IMC without an autopilot

[Jon Kraus]

Just curious as to opinions about flying in IMC without an autopilot?
Does an autopilot make flying in the clouds safer or is it just a crutch
for the lazy?
For myself being new to IFR flying I feel safer knowing that if needed I
could turn the autopilot on. Maybe it is a false sense of security...

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL
Student-IA

[Bob Gardner]

The autopilot can fly the airplane more smoothly than I can, so if I have
one, I use it. Hand-flying in the clouds for more than 30 minutes or so
takes a lot out of me, so if I am going to be solid for any length of time I
want an autopilot.

Bob Gardner

"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
...
> Just curious as to opinions about flying in IMC without an autopilot?
> Does an autopilot make flying in the clouds safer or is it just a crutch
> for the lazy?
> For myself being new to IFR flying I feel safer knowing that if needed I
> could turn the autopilot on. Maybe it is a false sense of security...
>
> Jon Kraus
> PP-ASEL
> Student-IA
>

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Jon Kraus > wrote:

> Just curious as to opinions about flying in IMC without an autopilot?
> Does an autopilot make flying in the clouds safer or is it just a crutch
> for the lazy?
> For myself being new to IFR flying I feel safer knowing that if needed I
> could turn the autopilot on. Maybe it is a false sense of security...
>
> Jon Kraus
> PP-ASEL
> Student-IA

It's a useful tool if you use it wisely. It's a crutch if you let it be.

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Jon Kraus > wrote:
>For myself being new to IFR flying I feel safer knowing that if needed I
>could turn the autopilot on. Maybe it is a false sense of security...

It's easier, but it's worth practicing with one. If you've never used
a wing leveller and tried to control pitch yourself it's a very odd
feeling.

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

[vincent p. norris]

>Just curious as to opinions about flying in IMC without an autopilot?

An autopilot is nice; but for years, in military and private a/c, we
didnt have them, and we got along just fine.

vince norris

[Tom Sixkiller]

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...
> >Just curious as to opinions about flying in IMC without an autopilot?
>
> An autopilot is nice; but for years, in military and private a/c, we
> didnt have them, and we got along just fine.

And disorientation in IMC lead to a lot of people not "getting along fine",
but rather splattering themselves over the landscape.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
...
> Just curious as to opinions about flying in IMC without an autopilot?
> Does an autopilot make flying in the clouds safer or is it just a crutch
> for the lazy?

It can be a crutch...but most likely it can save your life. It can also
allow a pilot to keep their eyes outside the cockpit a lot more.

OTOH, don't the airlines fly something like 98% of a flight on autpilot?
From rotation to final?

> For myself being new to IFR flying I feel safer knowing that if needed I
> could turn the autopilot on. Maybe it is a false sense of security...

I always through an automatic transmission was a crutch (or should I say
"clutch) for those too lazy to drive stickshift.

[O. Sami Saydjari]

Well, it would seem an interesting scientific question as to whether the
introduction of autopilot indeed led to fewer IMC accidents. It seems
that one could appeal to the accident data history and find out.

I feel safer knowing that I have an autopilot, but that does not mean
that I am. For example, I doubt that if I got the plane into a really
unusual attitude (flying manually), that I could just flip my autopilot
on and everything would be OK. On the other hand, one might
successfully argue that if I habitually use my autopilot, the chances of
getting into an unusal attitude are lower.

In short, I do not think that this question can be answered by appeal to
intuition; facts based on data would be good here.

-Sami

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> "vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>Just curious as to opinions about flying in IMC without an autopilot?
>>
>>An autopilot is nice; but for years, in military and private a/c, we
>>didnt have them, and we got along just fine.
>
>
> And disorientation in IMC lead to a lot of people not "getting along fine",
> but rather splattering themselves over the landscape.
>
>
>

[Jeff]

Depends on the type of IMC your in.
if your in really turbulent air then it may better to hand fly the plane, if
its basically smooth then use the autopilot if you have one.
Using the auto pilot frees you up to do other things like checking your
arrival/approach plates, writing down clearances and so on. Plus on long
XC's your not wore out from hand flying the plane.
Auto pilots are not for the lazy, they are for people wanting to be safer,
single pilot IFR you want all the help you can get.

Jon Kraus wrote:

> Just curious as to opinions about flying in IMC without an autopilot?
> Does an autopilot make flying in the clouds safer or is it just a crutch
> for the lazy?
> For myself being new to IFR flying I feel safer knowing that if needed I
> could turn the autopilot on. Maybe it is a false sense of security...
>
> Jon Kraus
> PP-ASEL
> Student-IA

[John R Weiss]

"Jon Kraus" > wrote...
> Just curious as to opinions about flying in IMC without an autopilot?
> Does an autopilot make flying in the clouds safer or is it just a crutch
> for the lazy?

Once you know how to fly IFR, the autopilot is a good tool. However, you have
to know how to fly IFR first, and then how to effectively use the tool...

[C J Campbell]

The autopilot can be an important safety tool, but pilots should have a
thorough knowledge of how the autopilot works and what its limitations are.
'George' does a good job of flying the airplane in smooth air and frees you
up for other tasks, such as monitoring your route, talking on the radios,
eating a sandwich, etc. The flip side is that it is easy to relax a little
too much and stop paying attention to what is going on.

[Nathan Young]

On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 00:36:01 GMT, Jon Kraus >
wrote:

>Just curious as to opinions about flying in IMC without an autopilot?
>Does an autopilot make flying in the clouds safer or is it just a crutch
>for the lazy?
>For myself being new to IFR flying I feel safer knowing that if needed I
>could turn the autopilot on. Maybe it is a false sense of security...

I fly instruments frequently in a PA28-180 equipped with a
wing-leveler. I hand-fly 90% of the time, but will use the
wing-leveler if I want to grab a chart or brief an approach, copy a
re-routing, etc.

If I had a more capable autopilot (especially altitude hold), I would
probably use it more often.

Single pilot IFR is serious stuff, and can be very demanding at times.
Knowing when and how to use an autopilot can reduce workload, which if
nothing else - makes for a more alert pilot when reaching the
destination.

-Nathan

[Ray Andraka]

Until the autopilot goes TU on you... If it is a conventional A/P, it may not
work if you lose instrument vacuum or your AI, for example. Real bad time to be
out of practice hand-flying without and autopilot to back you up.

IMHO, it is very very easy to become complacent with George to do your flying
when the chips are down. I think your chances of getting into an unusual
attitude are much higher with a system failure if you habitually use your
autopilot.

"O. Sami Saydjari" wrote:

> Well, it would seem an interesting scientific question as to whether the
> introduction of autopilot indeed led to fewer IMC accidents. It seems
> that one could appeal to the accident data history and find out.
>
> I feel safer knowing that I have an autopilot, but that does not mean
> that I am. For example, I doubt that if I got the plane into a really
> unusual attitude (flying manually), that I could just flip my autopilot
> on and everything would be OK. On the other hand, one might
> successfully argue that if I habitually use my autopilot, the chances of
> getting into an unusal attitude are lower.

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Tom Sixkiller]

"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
...
> Well, it would seem an interesting scientific question as to whether the
> introduction of autopilot indeed led to fewer IMC accidents. It seems
> that one could appeal to the accident data history and find out.
>
> I feel safer knowing that I have an autopilot, but that does not mean
> that I am. For example, I doubt that if I got the plane into a really
> unusual attitude (flying manually), that I could just flip my autopilot
> on and everything would be OK. On the other hand, one might
> successfully argue that if I habitually use my autopilot, the chances of
> getting into an unusal attitude are lower.
>
> In short, I do not think that this question can be answered by appeal to
> intuition; facts based on data would be good here.


How could one tell if a pilot was able to maintain control in IMC if he was
on autpilot and DIDN'T lose control.

Lose of control in IMC is still one of the biggest factors in crashes, but
I've never heard of it happening while the pilot was on the AP.


>
> -Sami
>
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> > "vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>>Just curious as to opinions about flying in IMC without an autopilot?
> >>
> >>An autopilot is nice; but for years, in military and private a/c, we
> >>didnt have them, and we got along just fine.
> >

I daresay it's often that cavilier (macho) attitude that kills people. As
Sami suggests above, I'd do a bit of research on the historical accident
numbers.

> >
> > And disorientation in IMC lead to a lot of people not "getting along
fine",
> > but rather splattering themselves over the landscape.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
...
> Until the autopilot goes TU on you... If it is a conventional A/P, it may
not
> work if you lose instrument vacuum or your AI, for example. Real bad time
to be
> out of practice hand-flying without and autopilot to back you up.

