When do you use autopilots?

[Mxsmanic]

Do you use autopilots on short trips (along the lines of an hour or
so)? Do you use autopilots systematically on IFR flights?

Is it bad form to use the autopilot for a 25-minute flight? I've
tried KPAE-KTIW under IFR both by hand and with autopilot, and
autopilot is a breeze in any weather whereas flying by hand is
troublesome even without any wind or turbulence. I try to fly by
hand, but the lure of the autopilot is strong sometimes and I use it
to get some rest.

So how often do you use autopilots in real life? And to what extent
to you prefer to use them?

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

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Do you use autopilots on short trips (along the lines of an hour or
> so)? Do you use autopilots systematically on IFR flights?
>
> Is it bad form to use the autopilot for a 25-minute flight? I've
> tried KPAE-KTIW under IFR both by hand and with autopilot, and
> autopilot is a breeze in any weather whereas flying by hand is
> troublesome even without any wind or turbulence. I try to fly by
> hand, but the lure of the autopilot is strong sometimes and I use it
> to get some rest.
>
> So how often do you use autopilots in real life? And to what extent
> to you prefer to use them?
>

If flying by hand is difficult without wind or turbulence, you are either not
a very good pilot, or you don't have a very good simulator. Autopilot
certainly makes life easier, but you should be able to keep the plane flying
on course and altitude without it.

As an example, I recently flew 3 hours from South Carolina to NY without an
AutoPilot (it was temporarily out of service), and it really wasn't that
difficult or tiring. The wind was mild, and proper attention to the trim and
the heading was really all that was required.

[The Visitor]

Short answer.

Use it if you got it.

Save your energy for when things go wrong.

J

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Do you use autopilots on short trips (along the lines of an hour or
> so)? Do you use autopilots systematically on IFR flights?
>
> Is it bad form to use the autopilot for a 25-minute flight? I've
> tried KPAE-KTIW under IFR both by hand and with autopilot, and
> autopilot is a breeze in any weather whereas flying by hand is
> troublesome even without any wind or turbulence. I try to fly by
> hand, but the lure of the autopilot is strong sometimes and I use it
> to get some rest.
>
> So how often do you use autopilots in real life? And to what extent
> to you prefer to use them?
>

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> If flying by hand is difficult without wind or turbulence, you are either not
> a very good pilot, or you don't have a very good simulator.

It's the former, and I think it is frustrating _because_ the
simulation is good. I do think it might be easier in some respects in
a real aircraft, since movements of the aircraft would remind you when
to look at which instruments, and you have better visibility out the
window and control pressures, etc. However, I think the overwhelming
reason in my case is lack of experience. Even on a short flight, it
gets tiring trying to hold a heading and altitude, but I'm getting
better.

> Autopilot
> certainly makes life easier, but you should be able to keep the plane flying
> on course and altitude without it.

Within what limits? I fly to a heading and then 30 seconds later when
I check it again I've drifted two degrees or so and have to move it
back. Altitude is a much bigger problem, with a constant
roller-coaster ride through as much as 150 feet or so for quite a
while. By the time I wrestle it onto a steady altitude, I'm being
told to climb or descend again.

> As an example, I recently flew 3 hours from South Carolina to NY without an
> AutoPilot (it was temporarily out of service), and it really wasn't that
> difficult or tiring. The wind was mild, and proper attention to the trim and
> the heading was really all that was required.

I hope so.

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

[Mxsmanic]

The Visitor writes:

> Short answer.
>
> Use it if you got it.
>
> Save your energy for when things go wrong.

Seems logical, but do you worry about getting out of practice in hand
flying?

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

[The Visitor]

Working 14 days a month? Yes. But there is very little of it. Not even
on six month rides.

In lighter aiccraft there is lots of hand flying, all but the enroute
phase. I know people still flying large jets whose autopilot is so poor,
they do the terminal maneuvering and approach by hand, no choice. And in
some crummy locations (mountainous). And only having one simple one,
autoland is out.

Do you sit there at your sim, droning along for 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 hours
enroute, handflying? What aircraft/route are you asking about?

