I've moved up to a new plane that includes an S-Tec 50 autopilot. It has
several very capable modes ranging from Wings Leveler, Track a Heading bug,
Follow NAV input, Hold a set Altitude, and approach mode which tracks NAV
input more closely.

What do the regs say about the permissible use of an autopilot after the
enroute portion of a flight that is being conducted under instrument flight
rules? To what extent is it permissible to use the autopilot during an
approach? For example, after the controller says "radar vectors for..."
through DH?

Thanks!

Every airplane flight manual/POH has an autopilot supplement
that answers those questions. The autopilot must be
configured to begin and complete the approach early in the
sequence so that it can arm and capture the loc and gs
properly.
Typically you can stay coupled to 50-100 feet AGL on a GS
and to 50 feet below MDA on a non-precision approach.


"Ron Gordon" > wrote in message
t...
| I've moved up to a new plane that includes an S-Tec 50
autopilot. It has
| several very capable modes ranging from Wings Leveler,
Track a Heading bug,
| Follow NAV input, Hold a set Altitude, and approach mode
which tracks NAV
| input more closely.
|
| What do the regs say about the permissible use of an
autopilot after the
| enroute portion of a flight that is being conducted under
instrument flight
| rules? To what extent is it permissible to use the
autopilot during an
| approach? For example, after the controller says "radar
vectors for..."
| through DH?
|
| Thanks!
|
|

"Ron Gordon" wrote:

> I've moved up to a new plane that includes an S-Tec 50 autopilot. It has
> several very capable modes ranging from Wings Leveler, Track a Heading bug,
> Follow NAV input, Hold a set Altitude, and approach mode which tracks NAV
> input more closely.
>
> What do the regs say about the permissible use of an autopilot after the
> enroute portion of a flight that is being conducted under instrument flight
> rules?

Nothing, at least for Part 91 operations; might be different for 35 or 121, I
don't know.

> To what extent is it permissible to use the autopilot during an approach?
> For example, after the controller says "radar vectors for..." through DH?


I use my S-Tec 50 in approaches all the time, but usually not in the final
segment of an ILS. The 50 is not a top-of-the-line autopilot; I flatter
myself that I can do it better.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Ron Gordon writes:

> I've moved up to a new plane that includes an S-Tec 50 autopilot. It has
> several very capable modes ranging from Wings Leveler, Track a Heading bug,
> Follow NAV input, Hold a set Altitude, and approach mode which tracks NAV
> input more closely.
>
> What do the regs say about the permissible use of an autopilot after the
> enroute portion of a flight that is being conducted under instrument flight
> rules? To what extent is it permissible to use the autopilot during an
> approach? For example, after the controller says "radar vectors for..."
> through DH?

Anything you can legally fly by hand can also be flown by the autopilot, since
you remain in command and can take over at any time; using autopilot is like
using trim in that case. However, you can't use the autopilot to fly
something you could not legally fly by hand unless both you and the aircraft
are certificated to do so. As long as you are flying an approach that you can
legally fly by hand, whether or not you actually use the autopilot to fly it
is purely your choice.

In contrast, there are situations in which flying by hand is not allowed and
only flying by autopilot is permitted (or only flying by hand with special
assistance, such as EFVS, is permitted), such as landings that are below the
minimums for any type of hand-flown instrument approach (Cat IIIc autolands).
These require that both pilot and aircraft (and instruments) be approved for
the automation in question.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Jim,

> so that it can arm and capture the loc and gs
> properly.
>

The S-TEC 50 doesn't do that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Ron,

As Jim says, there's advice on that in the POH. Keep in mind that the
S-TEC 50 does not intercept/capture radials or localizers. You have to
get the plane onto the localizer (which can of course be done with the
AP in heading mode). Only after that you can engage the approach mode.
Main difference between approach and nav is the sensitivity. With the
S-TEC 50, you will still have to manage the altitude profile yourself.

I have seen vastly different accuracy on different installations in
different aircraft with the S-TEC 50. On our Tobago, it can be used
well on approaches down to 200 feet.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:01:32 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Ron,
>
>
>I have seen vastly different accuracy on different installations in
>different aircraft with the S-TEC 50. On our Tobago, it can be used
>well on approaches down to 200 feet.

