienced pilots but,
except for training, all the pilots I have flown with in my airplane have
been student or private pilots, mostly SEL, some with instrument ratings and
some without.

I have had very little (<1%) of my flying with another pilot in the
airplane, so I really don't know what they would do in different
circumstances.

Mike
MU-2



"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote
> > I agree. When I have another pilot in the airplane they are a
passenger. I
> > might ask them to set the pressurization since it is on their side but
that
> > is about it. All my flying and all my simulator training has been
single
> > pilot and I don't think that changing for one or two flights a year is
> > safer. If it is a VFR trip then that is different.
>
> I used to have the same attitude, and for the same reasons. Working
> on my ATP changed my views; it may change yours.
>
> Offloading tasks is fundamental to managing (rather than simply
> handling) workload. Yes, a second pilot in the cockpit is not
> absolutely reliable, and yes offloading tasks does not actually allow
> you to offload responsibilities for those tasks. On the other hand,
> the same is true of the autopilot, only more so. For example, a
> second pilot asked to hold heading and altitude may flub the task -
> but he's not going to go hard over on the ailerons and not say
> anything. An autopilot might. Is that a reason not to use the
> autopilot?
>
> For all that we train for all sorts of system failures, the number one
> cause of IFR accidents is still pilot error. The more you have to do,
> the more likely you are to make that error. It therefore makes sense
> to reduce your workload. Of course there is the flip side - if you
> fly at reduced workload all the time, you may lose the ability to
> handle an increase in workload. You need to strike a reasonable
> balance between training yourself for dealing with the workload
> (maneuvers training) and for managing workload (CRM).
>
> The DE who gave me my ATP ride told me up front that if I did not use
> him as a cockpit resource, we would have a long debrief. He said he
> wouldn't actually flunk me for not using all available resources
> (including him) but that the tolenraces on the ATP ride were such that
> doing everything yourself made it somewhat unlikely that you would
> remain within tolerances at all times - and there would be no slack.
>
> At the airline level, an ATP/type ride is now handled in two sections
> - the maneuvers training (where all sorts of stuff is thrown at you
> and you have to demonstrate your ability to fly and deal with it) and
> the LOFT (where you have to demonstrate your ability to manage the
> cockpit workload). At least this is the description I get from a
> former DE in transport category jets and captain for a major airline -
> who also says that over 99% of the flying failures occur on the LOFT
> portion rather than maneuvers training.
>
> Michael

Michael wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote
>
>>I now have an airplane with an autopilot, but I almost never use it. I
>>flew 6 years of IFR (often in IMC here in the sunny northeast) and I
>>just feel more comfortable hand flying at all times. I also don't need
>>to worry about AP failure. I do use it when I need to do an extensive
>>GPS reprogram, but I can do that without the AP, it just takes longer.
>
>
> I too have an airplane with an autopilot now. I fly IFR a lot, and
> have for the past 4 years I've owned the airplane. I installed the
> autopilot two years ago. I first used it in IMC on my ATP checkride,
> and I'm still on my white temporary. I, too, can reprogram my GPS
> without the autopilot. I can perform ALL normal tasks without the
> autopilot, though it does take slightly longer. I certainly believe
> that you should be able to complete the flight uneventfully if the
> autopilot fails, and I train to that standard.
>
>
>>I believe more strongly in the flip side. I believe the greatest
>>likelihood of pilot error is when in a high workload situation, often
>>caused by an emergency or at least an anomoly in flight. At such times
>>having a higher level of competency is essential.
>
>
> No argument - but that is what recurrent training is for.

No, recurrent training is no substitute for ongoing practice. Training
is to teach you new skills and correct bad habits that have crept into
your. Recurrent training doesn't hone skills the way frequent practice
does. Training and practice aren't the same thing. Ask me if I want to
go into battle with a freshly trained GI or a 20 year combat veteran,
and I can tell you who I'll pick.


Matt

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote
> I am a strong believer in "train the way you fly and fly the way you train"
> and so are FlightSafety and Simcom. Actually this applies to all endeavors.
> If you want to be a better runner, then you are better off running than
> swimming.

Maybe. Cross-training is a valid and recognized approach in
professional athletics; I think it's just as valid for aviation. I
found that my skydiving improved when I started flying airplanes, my
airplane flying improved when I started flying gliders, my tri-gear
flying improved when I started flying tailwheel - and so on. Even if
you normally fly single pilot, I think there are gains to be made by
learning to fly as part of a crew, and practicing the skill on
occasion.

> I can't and won't disagree with any of your points except to point out that
> unless your copilot is trained in the aircraft, it takes longer to teach
> them how to do things than to do them yourself.