And hand flying doesn;t help if a the wing falls off. I didn't see that
anyone was putting "100% of the time" reliaance on an AP.

>
> IMHO, it is very very easy to become complacent with George to do your
flying
> when the chips are down. I think your chances of getting into an unusual
> attitude are much higher with a system failure if you habitually use your
> autopilot.

And how about those who hand fly ALL THE TIME and still lose it in IMC?

I'd like to see a historical analysis. Even the Operating Handbooks from the
AP manufacturers recommed against using the AP as a crutch.

[[email protected]]

"vincent p. norris" wrote:

> >Just curious as to opinions about flying in IMC without an autopilot?
>
> An autopilot is nice; but for years, in military and private a/c, we
> didnt have them, and we got along just fine.

We didn't have single-pilot IFR trying to program and re-program a GPS box
during those years, either.

[Thomas Borchert]

Jon,

> Just curious as to opinions about flying in IMC without an autopilot?
>

One datapoint: In Germany, a two-axis autopilot is required by law for
single-pilot IFR.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Vincent,

> An autopilot is nice; but for years, in military and private a/c, we
> didnt have them, and we got along just fine.
>

There are reasons the accident rates have been on the decline for
decades. Autopilots might be one.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[SFM]

Last trip through the clouds was like being in a ping pong ball, I was going
through ORD airspace and spent a little under an hour flying by hand even
though I had the autopilot. I just wanted to get some good practice in with
no vis. I shot a VOR A approach into my home airfield and broke out about
1400 AGL landed fine put the airplane away and then was so tired I had my
spouse drive home where I then took a 2 hour nap. It was real work, next
time autopilot!

Scott

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott F. Migaldi, K9PO
MI-150972
PP-ASEL-IA

Are you a PADI Instructor or DM? Then join the PADI
Instructor Yahoo Group at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PADI-Instructors/join
-----------------------------------
Catch the wave!
www.hamwave.com


**"A long time ago being crazy meant something, nowadays everyone is
crazy" -- Charles Manson**
-------------------------------------
"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
news:A02cc.183588$_w.1847277@attbi_s53...
> The autopilot can fly the airplane more smoothly than I can, so if I have
> one, I use it. Hand-flying in the clouds for more than 30 minutes or so
> takes a lot out of me, so if I am going to be solid for any length of time
I
> want an autopilot.
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Just curious as to opinions about flying in IMC without an autopilot?
> > Does an autopilot make flying in the clouds safer or is it just a crutch
> > for the lazy?
> > For myself being new to IFR flying I feel safer knowing that if needed I
> > could turn the autopilot on. Maybe it is a false sense of security...
> >
> > Jon Kraus
> > PP-ASEL
> > Student-IA
> >
>
>

[Peter R.]

[repost as my original post never appeared - apologies if it does]

Jon Kraus ) wrote:

> Just curious as to opinions about flying in IMC without an autopilot?

Richard Collins, a very experienced pilot, columnist for Flying Magazine,
and star of the Sporty's "Air Facts" video series, is a big advocate of
flying single-pilot IFR with a dual-axis AP.

His argument is that a pilot who turns over IMC flying to the AP will be
able to better understand the developing "big picture" (current location,
nearest airport, weather, approach needed, aircraft's health, etc.).
Doing so will make the flight inherently safer than a flight where a pilot
must hand-fly and juggle all of the extra tasks.

Having logged a bit of actual time, I subscribe to his viewpoint. However,
after experiencing an AP failure in IMC while flying to Boston last year, I
certainly see the need to remain proficient at hand-flying. Balancing
these competing goals (hand flying versus the safety of AP flying) is a
challenge.

--
Peter R.















----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Peter R.]

[repost as my original never appeared - apologies if it does]

Ray Andraka ) wrote:

> Until the autopilot goes TU on you... If it is a conventional A/P, it may not
> work if you lose instrument vacuum or your AI, for example. Real bad time to
> be out of practice hand-flying without and autopilot to back you up.

What general aviation AP uses the AI (attitude indicator)? I have
experience with the Bendix/King KAP-140 and the S-TEC 60-2 and neither rely
on the AI for input. Are there some that do?

If the aircraft loses suction, the wing leveler feature of the above APs,
which use the electric turn coordinator, would probably make partial panel
flying safer.


--
Peter R.















----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Ray Andraka]

I believe the Piper and century autopilots use the AI. The fact that the STEC uses
the turn coordinator was a large factor in selecting that A/P (Stec-20) for my
airplane. One of the major motivations for adding the AP was the ability to boost my
safety in a partial panel situation, and yes, I do find it very nice for those map
juggling episodes. I don't have a panel mount GPS, only a handheld Pilot-III.
Without the A/P setting that GPS is set what you need to now, go back and add the rest
in little steps later. With the autopilot, resetting the GPS is made a lot easier.
Still, I hand fly much more than most pilots I know who have autopilots. I want to
make sure that I am proficient with handflying when I need it. The big thing the auto
pilot gives me is a back-up to let me turn the flying over to someone (thing) else
while I take care of other things when needed.

Regarding 2 axis, my aircraft is very stable in the pitch axis. Setting the trim
properly holds my altitude very well. Similarly, I can get a constant rate descent by
simply reducing power (4 inches gets me a 500 FPM descent). Sure, I'd like to have
a 2 axis AP, but there are other things competing for my cash that are a higher
priority.

"Peter R." wrote:

> [
> What general aviation AP uses the AI (attitude indicator)? I have
> experience with the Bendix/King KAP-140 and the S-TEC 60-2 and neither rely
> on the AI for input. Are there some that do?
>
> If the aircraft loses suction, the wing leveler feature of the above APs,
> which use the electric turn coordinator, would probably make partial panel
> flying safer.
>
>
> --
> Peter R.
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[John Harper]

My Century 31 uses the AI. It's not very common though.

On the general topic... an AP is jolly handy when flying ANY
cross country. It's kind of hard work to fly a long xc without
one. However autopilots are so fickle that you'd better be
able to hand fly without worrying about it! My experience
(in several aircraft) is that they are down as much as not.
Also when the going gets really tough you want to hand fly.
If you're not comfortable hand flying on top or in smooth
cloud, you're really going to be in trouble when you hit
mod-to-sev turbulence in a front and the ap can't handle it.

My policy is to use the ap in good conditions on long flights,
and to hand fly on training flights.

John

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> [repost as my original never appeared - apologies if it does]
>
> Ray Andraka ) wrote:
>
> > Until the autopilot goes TU on you... If it is a conventional A/P, it
may not
> > work if you lose instrument vacuum or your AI, for example. Real bad
time to
> > be out of practice hand-flying without and autopilot to back you up.
>
> What general aviation AP uses the AI (attitude indicator)? I have
> experience with the Bendix/King KAP-140 and the S-TEC 60-2 and neither
rely
> on the AI for input. Are there some that do?
>
> If the aircraft loses suction, the wing leveler feature of the above APs,
> which use the electric turn coordinator, would probably make partial panel
> flying safer.
>
>
> --
> Peter R.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

[Dave Butler]

Peter R. wrote:
> [repost as my original never appeared - apologies if it does]
>
> Ray Andraka ) wrote:
>
>
>>Until the autopilot goes TU on you... If it is a conventional A/P, it may not
>>work if you lose instrument vacuum or your AI, for example. Real bad time to
>> be out of practice hand-flying without and autopilot to back you up.
>
>
> What general aviation AP uses the AI (attitude indicator)? I have
> experience with the Bendix/King KAP-140 and the S-TEC 60-2 and neither rely
> on the AI for input. Are there some that do?

Two examples that I am familiar with are Piper Autocontrol III-B (had one in my
previous airplane) and Century 21 (have one in my current airplane). There's a
"pickoff" on the AI. If either the AI or the suction go south, the autopilot
will attempt to follow the dying AI.

>
> If the aircraft loses suction, the wing leveler feature of the above APs,
> which use the electric turn coordinator, would probably make partial panel
> flying safer.

I agree. All-electric is better than having an autopilot that relies on the
vacuum instruments. In my airplane, I've added the AeroAdvantage dual-rotor
vacuum pump to give myself a little bit of redundancy in the vacuum supply.
Doesn't help if the instrument fails, though.

Dave
Remove SHIRT to reply.

[Michael]

Jon Kraus > wrote
> Just curious as to opinions about flying in IMC without an autopilot?
> Does an autopilot make flying in the clouds safer or is it just a crutch
> for the lazy?
> For myself being new to IFR flying I feel safer knowing that if needed I
> could turn the autopilot on. Maybe it is a false sense of security...

For the first two years I owned my twin, I had no autopilot. I would
routinely launch into low IMC, single pilot, fly for hours in IMC, and
shoot an approach. It was really not a big deal.