In my Mooney, I will occasionally allow my STEC50 to fly an approach, if
there is absolutely no turbulence and little change in the winds during
descent. Sometimes it even gets to DH/MDA still on the centerline! But
it's not unusual for it to get 1/2 to 3/4 scale off course.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 04:08:29 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:


>Anything you can legally fly by hand can also be flown by the autopilot, since
>you remain in command and can take over at any time; using autopilot is like
>using trim in that case. However, you can't use the autopilot to fly
>something you could not legally fly by hand unless both you and the aircraft
>are certificated to do so. As long as you are flying an approach that you can
>legally fly by hand, whether or not you actually use the autopilot to fly it
>is purely your choice.

In the Cirrus the autopilot manual (STEC 55X) did not permit operation
below 200 feet or when full flaps were deployed. Clearly a case where
you could legally fly by hand but not with the autopilot.

Ron,

> But
> it's not unusual for it to get 1/2 to 3/4 scale off course.
>

I know. A friend of mine has similar issues in a BN-2.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Anything you can legally fly by hand can also be flown by the autopilot, since
> SNIP

That is a patently false and dangerous statement.

Rip writes:

> That is a patently false and dangerous statement.

Explain the error(s).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> Anything you can legally fly by hand can also be flown by the autopilot, since
> you remain in command and can take over at any time; using autopilot is like
> using trim in that case.

Untrue. Autopilot installations are one of the more rigorously handled
aircraft modifications. There will certainly be LEGALLY BINDING
operating limitations that apply to the use of the autopilot.
There are quite good reasons for these restrictions by the way

The fact that you have never seen a legal AFM and it's supplements
is again demonstrating that you have no business telling real pilots
what is safe OR legal.

Ron Natalie writes:

> Untrue. Autopilot installations are one of the more rigorously handled
> aircraft modifications. There will certainly be LEGALLY BINDING
> operating limitations that apply to the use of the autopilot.

Yes, but they aren't in the FARs. In general, as long as you do not rely on
the autopilot to do something you cannot do by hand, you're fine.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Ron Natalie writes:
>
>
>>Untrue. Autopilot installations are one of the more rigorously handled
>>aircraft modifications. There will certainly be LEGALLY BINDING
>>operating limitations that apply to the use of the autopilot.
>
>
> Yes, but they aren't in the FARs. In general, as long as you do not rely on
> the autopilot to do something you cannot do by hand, you're fine.
>

WRONG!

If your POH supplement for the autopilot has operating limitations, it
isn't legal to use contrary to those limitations. Mine doesn't allow
use of the autopilot with the landing lights on, for example. You won't
find these anywhere in the AIM or FARs, but they are just as binding as
one of the regulations. You also potentially have more at stake by
ignoring an operation limitation than you do by breaking a FAR.

Then again, if you are only flying a simulator then I suppose the
operating limitations don't apply. After all, the worst thing that
could happen is you'd have to push the reset button.

Ray Andraka wrote:

>
> If your POH supplement for the autopilot has operating limitations, it
> isn't legal to use contrary to those limitations. Mine doesn't allow
> use of the autopilot with the landing lights on, for example. You won't
> find these anywhere in the AIM or FARs, but they are just as binding as
> one of the regulations.

But it is one of the regulations...91.9 causes anything that's in
the flight manual limitations to have the force of regulation.

I've pointed this out to McMuffin before but he refuses to learn.

Ron,

> I've pointed this out to McMuffin before but he refuses to learn.
>

That's not what he intends to do here, so why are you surprised?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Ray Andraka writes:

> If your POH supplement for the autopilot has operating limitations, it
> isn't legal to use contrary to those limitations.

This does not conflict with "in general," and "they aren't in the FARs.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Ron Natalie writes:

> But it is one of the regulations...91.9 causes anything that's in
> the flight manual limitations to have the force of regulation.

And if there's no limitation in the flight manual, that doesn't matter.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

kevmor writes:

> I'm curious, why don't they let you use it with the landing lights?

Maybe it's just a way of avoiding liability.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:13:38 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Ron,
>
>> But
>> it's not unusual for it to get 1/2 to 3/4 scale off course.
>>
>
>I know. A friend of mine has similar issues in a BN-2.

And here I thought all those big planes had decent autopilots!

Years ago, a few years after installation, I called STEC and they thought
that increasing the sensitivity of the autopilot might help. They gave
instructions on changing a resistor, and that helped a bit, but I still
wouldn't trust it in other than smooth weather.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Ray Andraka writes:
>
>> If your POH supplement for the autopilot has operating limitations, it
>> isn't legal to use contrary to those limitations.
>
> This does not conflict with "in general," and "they aren't in the FARs.
>
91.9 is in the FARs.