Not necessarily. How much aircraft-specific training does one need to
find an approach in a book of plates? IME most instrument students
can do it.

> If it makes the
> examiner happy, I will asign him the duty of reading checklists.

That was one of the duties I assigned. Finding me the approach plate,
or reading some aspect of it to me, was another. It's not much - but
it's better than nothing. I did in fact point out to him that since
we did not fly or train as a crew, the tasks I could assign to him
were limited - but not nil. That seemed to satisfy him.

The interesting part of this was the way the single engine ILS played
out on the checkride. I was vectored all over creation, in and out of
cloud. I was given an intercept that was too tight and WAY too high
(the GS needle was pegged down as I was cleared). However, because I
had offloaded the duty of finding the approach and briefing me on it
to the DE, and because I had the A/P on, I really had minimal
workload. I could see the bad vector/altitude situation developing,
and I adjusted the power/speed accordingly.

When the clearance came, I disengaged the autopilot, dumped the nose,
and dove for the intercept altitude at 1000 fpm. It was the only way
to be stabilized on altitude and on airspeed as I crossed the marker -
where I 'lost' an engine. Had I needed time to decide what to do as I
got the clearance, I would not have made it.

The approach was easy, and keeping it within a dot was a non-event.
Would I have pulled it off without the DE and autopilot? Certainly.
Would I have kept it within a dot at all times? Probably, but
possibly not. Would I have done it smoothly, such that successfully
keeping it within a dot at all times (in spite of an engine failure at
the marker) was never in doubt? Probably not.

The ATP ride was half over before I really understood the point. Even
seemingly minimal resources can be useful and should be used.

Michael

I guess the you do not have your approach plates in an Northstar EFB mounted
on the left yoke :-).

Mike
MU-2


"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote
> > I am a strong believer in "train the way you fly and fly the way you
train"
> > and so are FlightSafety and Simcom. Actually this applies to all
endeavors.
> > If you want to be a better runner, then you are better off running than
> > swimming.
>
> Maybe. Cross-training is a valid and recognized approach in
> professional athletics; I think it's just as valid for aviation. I
> found that my skydiving improved when I started flying airplanes, my
> airplane flying improved when I started flying gliders, my tri-gear
> flying improved when I started flying tailwheel - and so on. Even if
> you normally fly single pilot, I think there are gains to be made by
> learning to fly as part of a crew, and practicing the skill on
> occasion.
>
> > I can't and won't disagree with any of your points except to point out
that
> > unless your copilot is trained in the aircraft, it takes longer to teach
> > them how to do things than to do them yourself.
>
> Not necessarily. How much aircraft-specific training does one need to
> find an approach in a book of plates? IME most instrument students
> can do it.
>
> > If it makes the
> > examiner happy, I will asign him the duty of reading checklists.
>
> That was one of the duties I assigned. Finding me the approach plate,
> or reading some aspect of it to me, was another. It's not much - but
> it's better than nothing. I did in fact point out to him that since
> we did not fly or train as a crew, the tasks I could assign to him
> were limited - but not nil. That seemed to satisfy him.
>
> The interesting part of this was the way the single engine ILS played
> out on the checkride. I was vectored all over creation, in and out of
> cloud. I was given an intercept that was too tight and WAY too high
> (the GS needle was pegged down as I was cleared). However, because I
> had offloaded the duty of finding the approach and briefing me on it
> to the DE, and because I had the A/P on, I really had minimal
> workload. I could see the bad vector/altitude situation developing,
> and I adjusted the power/speed accordingly.
>
> When the clearance came, I disengaged the autopilot, dumped the nose,
> and dove for the intercept altitude at 1000 fpm. It was the only way
> to be stabilized on altitude and on airspeed as I crossed the marker -
> where I 'lost' an engine. Had I needed time to decide what to do as I
> got the clearance, I would not have made it.
>
> The approach was easy, and keeping it within a dot was a non-event.
> Would I have pulled it off without the DE and autopilot? Certainly.
> Would I have kept it within a dot at all times? Probably, but
> possibly not. Would I have done it smoothly, such that successfully
> keeping it within a dot at all times (in spite of an engine failure at
> the marker) was never in doubt? Probably not.
>
> The ATP ride was half over before I really understood the point. Even
> seemingly minimal resources can be useful and should be used.
>
> Michael

Michael wrote:

> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote
>
>>I am a strong believer in "train the way you fly and fly the way you train"
>>and so are FlightSafety and Simcom. Actually this applies to all endeavors.
>>If you want to be a better runner, then you are better off running than
>>swimming.
>
>
> Maybe. Cross-training is a valid and recognized approach in
> professional athletics; I think it's just as valid for aviation. I
> found that my skydiving improved when I started flying airplanes, my
> airplane flying improved when I started flying gliders, my tri-gear
> flying improved when I started flying tailwheel - and so on. Even if
> you normally fly single pilot, I think there are gains to be made by
> learning to fly as part of a crew, and practicing the skill on
> occasion.