Eventually I put the autopilot in. I find that on short trips, I
rarely use it. However, on very long trips where I might spend 5-10
hours in the plane, it's great to be able to turn it on and relax,
listen to the CD player, and rest for a couple of hours. It's not
really a safety item - it's a range extender.

I do not use the autopilot in IMC. I get so little of it (only about
15-20 hours a year) that I'm not giving any of it away to the
autopilot. I think I've turned the autopilot on in IMC twice in the
two years I've had it, for a combined total of maybe 5 minutes.

If you get into an unusual attitude, turning the autopilot on may not
help much. In my case, it caused a divergent oscillation in pitch
that had to be damped out by hand (I do not have altitude hold). In
turbulent IMC (which is most IMC on the Gulf Coast) the autopilot
provides a rough ride - I prefer to fly myself. I'll be honest - I
probably underuse the autopilot. I don't trust it any more than I
would trust an instrument pilot who flew fixated on the attitude gyro
without ever crosschecking - which is exactly how the autopilot flies.

I have seen pilots become autopilot-dependent, and unable to handle
the workload of a normal IFR flight without it. That scares me, and I
guess that's the reason I don't normally turn the A/P on in IMC. I've
developed my skills to a fine edge; I don't want to dull it.

Michael

[Bob Gardner]

Fatigue is a sneaky killer, because you do not realize how severely your
mental processes and physical reactions have been affected. I'll take safety
over macho any day in the week.

Bob

"SFM" > wrote in message
...
> Last trip through the clouds was like being in a ping pong ball, I was
going
> through ORD airspace and spent a little under an hour flying by hand even
> though I had the autopilot. I just wanted to get some good practice in
with
> no vis. I shot a VOR A approach into my home airfield and broke out about
> 1400 AGL landed fine put the airplane away and then was so tired I had my
> spouse drive home where I then took a 2 hour nap. It was real work, next
> time autopilot!
>
> Scott
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Scott F. Migaldi, K9PO
> MI-150972
> PP-ASEL-IA
>
> Are you a PADI Instructor or DM? Then join the PADI
> Instructor Yahoo Group at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PADI-Instructors/join
> -----------------------------------
> Catch the wave!
> www.hamwave.com
>
>
> **"A long time ago being crazy meant something, nowadays everyone is
> crazy" -- Charles Manson**
> -------------------------------------
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> news:A02cc.183588$_w.1847277@attbi_s53...
> > The autopilot can fly the airplane more smoothly than I can, so if I
have
> > one, I use it. Hand-flying in the clouds for more than 30 minutes or so
> > takes a lot out of me, so if I am going to be solid for any length of
time
> I
> > want an autopilot.
> >
> > Bob Gardner
> >
> > "Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Just curious as to opinions about flying in IMC without an autopilot?
> > > Does an autopilot make flying in the clouds safer or is it just a
crutch
> > > for the lazy?
> > > For myself being new to IFR flying I feel safer knowing that if needed
I
> > > could turn the autopilot on. Maybe it is a false sense of security...
> > >
> > > Jon Kraus
> > > PP-ASEL
> > > Student-IA
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Bob Gardner]

If you turn the autopilot on while in an unusual attitude, it will not
return you to upright flight. All autopilots know is what you tell them, so
you do not turn one on until the airplane is trimmed to hold altitude in
level flight.

Bob Gardner

"O. Sami Saydjari" > wrote in message
...
> Well, it would seem an interesting scientific question as to whether the
> introduction of autopilot indeed led to fewer IMC accidents. It seems
> that one could appeal to the accident data history and find out.
>
> I feel safer knowing that I have an autopilot, but that does not mean
> that I am. For example, I doubt that if I got the plane into a really
> unusual attitude (flying manually), that I could just flip my autopilot
> on and everything would be OK. On the other hand, one might
> successfully argue that if I habitually use my autopilot, the chances of
> getting into an unusal attitude are lower.
>
> In short, I do not think that this question can be answered by appeal to
> intuition; facts based on data would be good here.
>
> -Sami
>
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> > "vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>>Just curious as to opinions about flying in IMC without an autopilot?
> >>
> >>An autopilot is nice; but for years, in military and private a/c, we
> >>didnt have them, and we got along just fine.
> >
> >
> > And disorientation in IMC lead to a lot of people not "getting along
fine",
> > but rather splattering themselves over the landscape.
> >
> >
> >
>

[Bob Gardner]

It is surprising/frightening how many pilots do not know where their
autopilot gets its roll input. I have read of cases where a pilot went to
partial-panel because the vacuum pump failed, while their electric turn
coordinator and HSI continued to work just fine.

Bob Gardner

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> [repost as my original never appeared - apologies if it does]
>
> Ray Andraka ) wrote:
>
> > Until the autopilot goes TU on you... If it is a conventional A/P, it
may not
> > work if you lose instrument vacuum or your AI, for example. Real bad
time to
> > be out of practice hand-flying without and autopilot to back you up.
>
> What general aviation AP uses the AI (attitude indicator)? I have
> experience with the Bendix/King KAP-140 and the S-TEC 60-2 and neither
rely
> on the AI for input. Are there some that do?
>
> If the aircraft loses suction, the wing leveler feature of the above APs,
> which use the electric turn coordinator, would probably make partial panel
> flying safer.
>
>
> --
> Peter R.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

[PaulaJay1]

In following this thread, I can't agree with the idea that prudent use of an
Autopilot can contribute to loss of proficency. I use the AP purhaps 80% of
the time - flying level on a heading. There's not much proficency to gain or
lose during this time.
I would think that we all hand fly the takeoff and landing. Here's where the
practice is useful and needed.

Chuck

[Tarver Engineering]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Vincent,
>
> > An autopilot is nice; but for years, in military and private a/c, we
> > didnt have them, and we got along just fine.
> >
>
> There are reasons the accident rates have been on the decline for
> decades. Autopilots might be one.

IMO
In the US there have been three major causes of reduction in deaths as I
would present the statistics:

1) Automation of airliners saves about 5000 lives in US common carriers each
year extrapolating pre-1972 deaths hour traveled to the zeros poping up
today.

2) EAA was alowed to assume some ACO regulatory authority in the
construction of homebuilts, which led to a reduction of about 2000 lives per
year.

3) AOPA has become clear in promoting the concept that small GA is not safer
than driving a car. This notion has led to more automation and awareness in
small GA, through operators seeking safer flight to save about 400 lives a
year.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
...
> I believe the Piper and century autopilots use the AI. The fact that the
STEC uses
> the turn coordinator was a large factor in selecting that A/P (Stec-20)
for my
> airplane.

Does anyone know the ratio of failures of electrically driven instruments
compared to vacuum driven?

I don't know what the STEC-20 has for fault protection, but the 2100 does
have cross-checks to the other instruments and internal checks.

[John T]

"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message

>
> Just curious as to opinions about flying in IMC without an autopilot?

Are you planning to use an autopilot for your checkride? :)

> Does an autopilot make flying in the clouds safer or is it just a
> crutch for the lazy?

IMO, the safety question is really one of proficiency. If a given pilot is
proficient, then an AP will only add a marginal level of safety. However,
the more a pilot's proficiency degenerates, the greater the margin of safety
provided by an AP. Again, just my opinion.

Of course, this assumes no system failures and a pilot who realizes that an
AP does not in any way negate the need for a constant instrument scan.

> For myself being new to IFR flying I feel safer knowing that if
> needed I could turn the autopilot on.

Then there's your answer. Why bother with our opinions? :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
news:FVgcc.78957$K91.172384@attbi_s02...
> If you turn the autopilot on while in an unusual attitude, it will not
> return you to upright flight. All autopilots know is what you tell them,
so
> you do not turn one on until the airplane is trimmed to hold altitude in
> level flight.

All of them? Are you sure? I'll have to dig through some manuals, but IIRC,
some of the higher ticket ones (KFC-200, STEC 2100) will right the aircraft
and auto-trim as well.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
news:FZgcc.78300$w54.443455@attbi_s01...
> It is surprising/frightening how many pilots do not know where their
> autopilot gets its roll input. I have read of cases where a pilot went to
> partial-panel because the vacuum pump failed, while their electric turn
> coordinator and HSI continued to work just fine.

Wouldn't covering the AI (or other vacuum driven instruments) be considered
"partial panel"?

[Bob Gardner]

Well, if you have an electrically driven HSI card and can do a decent job of
maintaining heading by using the rudders, you could and should cover the
A/I to avoid distraction. In the case I mentioned, the pilot lost control
entirely while trying to fly partial-panel, while he had a functioning
heading indicator/bank instrument all the time and didn't realize it. He
just assumed that with the loss of his vacuum instruments he lost both A/I
and heading.