"In general" doesn't mean "in the average case" or even "in most cases."
It means for all cases.

In addition to not knowing squat about the regulations, you don't know
English.

Ron Natalie writes:

> 91.9 is in the FARs.

FAR 91.9 doesn't apply unless there is a limitation in the manual.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 07:13:58 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:


>
>FAR 91.9 doesn't apply unless there is a limitation in the manual.

I can't remember ever seeing a modern manual without a limitation of
some sort. Rather than the FAA having to write rules for everything
they don't want you to do they tell the manufacturer to put the
limitation in the manual if they want to be certified. Then the
lawyers put in their own to protect the manufacturer from uninformed
users. Usually one of the first limitations is a prohibition against
using the product until you have read the manual.

I have an STEC 30, which is electronically the same as the 50, I
think. I've found it to be extremely accurate, keeping the localizer
centered all the way down. You do have to intercept the localizer
within 10 degrees of the localizer heading before activating the
autopilot. I use it occasionally, on the theory of keeping all skills
current.

ArtP writes:

> I can't remember ever seeing a modern manual without a limitation of
> some sort.

Yes, but I don't know that limitations on autopilot use are universal.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Paul,

> I use it occasionally, on the theory of keeping all skills
> current.
>

My theory is also to be able to use all the help I can get.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:10:39 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>ArtP writes:
>
>> I can't remember ever seeing a modern manual without a limitation of
>> some sort.
>
>Yes, but I don't know that limitations on autopilot use are universal.

Universal is not relevant. You read the manual for the autopilot you
are using. It will tell you what your limitations with that autopilot.
If you don't have the manual in the plane then plane is probably not
airworthy. You won't know that for sure unless you read the POM (Pilot
Operation Manual) which is required to be in the plane for it to be
airworthy.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> ArtP writes:
>
>> I can't remember ever seeing a modern manual without a limitation of
>> some sort.
>
> Yes, but I don't know that limitations on autopilot use are universal.
>
But you said that there were none and that was wrong.

However, as I stated before, autopilots are one of the aircraft
installations that gets a LOT of scrutiny from the FAA. For sure
any remotely modern autopilot has an entire BOOK that is a required
flight manual supplement (even to planes like mine that don't have
a flight manual) that is chock FULL of limitations and requirements
for use.

Again, you're making incorrect and dangerous wild-assed guesses
based on your playtime escapades.

I bet you base all your understanding on women from your experience
with the blowup doll in your bedroom.

Ron Gordon wrote:
> I've moved up to a new plane that includes an S-Tec 50 autopilot. It has
> several very capable modes ranging from Wings Leveler, Track a Heading bug,
> Follow NAV input, Hold a set Altitude, and approach mode which tracks NAV
> input more closely.
>
> What do the regs say about the permissible use of an autopilot after the
> enroute portion of a flight that is being conducted under instrument flight
> rules? To what extent is it permissible to use the autopilot during an
> approach? For example, after the controller says "radar vectors for..."
> through DH?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
Not only can you use it, the PTS says an applicant for IFR rating must
demonstrate one approach using autopilot, if equipped. Same with GPS, if
equipped.

Wow. I never would have guessed that. What is the rationale re: the
landing lights, current draw?

> If your POH supplement for the autopilot has operating limitations, it
> isn't legal to use contrary to those limitations. Mine doesn't allow use
> of the autopilot with the landing lights on, for example.

> >Anything you can legally fly by hand can also be flown by the autopilot,
> >since
> >you remain in command and can take over at any time; using autopilot is like
> >using trim in that case. However, you can't use the autopilot to fly
> >something you could not legally fly by hand unless both you and the aircraft
> >are certificated to do so. As long as you are flying an approach that you
> >can
> >legally fly by hand, whether or not you actually use the autopilot to fly it
> >is purely your choice.

> In the Cirrus the autopilot manual (STEC 55X) did not permit operation
> below 200 feet or when full flaps were deployed. Clearly a case where
> you could legally fly by hand but not with the autopilot.

The STEC 55X in the Cirrus SR-22 also had a prohibition against using it
with indicated airspeeds above 180kts, as I recall (I sold my Cirrus a
while ago but I recall that being the number). The same limitation was
not present for hand flying.
---
Ken Reed
M20M, N9124X

--
Ken Reed
M20M, N9124X

Not just the autopilot manual, but the STC manual for that
autopilot in that particular airplane...