Can you give an example of a skill or two that you would learn from
flying a two-pilot crew that increases skill in single-pilot operation?
I can't think of one.


>>I can't and won't disagree with any of your points except to point out that
>>unless your copilot is trained in the aircraft, it takes longer to teach
>>them how to do things than to do them yourself.
>
>
> Not necessarily. How much aircraft-specific training does one need to
> find an approach in a book of plates? IME most instrument students
> can do it.

I certainly have no problem asking a passenger to do something trivial
like that. I always have them hold and hand me charts, etc. However,
this is only because they are sitting on the "desk" that I normally use
to hold my charts and plates when flying alone! :-)


>>If it makes the
>>examiner happy, I will asign him the duty of reading checklists.
>
>
> That was one of the duties I assigned. Finding me the approach plate,
> or reading some aspect of it to me, was another. It's not much - but
> it's better than nothing. I did in fact point out to him that since
> we did not fly or train as a crew, the tasks I could assign to him
> were limited - but not nil. That seemed to satisfy him.
>
> The interesting part of this was the way the single engine ILS played
> out on the checkride. I was vectored all over creation, in and out of
> cloud. I was given an intercept that was too tight and WAY too high
> (the GS needle was pegged down as I was cleared). However, because I
> had offloaded the duty of finding the approach and briefing me on it
> to the DE, and because I had the A/P on, I really had minimal
> workload. I could see the bad vector/altitude situation developing,
> and I adjusted the power/speed accordingly.
>
> When the clearance came, I disengaged the autopilot, dumped the nose,
> and dove for the intercept altitude at 1000 fpm. It was the only way
> to be stabilized on altitude and on airspeed as I crossed the marker -
> where I 'lost' an engine. Had I needed time to decide what to do as I
> got the clearance, I would not have made it.

Personally, I wouldn't fly an approach like that. I'd tell the
controller to vector me back another time and to do it properly this
time around. I'm surprised a DE would consider this good judgement on
an ATP ride.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote

> Can you give an example of a skill or two that you would learn from
> flying a two-pilot crew that increases skill in single-pilot
> operation?

Being required to develop a plan and brief that plan to other
crewmembers will increase the likelyhood that a single pilot
will also develop a plan and review that plan for himself.
I taught CRM in the airline enviroment for several years and
now apply those principles to my single pilot personal flying.
When I administer a flight review, I often ask the pilot to
tell me his plan for accomplishing a particular maneuver and
when I get a quizzical look, I then know that he has no plan.

Bob Moore
ATP CFI

Matt Whiting > wrote
> Can you give an example of a skill or two that you would learn from
> flying a two-pilot crew that increases skill in single-pilot operation?
> I can't think of one.

Delegation, for one. You can delegate to ATC, you know.

> I certainly have no problem asking a passenger to do something trivial
> like that. I always have them hold and hand me charts, etc. However,
> this is only because they are sitting on the "desk" that I normally use
> to hold my charts and plates when flying alone! :-)

And if you have a passenger who is blind? Illiterate? Scared to
death?

> Personally, I wouldn't fly an approach like that. I'd tell the
> controller to vector me back another time and to do it properly this
> time around. I'm surprised a DE would consider this good judgement on
> an ATP ride.

Perhaps it's because the axaminer was also a corporate pilot, and knew
that refusing a tight but flyable vector was a great way to be sent to
the back of the line, delaying the flight. Why have the skill to do
it if you're not going to use it? An ATP should exercise good
judgment, sure, but he should also be able to demonstrate a high level
of skill.

Michael

Bob Moore wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote
>
>
>>Can you give an example of a skill or two that you would learn from
>>flying a two-pilot crew that increases skill in single-pilot
>>operation?
>
>
> Being required to develop a plan and brief that plan to other
> crewmembers will increase the likelyhood that a single pilot
> will also develop a plan and review that plan for himself.
> I taught CRM in the airline enviroment for several years and
> now apply those principles to my single pilot personal flying.
> When I administer a flight review, I often ask the pilot to
> tell me his plan for accomplishing a particular maneuver and
> when I get a quizzical look, I then know that he has no plan.
>
> Bob Moore
> ATP CFI

I brief myself by talking out loud, but I didn't need to fly with
another pilot to learn that. I'll give you partial credit though! :-)

Matt

Michael wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote
>
>>Can you give an example of a skill or two that you would learn from
>>flying a two-pilot crew that increases skill in single-pilot operation?
>> I can't think of one.
>
>
> Delegation, for one. You can delegate to ATC, you know.