Bob Gardner

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> news:FZgcc.78300$w54.443455@attbi_s01...
> > It is surprising/frightening how many pilots do not know where their
> > autopilot gets its roll input. I have read of cases where a pilot went
to
> > partial-panel because the vacuum pump failed, while their electric turn
> > coordinator and HSI continued to work just fine.
>
> Wouldn't covering the AI (or other vacuum driven instruments) be
considered
> "partial panel"?
>
>
>
>

[Ben Jackson]

In article <N5kcc.79980$K91.171968@attbi_s02>,
Bob Gardner > wrote:
>Well, if you have an electrically driven HSI card and can do a decent job of
>maintaining heading by using the rudders, you could and should cover the
>A/I to avoid distraction.

I carry those multi-suction-cupped soap holder things in my glove
compartment just in case. My instructor used identical ones during
training. My DE had these vinyl discs that he stuck over the
instruments. A bit of the lubber line of the horizon was peeking out
over it, and it was a pretty irresistable distraction. I can't imagine
how disorienting it would be to have an uncovered, tumbling AI in your
scan...

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

[Seagram]

> If you turn the autopilot on while in an unusual attitude, it will not
> return you to upright flight. All autopilots know is what you tell them,
so
> you do not turn one on until the airplane is trimmed to hold altitude in
> level flight.
>

Sure it will act like that if you engage an attitude hold mode. It depends
on the mode you engage and for some autopilots it depends on how unusual the
attitude is. It depends on whether its one or two axis. It can depend on
whether you have autotrim. But there are lots of modes that will get you
back S&L. You should know enough about autopilots with your experience to
not make such stupid blanket statements.

[Ray Andraka]

I carry those rubber suction disks too. Last month my AI went bad during my
IPC. It took a few minutes to figure out what was going on, and my flying
improved immediately on covering up the AI. It wasn't really tumbling, it just
was very sluggish and didn't follow the airplane really well. A while later we
took the cover off, and it was working again...until I banked. I know how
distracting that was just with a hood. I'm sure being in the soup would amplify
the distraction several times over.

Ben Jackson wrote:

> In article <N5kcc.79980$K91.171968@attbi_s02>,
> Bob Gardner > wrote:
> >Well, if you have an electrically driven HSI card and can do a decent job of
> >maintaining heading by using the rudders, you could and should cover the
> >A/I to avoid distraction.
>
> I carry those multi-suction-cupped soap holder things in my glove
> compartment just in case. My instructor used identical ones during
> training. My DE had these vinyl discs that he stuck over the
> instruments. A bit of the lubber line of the horizon was peeking out
> over it, and it was a pretty irresistable distraction. I can't imagine
> how disorienting it would be to have an uncovered, tumbling AI in your
> scan...
>
> --
> Ben Jackson
> >
> http://www.ben.com/

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Bob Gardner]

You're right, it was a stupid blanket statement, based solely on the boxes I
have flown with. No way to know how all of them work, so I should have
either weasel-worded my post or kept quiet.

Bob Gardner

"Seagram" > wrote in message
...
> > If you turn the autopilot on while in an unusual attitude, it will not
> > return you to upright flight. All autopilots know is what you tell them,
> so
> > you do not turn one on until the airplane is trimmed to hold altitude in
> > level flight.
> >
>
> Sure it will act like that if you engage an attitude hold mode. It
depends
> on the mode you engage and for some autopilots it depends on how unusual
the
> attitude is. It depends on whether its one or two axis. It can depend on
> whether you have autotrim. But there are lots of modes that will get you
> back S&L. You should know enough about autopilots with your experience to
> not make such stupid blanket statements.
>
>

[Bob Gardner]

When I was an examiner, if the plane had an autopilot the applicant had to
put it through its paces to convince me that s/he knew how to use it.

Bob Gardner

"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
> "Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
>
> >
> > Just curious as to opinions about flying in IMC without an autopilot?
>
> Are you planning to use an autopilot for your checkride? :)
>
> > Does an autopilot make flying in the clouds safer or is it just a
> > crutch for the lazy?
>
> IMO, the safety question is really one of proficiency. If a given pilot
is
> proficient, then an AP will only add a marginal level of safety. However,
> the more a pilot's proficiency degenerates, the greater the margin of
safety
> provided by an AP. Again, just my opinion.
>
> Of course, this assumes no system failures and a pilot who realizes that
an
> AP does not in any way negate the need for a constant instrument scan.
>
> > For myself being new to IFR flying I feel safer knowing that if
> > needed I could turn the autopilot on.
>
> Then there's your answer. Why bother with our opinions? :)
>
> --
> John T
> http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
> http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
> ____________________
>
>

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Jon Kraus wrote:
> Just curious as to opinions about flying in IMC without an autopilot?
> Does an autopilot make flying in the clouds safer or is it just a crutch
> for the lazy?

I think it would make single pilot IFR easier, but it should only make
it safer if the pilot is not competent to fly IFR.


> For myself being new to IFR flying I feel safer knowing that if needed I
> could turn the autopilot on. Maybe it is a false sense of security...

I think it is. You have to assume that the autopilot will not only fail
at the worst possible instant, you have to assume it will try to put the
plane in an unusual attitude as part of its failure process. If you
can't avoid an unusual attitude while hand flying, how are you possiby
going to recover from one induced by your failing AP?


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

wrote:
>
> "vincent p. norris" wrote:
>
>
>>>Just curious as to opinions about flying in IMC without an autopilot?
>>
>>An autopilot is nice; but for years, in military and private a/c, we
>>didnt have them, and we got along just fine.
>
>
> We didn't have single-pilot IFR trying to program and re-program a GPS box
> during those years, either.
>

Have we forgot aviate then navigate?


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Jon,
>
>
>>Just curious as to opinions about flying in IMC without an autopilot?
>>
>
>
> One datapoint: In Germany, a two-axis autopilot is required by law for
> single-pilot IFR.
>

It is true that Europe is very enlightened when it comes to general
aviation ... not! Most European countries would like to ban light
planes entirely and regulations like this are just another step towards
that end.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

PaulaJay1 wrote:
> In following this thread, I can't agree with the idea that prudent use of an
> Autopilot can contribute to loss of proficency. I use the AP purhaps 80% of
> the time - flying level on a heading. There's not much proficency to gain or
> lose during this time.
> I would think that we all hand fly the takeoff and landing. Here's where the
> practice is useful and needed.
>
> Chuck

I disagree. Flying straight and level, and checking the weather, and
programming the GPS, etc., requires a fair bit of skill. After five
years of flying IFR with no AP, I literally got to the point where
flying the airplane was a completely subconcious activity that I
literally didn't even think about anymore. I could easily do several
other tasks and keep the airplane on the straight and narrow.

I agree with the others that an AP can probably reduce fatigue on a long
trip in the clouds, but I only had a handful of these in 300 or so hours
of instrument flying. However, once I got sufficiently proficient that
flying the airplane was essentially automatic, I found I didn't get all
that fatigued even on 4 hour flights in the soup. Yes, I had a couple
of those. Once I flew my niece to college in Ohio from PA. There was
about an 800' ceiling over the entire northeast. I was in the soup from
shortly after takeoff until touchdown in Dayton. Took about 3 hours
against a strong headwind. I then turned right around and flew home in
the same soup. I was a little tired by then, but more from the noise
and sitting in one place too long, than from flying in IMC. I got tired
on VFR fights of that lenght!


Matt

[Robert M. Gary]

Jon Kraus > wrote in message >...
> Just curious as to opinions about flying in IMC without an autopilot?
> Does an autopilot make flying in the clouds safer or is it just a crutch
> for the lazy?
> For myself being new to IFR flying I feel safer knowing that if needed I
> could turn the autopilot on. Maybe it is a false sense of security...

Most rate based autopilots (those connected to the turn coordinator)
tend to like to do rolls in turb. They should be shut off when being
bounced in the clouds (most real world IMC). The bigger planes (higher
end singles, etc) use attitude based autopilots which work much
better.
-Robet

[Richard Hertz]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Just curious as to opinions about flying in IMC without an autopilot?
> > Does an autopilot make flying in the clouds safer or is it just a crutch
> > for the lazy?
>
> It can be a crutch...but most likely it can save your life. It can also
> allow a pilot to keep their eyes outside the cockpit a lot more.

To look at what? The clouds?