"ArtP" > wrote in message
...
| On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 18:10:39 +0200, Mxsmanic
>
| wrote:
|
| >ArtP writes:
| >
| >> I can't remember ever seeing a modern manual without a
limitation of
| >> some sort.
| >
| >Yes, but I don't know that limitations on autopilot use
are universal.
|
| Universal is not relevant. You read the manual for the
autopilot you
| are using. It will tell you what your limitations with
that autopilot.
| If you don't have the manual in the plane then plane is
probably not
| airworthy. You won't know that for sure unless you read
the POM (Pilot
| Operation Manual) which is required to be in the plane for
it to be
| airworthy.
|

It could be magnetic interference with a sensor or a voltage
or current draw problem in that installation.



"LWG" > wrote in message
. ..
| Wow. I never would have guessed that. What is the
rationale re: the
| landing lights, current draw?
|
| > If your POH supplement for the autopilot has operating
limitations, it
| > isn't legal to use contrary to those limitations. Mine
doesn't allow use
| > of the autopilot with the landing lights on, for
example.
|
|

Ron Natalie writes:

> But you said that there were none and that was wrong.

No, it was not. The FARs say nothing about it. So you _can_ use the
autopilot according to the FARs. Limitations in the manual are irrelevant
because they are specific to each aircraft. If there is a limitation in the
manual for your aircraft, you must respect it, but if there isn't, there is no
restriction.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> It could be magnetic interference with a sensor or a voltage
> or current draw problem in that installation.

Or it may be simply a legal restriction.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Ron Natalie writes:
>
>> But you said that there were none and that was wrong.
>
> No, it was not. The FARs say nothing about it. So you _can_ use the
> autopilot according to the FARs. Limitations in the manual are irrelevant
> because they are specific to each aircraft. If there is a limitation in the
> manual for your aircraft, you must respect it, but if there isn't, there is no
> restriction.
>
You said "You can use the autopilot anywhere you can hand fly."

That's an incorrect statement. It's not true in general, and
it's not true in practice.

You then backpeddled rather than admitting you were wrong and
said there is no FAR against it.

The FAR that applies that you refuse to let penetrate your leaden
head is 91.9. Limitations in the manual are quite relevent. You
won't find things like "THALL SHALT NOT OPERATE OVER GROSS" or
"THALL SHALT NOT PERFORM ACROBATICS IN YOUR BARON" in the FARs
either. That is because 91.9 says you MUST operate in accordance
to the limitations as expressed in the flight manuals, placards,
etc..

Autopilots are one of those things that are highly customized
to each installation and as I said, highly scrutinized by the FAA
when they issue the STC to allow it. There is not an autopilot
out there since 1969 that doesn't come with an bunch of additional
and legally binding material attached to it.

Ron Natalie writes:

> You said "You can use the autopilot anywhere you can hand fly."

According to the FARs, yes.

> The FAR that applies that you refuse to let penetrate your leaden
> head is 91.9. Limitations in the manual are quite relevent.

I don't know why it is so difficult to distinguish between Federal Air
Regulations and manual limitations. Clearly, most pilots are not lawyers.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Ron Natalie writes:
>
>> You said "You can use the autopilot anywhere you can hand fly."
>
> According to the FARs, yes.
>
>> The FAR that applies that you refuse to let penetrate your leaden
>> head is 91.9. Limitations in the manual are quite relevent.
>
> I don't know why it is so difficult to distinguish between Federal Air
> Regulations and manual limitations. Clearly, most pilots are not lawyers.
>
I don't know why it is so hard for you to understasnd that the 91.9 says
you must follow the operating limitations, which makes it specifically
illegal to do otherwise.

Ron Natalie writes:

> I don't know why it is so hard for you to understasnd that the 91.9 says
> you must follow the operating limitations ...

If any.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Ron,

> I don't know why it is so hard for you to understasnd
>

Yes, you DO know. He is a troll at best, an idiot at worst. Why do you
bother?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Ron has been trying for the last two weeks to answer his questions like
the moron is a person who actually cares about the answer.



Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Ron,
>
>
>>I don't know why it is so hard for you to understasnd
>>
>
>
> Yes, you DO know. He is a troll at best, an idiot at worst. Why do you
> bother?
>

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Ray Andraka writes:
>
>> If your POH supplement for the autopilot has operating limitations, it
>> isn't legal to use contrary to those limitations.
>
> This does not conflict with "in general," and "they aren't in the FARs.
>

But it does conflict with your statement:
> Anything you can legally fly by hand can also be flown by the autopilot,
> since you remain in command and can take over at any time;

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> I don't know why it is so difficult to distinguish between Federal Air
> Regulations and manual limitations. Clearly, most pilots are not lawyers.