Didn't need to fly with a copilot to learn that.


>>I certainly have no problem asking a passenger to do something trivial
>>like that. I always have them hold and hand me charts, etc. However,
>>this is only because they are sitting on the "desk" that I normally use
>>to hold my charts and plates when flying alone! :-)
>
>
> And if you have a passenger who is blind? Illiterate? Scared to
> death?

I put them in the back seat! :-)


>>Personally, I wouldn't fly an approach like that. I'd tell the
>>controller to vector me back another time and to do it properly this
>>time around. I'm surprised a DE would consider this good judgement on
>>an ATP ride.
>
>
> Perhaps it's because the axaminer was also a corporate pilot, and knew
> that refusing a tight but flyable vector was a great way to be sent to
> the back of the line, delaying the flight. Why have the skill to do
> it if you're not going to use it? An ATP should exercise good
> judgment, sure, but he should also be able to demonstrate a high level
> of skill.

Well, they say that superior judgement obviates the need to use superior
skill. That is my policy.


Matt

Matt Whiting > wrote
> > Delegation, for one. You can delegate to ATC, you know.
> Didn't need to fly with a copilot to learn that.

I suspect that someone who does fly with a copilot will be better at
it. I used to think as you do - but my preparation flights for the
ATP ride (with an actual practicing ATP, an airline training captain
and former jet DE and fleet captain) showed me where my delegation
skills were weak.

> > And if you have a passenger who is blind? Illiterate? Scared to
> > death?
>
> I put them in the back seat! :-)

Probably not a bad move, but my point is that you can't always count
on having a desk OR having a useful copilot.

> Well, they say that superior judgement obviates the need to use superior
> skill.

Who says that? Certainly nobody I know. Superior judgment DOES NOT
obviate the need to use superior skill; it merely makes superior skill
necessary less often. That's why the airlines have not abandoned
maneuvers training (the superior skill portion) - they have ADDED the
LOFT to asess judgment.

Sometimes, BOTH superior judgment AND superior skill are necessary for
the safe and expeditious conclusion of a flight. That's why the ATP
ride should test both. At the instrument level, safe is enough.

Michael

Michael wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote
>
>>>Delegation, for one. You can delegate to ATC, you know.
>>
>>Didn't need to fly with a copilot to learn that.
>
>
> I suspect that someone who does fly with a copilot will be better at
> it. I used to think as you do - but my preparation flights for the
> ATP ride (with an actual practicing ATP, an airline training captain
> and former jet DE and fleet captain) showed me where my delegation
> skills were weak.

Well, I probably have a little advantage in this area as I've managed
fairly large engineering groups (60+ people) and have a fair bit of
experience at delegation of tasks and managing multiple competing
priorities.


>>>And if you have a passenger who is blind? Illiterate? Scared to
>>>death?
>>
>>I put them in the back seat! :-)
>
>
> Probably not a bad move, but my point is that you can't always count
> on having a desk OR having a useful copilot.

Well, I can try!


>>Well, they say that superior judgement obviates the need to use superior
>>skill.
>
>
> Who says that? Certainly nobody I know. Superior judgment DOES NOT
> obviate the need to use superior skill; it merely makes superior skill
> necessary less often. That's why the airlines have not abandoned
> maneuvers training (the superior skill portion) - they have ADDED the
> LOFT to asess judgment.

It is a fairly famous quote, but I can't remember now who said it. I'll
try to search it out for you.


Matt

Matt Whiting > wrote
> Well, I probably have a little advantage in this area as I've managed
> fairly large engineering groups

As have I. In fact, that's what pays for the airplane. Nevertheless,
I learned that there are differences in how it's done in the office
and in the cockpit. Like I said - I had the same opinion of this you
did, until I started working on my ATP.

Michael

Michael wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote
>
>>Well, I probably have a little advantage in this area as I've managed
>>fairly large engineering groups
>
>
> As have I. In fact, that's what pays for the airplane. Nevertheless,
> I learned that there are differences in how it's done in the office
> and in the cockpit. Like I said - I had the same opinion of this you
> did, until I started working on my ATP.
>
> Michael

That's one reason I wrote earlier that I'll be curious to see if Mike R.
changes his opinion one that he's beginning his ATP. I doubt I'd change
mine. I don't care whether in sports, shooting, flying, motorcycling,
etc., I've always used the "train as you X, X as you train", with X
being whatever activity of interest to you. Since I fly single pilot
IFR, I'm not going to train or fly with a copilot who won't always be there.