>
> OTOH, don't the airlines fly something like 98% of a flight on autpilot?
> From rotation to final?
>
> > For myself being new to IFR flying I feel safer knowing that if needed I
> > could turn the autopilot on. Maybe it is a false sense of security...
>
> I always through an automatic transmission was a crutch (or should I say
> "clutch) for those too lazy to drive stickshift.
>
>

[Peter R.]

John T ) wrote:

> "Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
>
> >
> > Just curious as to opinions about flying in IMC without an autopilot?
>
> Are you planning to use an autopilot for your checkride? :)

The DE for my instrument checkride allowed me to use the AP after we
leveled off. I explained to him that in actual IMC I would let the AP take
over so that I could retrieve and brief the approach plate. He had no
problem with that explanation.

He also allowed me to use the moving map (Bendix/King KMD-550) in the C172
to fly a partial panel VOR approach to the missed and to the hold. Imagine
that! :)

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Highfllyer" > wrote in message
...
>
> The other problem with autopilots are they do go on the fritz, often
without
> warning. Then, you can easily wind up fighting with you autopilot. The
> systems are set up so that you should be able to "outmuscle" the autopilot
> but they can be insidious. For example, a failing autopilot gyro will
> slowly lean over most of the time. The autopilot will happily follow the
> leaning gyro and put you into an interesting attitude that you have to
> recover from, hopefully after disabling the autopilot, on partial panel.

If you don't know three ways of disabling the AP, you shouldn't use it. Even
more, most current AP's have fault detection warnings.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Highfllyer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The other problem with autopilots are they do go on the fritz, often
> without
> > warning. Then, you can easily wind up fighting with you autopilot.
The
> > systems are set up so that you should be able to "outmuscle" the
autopilot
> > but they can be insidious. For example, a failing autopilot gyro will
> > slowly lean over most of the time. The autopilot will happily follow
the
> > leaning gyro and put you into an interesting attitude that you have to
> > recover from, hopefully after disabling the autopilot, on partial panel.
>
> If you don't know three ways of disabling the AP, you shouldn't use it.
Even
> more, most current AP's have fault detection warnings.

Fighting with the autopilot to disconnect it is dangerous.

[C J Campbell]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you don't know three ways of disabling the AP, you shouldn't use it.
Even
> more, most current AP's have fault detection warnings.

Some early autopilots don't have three ways of disabling them. Cessna did
not start putting circuit breakers that you could pull in their single
engine planes until just a few years ago. Autopilots from the 1980's did not
have yoke mounted disconnect buttons. I had a 1982 Cessna 172RG that had
only two ways of disconnecting the autopilot -- either turning off the
autopilot switch or overpowering it. Overpowering it did not really
disconnect it. I could have turned off the master switch, but that would
have been a last resort.

Now that I have referred to the 1980's as 'early' I think I will just go
hide somewhere.... maybe drink some Ensure.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > If you don't know three ways of disabling the AP, you shouldn't use it.
> Even
> > more, most current AP's have fault detection warnings.
>
> Some early autopilots don't have three ways of disabling them. Cessna did
> not start putting circuit breakers that you could pull in their single
> engine planes until just a few years ago. Autopilots from the 1980's did
not
> have yoke mounted disconnect buttons. I had a 1982 Cessna 172RG that had
> only two ways of disconnecting the autopilot -- either turning off the
> autopilot switch or overpowering it. Overpowering it did not really
> disconnect it. I could have turned off the master switch, but that would
> have been a last resort.
>
> Now that I have referred to the 1980's as 'early' I think I will just go
> hide somewhere.... maybe drink some Ensure.

Don't forget the Depends...

What I fly (well, okay...right seat, never solo) have CWS, AP Master switch,
CB, APOR/D...not to mention the other disconnects. Yes...I'm spoiled.


>
>

[PaulaJay1]

In article >, "Tom Sixkiller"
> writes:

>If you don't know three ways of disabling the AP, you shouldn't use it. Even
>more, most current AP's have fault detection warnings.
>

Help! I only know one - Turn it off. Maybe a second if you count overpower it
if it doesn't go off. The circuit breakers on my plane, a 79 Archer, are the
little white buttons that you can't "pull out" to disconect. Removing the rear
seats and pulling the floor is a bit much while flying(grin). So what might be
other ways?

Chuyck

[Tom Sixkiller]

"PaulaJay1" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Tom Sixkiller"
> > writes:
>
> >If you don't know three ways of disabling the AP, you shouldn't use it.
Even
> >more, most current AP's have fault detection warnings.
> >
>
> Help! I only know one - Turn it off. Maybe a second if you count
overpower it
> if it doesn't go off. The circuit breakers on my plane, a 79 Archer, are
the
> little white buttons that you can't "pull out" to disconect. Removing the
rear
> seats and pulling the floor is a bit much while flying(grin). So what
might be
> other ways?

Each model is different. What does your owners manual say?

[[email protected]]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

> Fighting with the autopilot to disconnect it is dangerous.

Not in an L-1011 it isn't.

[Ray Andraka]

Mine's an STEC-20 in a 1965 Cherokee Six. I've got 7 ways to override mine:

1) push the yoke mounted autopilot disconnect button
2) push and hold the mode switch on the unit
3) turn off the autopilot switch (cuts power between buss and autopilot)
4) pull the autopilot circuit breaker (a klixon 7277 series pullable breaker)
5) overpower the autopilot
6) turn off the avionics master
7) turn off the master switch

PaulaJay1 wrote:

> In article >, "Tom Sixkiller"
> > writes:
>
> >If you don't know three ways of disabling the AP, you shouldn't use it. Even
> >more, most current AP's have fault detection warnings.
> >
>
> Help! I only know one - Turn it off. Maybe a second if you count overpower it
> if it doesn't go off. The circuit breakers on my plane, a 79 Archer, are the
> little white buttons that you can't "pull out" to disconect. Removing the rear
> seats and pulling the floor is a bit much while flying(grin). So what might be
> other ways?
>
> Chuyck

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Tarver Engineering]

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> > Fighting with the autopilot to disconnect it is dangerous.
>
> Not in an L-1011 it isn't.

Only if you want to be unemployed, others use the disconnect switch.

[[email protected]]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

>
> Only if you want to be unemployed, others use the disconnect switch.

Shows how much you know, Trav. A pilot cannot fight with the autopilot in
an L-1011. When you apply a specified force to the control wheel or column,
the autopilot complies and drops out of command mode into control wheel
steering mode. I thought all aeronautical engineers knew that, especially
in light of the long-ago Eastern Airlines accident.

[Tarver Engineering]

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> >
> > Only if you want to be unemployed, others use the disconnect switch.
>
> Shows how much you know, Trav. A pilot cannot fight with the autopilot in
> an L-1011. When you apply a specified force to the control wheel or
column,
> the autopilot complies and drops out of command mode into control wheel
> steering mode. I thought all aeronautical engineers knew that, especially
> in light of the long-ago Eastern Airlines accident.

Then after you spill eveyone's drinks you find other employment.

The Eastern airlines accident was traced to the pilot never engaging the
autopilot. The training failure that caused Eastern's pilots to cause such
a crash was their arrogant attatude toward flying and their tendancy to get
drunk and go play golf when they were supposed to be attending training at
the Manufacturer.

[Mick Ruthven]

My instrument instructor flew full-time as a King Air single pilot. He made
sure I knew I had to practice to keep non-autopilot skills up to par, but
for real-life IFR single-pilot flying he always said "make liberal use of
the autopilot". I fully agree. If it's visual weather you have to look for
traffic as well as fly your courses and approaches and the autopilot lets
you do that; if it's IMC the autopilot frees brain cells for important stuff
like situational awareness and unusual ATC calls, etc.

"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
news:et2cc.183846$_w.1849839@attbi_s53...
> In article >,
> Jon Kraus > wrote:
> >For myself being new to IFR flying I feel safer knowing that if needed I
> >could turn the autopilot on. Maybe it is a false sense of security...
>
> It's easier, but it's worth practicing with one. If you've never used
> a wing leveller and tried to control pitch yourself it's a very odd
> feeling.
>
> --
> Ben Jackson
> >
> http://www.ben.com/

[[email protected]]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

>
> The Eastern airlines accident was traced to the pilot never engaging the
> autopilot. The training failure that caused Eastern's pilots to cause such
> a crash was their arrogant attatude toward flying and their tendancy to get
> drunk and go play golf when they were supposed to be attending training at
> the Manufacturer.

You're so full of it Trav.

Finding #7 of the NTSB's final report on EAL Flight 401:

"The autopilot was ultilized in basic CWS."

Or, are you saying that the NTSB finding is incorrect?