So you're a lawyer now too?

What program do you use to simulate that?

Judah writes:

> So you're a lawyer now too?

No, but I've studied it more than some people have, apparently.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Judah writes:

> But it does conflict with your statement:
>
> > Anything you can legally fly by hand can also be flown by the autopilot,
> > since you remain in command and can take over at any time;

How?

Spins cannot be flown by the autopilot, but that still doesn't invalidate the
statement above.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Judah writes:
>
>
>>But it does conflict with your statement:
>>
>>
>>>Anything you can legally fly by hand can also be flown by the autopilot,
>>>since you remain in command and can take over at any time;
>
>
> How?
>
> Spins cannot be flown by the autopilot, but that still doesn't invalidate the
> statement above.
>
The statement is false and invalidated by the fact that there are some
segments of flight, with some autopilots, that cannot legally be flown
by the autopilot. This has been pointed out to you repetitively, but you
have your head so far up your rectum you can neither see nor hear. How
you manage to type in that position is one of the wonders of the world.

Rip

Rip writes:

> The statement is false and invalidated by the fact that there are some
> segments of flight, with some autopilots, that cannot legally be flown
> by the autopilot.

Only if there are documented restrictions in the manual.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 22:50:26 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Rip writes:
>
>> The statement is false and invalidated by the fact that there are some
>> segments of flight, with some autopilots, that cannot legally be flown
>> by the autopilot.
>
>Only if there are documented restrictions in the manual.

Why don't you give us an example of TSOd autopilot manual without
restrictions?

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Rip writes:
>
>
>>The statement is false and invalidated by the fact that there are some
>>segments of flight, with some autopilots, that cannot legally be flown
>>by the autopilot.
>
>
> Only if there are documented restrictions in the manual.
>
Glory Be! You've actually managed to learn something! It took you
several days, but now you are parroting what was orignally told to you!
Good work, Anthony! Now all you need to do is put that new knowledge
together with your original ludicrously stupid statememnt, and realise
that you did indeed make a ludicrously stupid statement. That would be
REAL learning!

Rip

Judah wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> I don't know why it is so difficult to distinguish between Federal Air
>> Regulations and manual limitations. Clearly, most pilots are not lawyers.
>
> So you're a lawyer now too?
>
> What program do you use to simulate that?

http://www.ubi.com/US/Games/Info.aspx?pId=5199


-m
--
## Mark T. Dame >
## CP-ASEL, AGI
## <insert tail number here>
## KHAO, KISZ
"Certain taboos, if broken, will result in the culprit being flamed."
-- Unix System Administration, Fiedler and Hunter

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Ray Andraka wrote:
>
>>
>> If your POH supplement for the autopilot has operating limitations, it
>> isn't legal to use contrary to those limitations. Mine doesn't allow
>> use of the autopilot with the landing lights on, for example. You
>> won't find these anywhere in the AIM or FARs, but they are just as
>> binding as one of the regulations.
>
>
> But it is one of the regulations...91.9 causes anything that's in
> the flight manual limitations to have the force of regulation.
>
> I've pointed this out to McMuffin before but he refuses to learn.
>

Right, I meant that he wouldn't find the specific restriction for his
airplane in the FARs. All that is there is 91.9 that, as you point out
basically says that you cant operate contrary to your POH.

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:05:49 -0400, Ron Natalie >
wrote:

>Ray Andraka wrote:
>
>>
>> If your POH supplement for the autopilot has operating limitations, it

My POH for the Deb and an auxiliary section for the SP. It doesn't
state any limitation for the S-Tec 50. Howeve the 50 is only capalble
of flying either a heading (DG coupled) or the localizer. It can only
hold altitude so any profile use is out. So it amounts to the thing
only being able to hold a course and/or alitude and those are its
built in limitations. It does work very well on step down approaches
as long as the pilot remembes the proper power settings.

BTW it really it's more than a wing leveler as can do standard rate
turns as well. At last I'd call it more than a wing leveler.

>> isn't legal to use contrary to those limitations. Mine doesn't allow
>> use of the autopilot with the landing lights on, for example. You won't
>> find these anywhere in the AIM or FARs, but they are just as binding as
>> one of the regulations.
>
>But it is one of the regulations...91.9 causes anything that's in
>the flight manual limitations to have the force of regulation.
>
>I've pointed this out to McMuffin before but he refuses to learn.