Matt

Matt Whiting > wrote
> That's one reason I wrote earlier that I'll be curious to see if Mike R.
> changes his opinion one that he's beginning his ATP.

I'm betting that if he trains with a real, practicing ATP (meaning
someone who flies in a crew environment day in and day out) he will.
If not, not.

> I don't care whether in sports, shooting, flying, motorcycling,
> etc., I've always used the "train as you X, X as you train"

Well, that's your choice - but I believe in cross-training. There is
value to getting out of your comfort zone and doing something
different from, but related to what you do normally. I believe in
tailwheel training for trigear pilots, glider training for power
pilots, rotorcraft training for fixed wing pilots - you name it. Not
at the initial stages, but once you reach a level of proficiency where
there are only very small gains to be made with further practice,
cross training opens up new perspectives.

The essential point is that at some level, the best bet in improving
your skills at X is to do Y. If I'm doing a recurrent training
session for a multiengine pilot and he executes a near-perfect single
engine partial panel non-precision circling approach to a short
runway, I will not suggest to him that he should keep practicing this
until it is absolutely flawless. I will suggest that he get into a
glider, or a seaplane, or a biplane - something different.

If you don't believe in cross-training, you're not going to suggest
that.

Michael

Michael wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote
>
>>That's one reason I wrote earlier that I'll be curious to see if Mike R.
>>changes his opinion one that he's beginning his ATP.
>
>
> I'm betting that if he trains with a real, practicing ATP (meaning
> someone who flies in a crew environment day in and day out) he will.
> If not, not.
>
>
>>I don't care whether in sports, shooting, flying, motorcycling,
>>etc., I've always used the "train as you X, X as you train"
>
>
> Well, that's your choice - but I believe in cross-training. There is
> value to getting out of your comfort zone and doing something
> different from, but related to what you do normally. I believe in
> tailwheel training for trigear pilots, glider training for power
> pilots, rotorcraft training for fixed wing pilots - you name it. Not
> at the initial stages, but once you reach a level of proficiency where
> there are only very small gains to be made with further practice,
> cross training opens up new perspectives.
>
> The essential point is that at some level, the best bet in improving
> your skills at X is to do Y. If I'm doing a recurrent training
> session for a multiengine pilot and he executes a near-perfect single
> engine partial panel non-precision circling approach to a short
> runway, I will not suggest to him that he should keep practicing this
> until it is absolutely flawless. I will suggest that he get into a
> glider, or a seaplane, or a biplane - something different.
>
> If you don't believe in cross-training, you're not going to suggest
> that.

I never said I don't believe in acquiring new and varied aviation
skills. I'm simply saying that you use the skills where they fit. I
have no problem learning two-pilot CRM techniques, I'm just saying I
wouldn't apply them occasionally just because I have a warm body in the
right seat. Having additional skills doesn't mean you use them where
they aren't appropriate. To me, it simply isn't appropriate to randomly
depend on another person when this isn't your normal operation. I want
to keep my single pilot skills as sharp as possible and have good habits
that will automatically come into play should an emergency occur. I
believe the best way to keep my single pilot skills sharp is to always
fly as a single pilot and to use another person only for noncritical
supplemental stuff such as handing me charts or monitoring descents,
etc. I have no problem having a right-seat pax performing redundant
operations such as monitoring my altitudes, but I would not give them a
critical role to play in my operation.

Mike R., you will report back as to how your ATP training is progressing
and any change of heart that you have with respect to single pilot
operation, right? :-)


Matt

Matt Whiting > wrote
> I never said I don't believe in acquiring new and varied aviation
> skills. I'm simply saying that you use the skills where they fit. I
> have no problem learning two-pilot CRM techniques, I'm just saying I
> wouldn't apply them occasionally just because I have a warm body in the
> right seat.

Then how will you practice them?

Michael

Michael wrote:

> Matt Whiting > wrote
>
>>I never said I don't believe in acquiring new and varied aviation
>>skills. I'm simply saying that you use the skills where they fit. I
>>have no problem learning two-pilot CRM techniques, I'm just saying I
>>wouldn't apply them occasionally just because I have a warm body in the
>>right seat.
>
>
> Then how will you practice them?
>
> Michael

I wouldn't practice any that required two pilots. Someone said that
they felt there were skills from two-pilot CRM training that would
benefit a solo pilot. I don't agree, but if I did come across such a
skill than I would use it. However, I would not practice nor use any
skill which REQUIRED a second pilot during those few occasions where I
have a second pilot with me, because two-pilot operation is for me the
exception.


Matt