[Tarver Engineering]

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> >
> > The Eastern airlines accident was traced to the pilot never engaging the
> > autopilot. The training failure that caused Eastern's pilots to cause
such
> > a crash was their arrogant attatude toward flying and their tendancy to
get
> > drunk and go play golf when they were supposed to be attending training
at
> > the Manufacturer.
>
> You're so full of it Trav.

Not me.

The Eastern operator did not hold the AP engage button in long enough for it
to engage and the airplane flew into the ground. I agree with Lockheed and
having lived in the AV, I am quite aware of Eastern's drunk in the evening
and golfing through the day pilots.

[[email protected]]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

> The Eastern operator did not hold the AP engage button in long enough for it
> to engage and the airplane flew into the ground. I agree with Lockheed and
> having lived in the AV, I am quite aware of Eastern's drunk in the evening
> and golfing through the day pilots.

The autopilot was engaged, but in control wheel steering. As usual, your
comments make no sense. And, because you are so lacking in knowledge about how
an L-1011 autopilot works, or about the NTSB investiagtion, you try to switch to
how EAL pilots conducted themselves off-duty.

You are so full of pure BS.

[Tarver Engineering]

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> > The Eastern operator did not hold the AP engage button in long enough
for it
> > to engage and the airplane flew into the ground. I agree with Lockheed
and
> > having lived in the AV, I am quite aware of Eastern's drunk in the
evening
> > and golfing through the day pilots.

> you try to switch to
> how EAL pilots conducted themselves off-duty.

Off duty? I have presented the facts as to the activities EA pilots engaged
in while at Lockheed for L-1011 training. It was behavior exclusive to EA
pilots, while other Airlines' operators attended training. There was
nothing wrong with Lockheed's airplane; except the price.

[[email protected]]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

>
> Off duty? I have presented the facts as to the activities EA pilots engaged
> in while at Lockheed for L-1011 training. It was behavior exclusive to EA
> pilots, while other Airlines' operators attended training. There was
> nothing wrong with Lockheed's airplane; except the price.

Did I say there was anything wrong with the L-1011? It was one of my
favorites. My airline conducted its own L-1011 training. I suspect an airline
the size of EAL didn't send crews to PMD except for perhaps the initial
management pilots. Those guys are known to be drunks.

[Tarver Engineering]

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> >
> > Off duty? I have presented the facts as to the activities EA pilots
engaged
> > in while at Lockheed for L-1011 training. It was behavior exclusive to
EA
> > pilots, while other Airlines' operators attended training. There was
> > nothing wrong with Lockheed's airplane; except the price.
>
> Did I say there was anything wrong with the L-1011?

There was either a machine error, or a man error. I believe the L-1011 is
one of the finest wide bodies ever built, from an engineering perspective.
The NTSB did what they do and transfered liability back to the Manufacturer.
That turned out to be an unfortunate decision when Eastern's management
threw the Airline across a craps table.

> It was one of my
> favorites. My airline conducted its own L-1011 training. I suspect an
airline
> the size of EAL didn't send crews to PMD except for perhaps the initial
> management pilots. Those guys are known to be drunks.

The people who built the airplane are still angy with those drunks and still
blame them for the crash. There were still quite a few people that worked
the L-1011 line living on the AV in the 1980s.

[Tom Mosher]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> > wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Only if you want to be unemployed, others use the disconnect switch.
> >
> > Shows how much you know, Trav. A pilot cannot fight with the autopilot in
> > an L-1011. When you apply a specified force to the control wheel or
> column,
> > the autopilot complies and drops out of command mode into control wheel
> > steering mode. I thought all aeronautical engineers knew that, especially
> > in light of the long-ago Eastern Airlines accident.
>
> Then after you spill eveyone's drinks you find other employment.
>
> The Eastern airlines accident was traced to the pilot never engaging the
> autopilot. The training failure that caused Eastern's pilots to cause such
> a crash was their arrogant attatude toward flying and their tendancy to get
> drunk and go play golf when they were supposed to be attending training at
> the Manufacturer.


Bull****.

http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/ntsb/aar/AAR73-14.pdf

Tom Mosher

[[email protected]]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

>
> There was either a machine error, or a man error. I believe the L-1011 is
> one of the finest wide bodies ever built, from an engineering perspective.
> The NTSB did what they do and transfered liability back to the Manufacturer.
> That turned out to be an unfortunate decision when Eastern's management
> threw the Airline across a craps table.

It was dumb-ass pilots, period. That auto-flight system was wonderful. Then
again, you had to have a brain and understand the auto-flight modes, including
how the trip from Command to CWS could burn you if you failed to mind the store.

The only airplane that I loved flying more than the L-1011 was the Boeing
707-100 fan-powered, seriously over-powered dream machine.

[Matthew S. Whiting]

wrote:
>
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
>
>>Only if you want to be unemployed, others use the disconnect switch.
>
>
> Shows how much you know, Trav. A pilot cannot fight with the autopilot in
> an L-1011. When you apply a specified force to the control wheel or column,
> the autopilot complies and drops out of command mode into control wheel
> steering mode. I thought all aeronautical engineers knew that, especially
> in light of the long-ago Eastern Airlines accident.
>

There's your mistake, you assumed he was an aeronautical engineer.


Matt

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > wrote in message ...
>
>>
>>Tarver Engineering wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The Eastern airlines accident was traced to the pilot never engaging the
>>>autopilot. The training failure that caused Eastern's pilots to cause
>>
> such
>
>>>a crash was their arrogant attatude toward flying and their tendancy to
>>
> get
>
>>>drunk and go play golf when they were supposed to be attending training
>>
> at
>
>>>the Manufacturer.
>>
>>You're so full of it Trav.
>
>
> Not me.
>
> The Eastern operator did not hold the AP engage button in long enough for it
> to engage and the airplane flew into the ground. I agree with Lockheed and
> having lived in the AV, I am quite aware of Eastern's drunk in the evening
> and golfing through the day pilots.
>
>

And if you didn't spend so much time with them, you'd be more coherent here.


Matt

[Tarver Engineering]

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> >
> > There was either a machine error, or a man error. I believe the L-1011
is
> > one of the finest wide bodies ever built, from an engineering
perspective.
> > The NTSB did what they do and transfered liability back to the
Manufacturer.
> > That turned out to be an unfortunate decision when Eastern's management
> > threw the Airline across a craps table.
>
> It was dumb-ass pilots, period. That auto-flight system was wonderful.
Then
> again, you had to have a brain and understand the auto-flight modes,
including
> how the trip from Command to CWS could burn you if you failed to mind the
store.
>
> The only airplane that I loved flying more than the L-1011 was the Boeing
> 707-100 fan-powered, seriously over-powered dream machine.

The 707 was one fast airplane.

[[email protected]]

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:

>
> Have we forgot aviate then navigate?
>

That's true, we haven't. So, if you can aviate and program a GPS box
single-pilot IFR without an autopilot, sooner or later you will have more balls
than you can juggle.

Not so in the "old days" of tuning a VOR and selecting a course.

[[email protected]]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

>
> The 707 was one fast airplane.

I recall being the gear-person on a domestic fan on one nice, clear winter
night, going from JFK to LAX. We had to shut down an inboard engine over PIT,
because of an oil pressure problem. We descended to Fl 240, pushed the other
three up a bit, arrived at LAX early with the same burn had we been at 350 with
all four running.

[Matthew S. Whiting]

wrote:
>
> "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
>
>>Have we forgot aviate then navigate?
>>
>
>
> That's true, we haven't. So, if you can aviate and program a GPS box
> single-pilot IFR without an autopilot, sooner or later you will have more balls
> than you can juggle.

That is certainly possible, but it never happened to me in 6 years of
instrument flying in the northeast which has both traffic and weather.
The way to stay good at juggling is to juggle a lot. I just don't think
an autopilot contributes to proficiency and I'd really hate to be in a
situation where I NEEDED the autopilot in order to keep all the balls in
the air. If you get really busy, it isn't that hard to program most GPS
units one waypoint at a time much like a VOR. I like to have the full
route programmed, but that isn't essential to do if you are in a high
workload regime.


> Not so in the "old days" of tuning a VOR and selecting a course.

I tuned the VORs even when using the GPS. Nice to have a couple of
information sources when in the clouds.


Matt

[[email protected]]

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:

> wrote:
> >
> > "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Have we forgot aviate then navigate?
> >>
> >
> >
> > That's true, we haven't. So, if you can aviate and program a GPS box
> > single-pilot IFR without an autopilot, sooner or later you will have more balls
> > than you can juggle.
>
> That is certainly possible, but it never happened to me in 6 years of
> instrument flying in the northeast which has both traffic and weather.
> The way to stay good at juggling is to juggle a lot. I just don't think
> an autopilot contributes to proficiency and I'd really hate to be in a
> situation where I NEEDED the autopilot in order to keep all the balls in
> the air.

The autopilot is a part of single-pilot CRM. It frees the pilot to work at a better
level of mental proficiency. If you're talking about manually flying the airplane
for attitude instrument control, that can and should be practice when the weather is
decent. Presuming the autopilot is properly maintained, the chances of it failing
are no greater than losing some other critical component of the system. That is what
being proficient in abnormal or emergency procedures is all about.

[Thomas Borchert]

> So, if you can aviate and program a GPS box
> single-pilot IFR without an autopilot, sooner or later you will have more balls
> than you can juggle.
>
> Not so in the "old days" of tuning a VOR and selecting a course.
>

Hmm. Do "we" really think that setting up and interpreting a VOR (or ADF) is
easier than handling a moving map display? I STRONGLY disagree. A GPS requires
much fewer mental balls to juggle than two VORs and an ADF.

It's just newer technology, that's all.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[vincent p. norris]

>Having logged a bit of actual time, I subscribe to his viewpoint.

I'm not persuaded, probably because after I got out of service, where
I had an AP, I flew a Cherokee without one for about 25 years, until
getting a Warrior that had one.

Yes, I was pretty damn busy at times, but only for short intervals.

> However, after experiencing an AP failure in IMC while flying to Boston last year, I
>certainly see the need to remain proficient at hand-flying. Balancing
>these competing goals (hand flying versus the safety of AP flying) is a
>challenge.

I would recommend minimal use of the AP if one wants to gain maximum
proficiency at flying the airplane on instruments. I don't see how one
can become proficient at anything by NOT doing it.

vince norris

[Tom Sixkiller]

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...
> >Having logged a bit of actual time, I subscribe to his viewpoint.
>
> I would recommend minimal use of the AP if one wants to gain maximum
> proficiency at flying the airplane on instruments. I don't see how one
> can become proficient at anything by NOT doing it.
>

I guess those airline pilots must be really rusty, seeing how they fly on AP
from about liftoff until just about touchdown?

[Michael]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote
> > I would recommend minimal use of the AP if one wants to gain maximum
> > proficiency at flying the airplane on instruments. I don't see how one
> > can become proficient at anything by NOT doing it.
>
> I guess those airline pilots must be really rusty, seeing how they fly on AP
> from about liftoff until just about touchdown?

A good friend of mine (who taught me to fly multi after I bought my
Twin Comanche) is a captain for the majors. According to him, this is
exactly true of those airline pilots who fly the way you describe. It
is not how he flies - even now that he's in the Airbus (which he hates
- the planes he likes are the DC-9 and 727) he still makes it a point
to hand-fly from takeoff until level in cruise and from FL180 to
touchdown. When he flew the 727, he would ONLY use the A/P in level
cruise. According to him, the guys who use the A/P all the time are
the same ones who barely squeak through the checkrides, make ****ty
approaches when they have to hand-fly, and can't wait to get into the
Airbus where they can stop flying.

My friend owned a Twin Comanche for years, flew it IFR extensively,
and never bothered to install an A/P. After he finished training me,
I flew night and IFR extensively - sometimes for hours at a time in
the soup - single pilot and with no A/P. I eventually installed one
when I got a good deal on a used one, and I use it a lot when in level
cruise, in VMC, to reduce fatigue on long trips and listen to my CD
player. I don't use it on short trips or in IMC. Fatigue isn't an
issue on short trips, and I like to fly. As for IMC, I don't get
enough as it is, so why would I share with the A/P? I always hand-fly
from takeoff until level and trimmed out in cruise, and then hand fly
from start of descent to touchdown.

In my opinion, anyone who can't handle a reroute or find and brief an
approach in IMC while hand-flying (meaning without A/P) has no
business flying IFR anyway.

Michael

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...

>
> In my opinion, anyone who can't handle a reroute or find and brief an
> approach in IMC while hand-flying (meaning without A/P) has no
> business flying IFR anyway.
>
And those who can't run a computer from the command line shouldn't be on
one. :~)

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote:

> "Michael" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> >
> > In my opinion, anyone who can't handle a reroute or find and brief an
> > approach in IMC while hand-flying (meaning without A/P) has no
> > business flying IFR anyway.
> >
> And those who can't run a computer from the command line shouldn't be on
> one. :~)

Command line? What's that? I thought the way you ran a computer was
you put your deck of cards in the slot and waited for the greenbar
printout to appear in your mailbox.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote:
>
> > "Michael" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> > >
> > > In my opinion, anyone who can't handle a reroute or find and brief an
> > > approach in IMC while hand-flying (meaning without A/P) has no
> > > business flying IFR anyway.
> > >
> > And those who can't run a computer from the command line shouldn't be on
> > one. :~)
>
> Command line? What's that? I thought the way you ran a computer was
> you put your deck of cards in the slot and waited for the greenbar
> printout to appear in your mailbox.

Did you remember to check your tape back in to the library? :~)

[Teacherjh]

>>
I thought the way you ran a computer was
you put your deck of cards in the slot...
<<

You had CARDS? Back in my day we had front panel switches. You had to put the
ones and zeros in by hand, and if you ran out of ones it was a long walk to the
bit bucket to get more, so we learned to be frugal.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Roy Smith
> wrote:

> > And those who can't run a computer from the command line shouldn't be on
> > one. :~)
>
> Command line? What's that? I thought the way you ran a computer was
> you put your deck of cards in the slot and waited for the greenbar
> printout to appear in your mailbox.

Naw, that ain't running a computer, that's submitting a job.

--
Bob Noel

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
(Michael) wrote:

> In my opinion, anyone who can't handle a reroute or find and brief an
> approach in IMC while hand-flying (meaning without A/P) has no
> business flying IFR anyway.

big difference between taking advantage of and needing...

--
Bob Noel

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Roy Smith wrote:
> In article >,
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote:
>
>
>>"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
>>
>>
>>>In my opinion, anyone who can't handle a reroute or find and brief an
>>>approach in IMC while hand-flying (meaning without A/P) has no
>>>business flying IFR anyway.
>>>
>>
>>And those who can't run a computer from the command line shouldn't be on
>>one. :~)
>
>
> Command line? What's that? I thought the way you ran a computer was
> you put your deck of cards in the slot and waited for the greenbar
> printout to appear in your mailbox.

Naw, real programmers use switches and LEDs for programming.


Matt

[Brien K. Meehan]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message >...

> Naw, real programmers use switches and LEDs for programming.

LED's? Well, lah dee dah! How fancy schmancy!

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote in message
om...
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > Naw, real programmers use switches and LEDs for programming.
>
> LED's? Well, lah dee dah! How fancy schmancy!

__ _ /|
\'o.O '
=(___)=
U Ack! Phfft!

Real Programmers...
Don't eat quiche. Real programmers don't even know how to spell quiche.
They like Twinkies, Coke, and palate-scorching Szechwan food.

Don't write docs. Users should be grateful for whatever they get. They
are lucky toget any program at all.

Don't comment on their code. If it was hard to write, it should be hard
to understand and even harder to modify.

Don't draw flowcharts. Flowcharts are, after all, the illiterate's form
of documentation. Cavemen drew flowcharts; look how much it did for them.

Don't read manuals. Reliance on a reference is a hallmark of the novice
and the coward.

Don't use COBOL. COBOL is for wimpy applications programmers.

Don't use Fortran. Fortran is for nerdy engineers who get excited over
finite state analysis and nuclear reactor simulation.

Don't use PL/I. PL/I is for insecure momma's boys who can't decide
between COBOL and Fortran.

Don't use BASIC. In fact, "NO" programmers use BASIC after reaching
puberty.

Never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers are around at 9 a.m. it's
because they were up all night.

Disdain structured programming. Structured programming is for compulsive,
prematurely toilet-trained neurotics who wear neckties and carefully line
up sharpened pencils on an otherwise uncluttered desk.

Don't drive clapped-out Mavericks. They prefer BMWs, Porsches, or pick-up
trucks with floor shifts. Fast motorcycles are highly regarded.

Don't believe in schedules. Planners make up schedules. Managers firm-up
schedules. Frightened coders strive to meet schedules. Real programmers
ignore schedules.

Like microwave popcorn. Coders pop it in the microwave oven. Real
programmers use the heat given off by the CPU. They can tell what program
is running just by listening to the rate of popping. Don't bring brown bag
lunches to work. If the vending machine sells it, they eat it. If the
vending machine doesn't sell it, they don't eat it.

Don't write in RPG. RPG is for gum-chewing dimwits who maintain antiquated
payroll programs.

Don't write in APL unless the whole program can be crammed into one line.

Don't write in LISP. Only sissy programs contain more parentheses than
actual code.

Don't like the team programming concept, unless, of course, they are the
chief programmer.

Never write memos on paper. Then send memos via electronic mail.

Have no use for managers. Managers are a necessay evil. Theyt exist only to
deal with personnel bozos, bean counters, senior planners and other mental
midgets.

Scorn floating point arithmetic. The decimal point was invented for pansy
bedwetters who are unable to think big.


[Matthew S. Whiting]

Brien K. Meehan wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message >...
>
>
>>Naw, real programmers use switches and LEDs for programming.
>
>
> LED's? Well, lah dee dah! How fancy schmancy!

Yea, I knew that was coming. Got tired of replacing the incandescents...


Matt

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
(Brien K. Meehan) wrote:

> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> >...
>
> > Naw, real programmers use switches and LEDs for programming.
>
> LED's? Well, lah dee dah! How fancy schmancy!

Look guys, you keep this up and I'm gonna have to tell you about what we
did before we even had electricity. You wanted to add two numbers, you
had to get up at 5 in the morning and start shoveling coal into the
computer.

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Roy Smith wrote:
> In article >,
> (Brien K. Meehan) wrote:
>
>
>>"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
>...
>>
>>
>>>Naw, real programmers use switches and LEDs for programming.
>>
>>LED's? Well, lah dee dah! How fancy schmancy!
>
>
> Look guys, you keep this up and I'm gonna have to tell you about what we
> did before we even had electricity. You wanted to add two numbers, you
> had to get up at 5 in the morning and start shoveling coal into the
> computer.

I found sliding the donuts on the abacus to be much easier than
shoveling coal.


Matt

[Teacherjh]

>>
I found sliding the donuts on the abacus to be much easier than
shoveling coal.
<<

Used to do that but the abacus didn't last very long. I'm now on weight
watchers.

On the plus side, that's how I discovered imaginary numbers.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Brien K. Meehan) wrote:
>
> > "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> > >...
> >
> > > Naw, real programmers use switches and LEDs for programming.
> >
> > LED's? Well, lah dee dah! How fancy schmancy!
>
> Look guys, you keep this up and I'm gonna have to tell you about what we
> did before we even had electricity. You wanted to add two numbers, you
> had to get up at 5 in the morning and start shoveling coal into the
> computer.

Coal? You had coal?

We had to go out with a stone axe and cut wood for the abacus.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Roy Smith wrote:
> > In article >,
> > (Brien K. Meehan) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> >...
> >>
> >>
> >>>Naw, real programmers use switches and LEDs for programming.
> >>
> >>LED's? Well, lah dee dah! How fancy schmancy!
> >
> >
> > Look guys, you keep this up and I'm gonna have to tell you about what we
> > did before we even had electricity. You wanted to add two numbers, you
> > had to get up at 5 in the morning and start shoveling coal into the
> > computer.
>
> I found sliding the donuts on the abacus to be much easier than
> shoveling coal.
>

'Cept if those donuts were Krispy Kreme's they'd get eaten before you got
the answer.

[Michael]

Bob Noel > wrote
> > In my opinion, anyone who can't handle a reroute or find and brief an
> > approach in IMC while hand-flying (meaning without A/P) has no
> > business flying IFR anyway.
>
> big difference between taking advantage of and needing...

For a while, anyway...

Michael

[Matthew S. Whiting]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> "Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Roy Smith wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> (Brien K. Meehan) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" > wrote in message
>...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Naw, real programmers use switches and LEDs for programming.
>>>>
>>>>LED's? Well, lah dee dah! How fancy schmancy!
>>>
>>>
>>>Look guys, you keep this up and I'm gonna have to tell you about what we
>>>did before we even had electricity. You wanted to add two numbers, you
>>>had to get up at 5 in the morning and start shoveling coal into the
>>>computer.
>>
>>I found sliding the donuts on the abacus to be much easier than
>>shoveling coal.
>>
>
>
> 'Cept if those donuts were Krispy Kreme's they'd get eaten before you got
> the answer.
>
>

Still beats shoveling coal!

Matt

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
(Michael) wrote:

> > > In my opinion, anyone who can't handle a reroute or find and brief an
> > > approach in IMC while hand-flying (meaning without A/P) has no
> > > business flying IFR anyway.
> >
> > big difference between taking advantage of and needing...
>
> For a while, anyway...

for some, but not everyone.

btw - if you don't practice with the a/p regularly, you might as well
remove it from the airplane.

--
Bob Noel

[Michael]

Bob Noel > wrote
> > For a while, anyway...
> for some, but not everyone.

Everyone is different. Some people lose their IFR skills if they
don't practice regularly. Others can spend half a year flying VFR
only, get into an unfamiliar complex airplane, and be comfortably
shooting approaches to minimums. It's not fair, but that's the way it
is.

> btw - if you don't practice with the a/p regularly, you might as well
> remove it from the airplane.

I think that depends a lot on the pilot and the autopilot. If you
have someone who is not gadget-oriented and has a modern autopilot
with many features, you're right. On the other hand, take someone who
could build an autopilot if he had to and a simple autopilot with few
features, and the occasional use in visual conditions is plenty.

Michael

[running with scissors]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Highfllyer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > The other problem with autopilots are they do go on the fritz, often
> without
> > > warning. Then, you can easily wind up fighting with you autopilot.
> The
> > > systems are set up so that you should be able to "outmuscle" the
> autopilot
> > > but they can be insidious. For example, a failing autopilot gyro will
> > > slowly lean over most of the time. The autopilot will happily follow
> the
> > > leaning gyro and put you into an interesting attitude that you have to
> > > recover from, hopefully after disabling the autopilot, on partial panel.
> >
> > If you don't know three ways of disabling the AP, you shouldn't use it.
> Even
> > more, most current AP's have fault detection warnings.
>
> Fighting with the autopilot to disconnect it is dangerous.

yes tarver, whereas pulling the breaker is a lot safer.

****.

[running with scissors]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> > wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >
> > > Fighting with the autopilot to disconnect it is dangerous.
> >
> > Not in an L-1011 it isn't.
>
> Only if you want to be unemployed, others use the disconnect switch.

mmm yes of course you idiot. and the plane is going to do what when you disconnect?

[running with scissors]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> > wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The Eastern airlines accident was traced to the pilot never engaging the
> > > autopilot. The training failure that caused Eastern's pilots to cause
> such
> > > a crash was their arrogant attatude toward flying and their tendancy to
> get
> > > drunk and go play golf when they were supposed to be attending training
> at
> > > the Manufacturer.
> >
> > You're so full of it Trav.
>
> Not me.
>
> The Eastern operator did not hold the AP engage button in long enough for it
> to engage and the airplane flew into the ground. I agree with Lockheed and
> having lived in the AV, I am quite aware of Eastern's drunk in the evening
> and golfing through the day pilots.


no match for you being drunk 24/7 eh splaps boy.

[running with scissors]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> > wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > There was either a machine error, or a man error. I believe the L-1011
> is
> > > one of the finest wide bodies ever built, from an engineering
> perspective.
> > > The NTSB did what they do and transfered liability back to the
> Manufacturer.
> > > That turned out to be an unfortunate decision when Eastern's management
> > > threw the Airline across a craps table.
> >
> > It was dumb-ass pilots, period. That auto-flight system was wonderful.
> Then
> > again, you had to have a brain and understand the auto-flight modes,
> including
> > how the trip from Command to CWS could burn you if you failed to mind the
> store.
> >
> > The only airplane that I loved flying more than the L-1011 was the Boeing
> > 707-100 fan-powered, seriously over-powered dream machine.
>
> The 707 was one fast airplane.

a poor diversion slaps boy.

[running with scissors]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> > wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Only if you want to be unemployed, others use the disconnect switch.
> >
> > Shows how much you know, Trav. A pilot cannot fight with the autopilot in
> > an L-1011. When you apply a specified force to the control wheel or
> column,
> > the autopilot complies and drops out of command mode into control wheel
> > steering mode. I thought all aeronautical engineers knew that, especially
> > in light of the long-ago Eastern Airlines accident.
>
> Then after you spill eveyone's drinks you find other employment.


clueless ****.

>
> The Eastern airlines accident was traced to the pilot never engaging the
> autopilot. The training failure that caused Eastern's pilots to cause such
> a crash was their arrogant attatude toward flying and their tendancy to get
> drunk and go play golf when they were supposed to be attending training at
> the Manufacturer.

a weak-ass attempt by splaps boy to divert from from his frigging
ignorance.

tell us again how "average" and "total" are interchangable terms in
aircraft manuals tarver.