Mxsmanic wrote:
> The Visitor writes:
>
>
>>Short answer.
>>
>>Use it if you got it.
>>
>>Save your energy for when things go wrong.
>
>
> Seems logical, but do you worry about getting out of practice in hand
> flying?
>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"The Visitor" > wrote in message
...
> Working 14 days a month? Yes. But there is very little of it. Not even on six
> month rides.
>
> In lighter aiccraft there is lots of hand flying, all but the enroute phase. I
> know people still flying large jets whose autopilot is so poor, they do the
> terminal maneuvering and approach by hand, no choice. And in some crummy
> locations (mountainous). And only having one simple one, autoland is out.
>
> Do you sit there at your sim, droning along for 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 hours enroute,
> handflying? What aircraft/route are you asking about?

The post you are responding to is from a person who is a simulator game pilot,
only. He is a troll, and nothing he posts has any relevance to real aviation.
Please ignore his posts, and talk to real pilots.
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

The Visitor writes:

> Do you sit there at your sim, droning along for 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 hours
> enroute, handflying?

No, but I was wondering if I was "cheating" by using the autopilot.

> What aircraft/route are you asking about?

At this very instant (thanks to autopilot), I'm flying VFR from KPHX
to KSAN, via GBN JUDTH MOHAK WARTT BZA ARGUS IPL NICKK KUMBA PILLO
CANNO BARET RYAHH HAILE KSAN. The GPS unit is handling the routing.
I picked 6000 feet MSL for most of the flight because the manual says
the Baron is highly efficient at this altitude; I'll go briefly to
8500 to get over the mountains on the way in to San Diego.

If this is the way real pilots use autopilot, fine. I just don't want
to do anything that would handicap me in real flight (I'm not sure how
experienced real pilots are supposed to be in hand-flying).

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

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Do you use autopilots on short trips (along the lines of an hour or
> so)? Do you use autopilots systematically on IFR flights?

I use autopilots whenever strategically advantageous.
>
> Is it bad form to use the autopilot for a 25-minute flight?

Sometimes it's BETTER FORM to use the autopilot on shorter flights.
Enroute is generally a lot of inactivity. Takeoff and landing
is the busy part of IFR. Best to off-load onto George when
you are busy.

> tried KPAE-KTIW under IFR both by hand and with autopilot, and
> autopilot is a breeze in any weather whereas flying by hand is
> troublesome even without any wind or turbulence. I try to fly by
> hand, but the lure of the autopilot is strong sometimes and I use it
> to get some rest.

Turbulence can actually be more difficult on the autopilot. It
wants to hold you to course and altitude and tends to overcontrol
to stay there. Hand flying you're willing to take the slight
deviations because you know it will even out in the long term.

[A Lieberma]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> It's the former, and I think it is frustrating _because_ the
> simulation is good.

How do you know it's good????? You have never been in a REAL plane to
have anything to compare to! So you don't know squat.

But I do.

I found on the contrary, SIMULATED FLIGHT on MSFS is NOT GOOD for
simulating REAL FLIGHT.

MSFS don't give you that head rush on steep turns.
MSFS don't give you spatial disorientation in IMC.
MSFS don't paint the sky as well as God can.
MSFS don't give you the sense of freedom as you fly in the canyons of
Cumulus clouds
MSFS don't give you the sensation of floating on air at cruise altutide.
MSFS don't give you anything when it comes to human physiology.

Whether you like it or not, human physiology is part of the joy of
flying. I sure as hell don't get the same feeling sitting in my lazy boy
chair in front of a flat panel comoputer playing the GAME OF MSFS.

MSFS don't give you that sense of accomplishment after a lesson of REAL
FLIGHT.

Crap, here I had "signed" a promise to not reply to your posts, but I
sure don't want FUTURE STUDENTS to even think that MSFS will be anything
close to flying a REAL plane. It's simply put, not even the tip of the
iceberg of what a REAL PLANE gives you.

Seeing how clueless on your other posts regarding the practicality
General Aviation and flying in general (Yes, I restrained myself from
replying to your other non sensible dribble), you really need to get your
head out of your computer screen and join the real 3D world of flight in
a REAL PLANE.

Allen

[The Visitor]

Reasonable.

I must ask and encourage you to at least take a discovery flight at a
local flying school. Have you ever given it a try?




Mxsmanic wrote:
> The Visitor writes:
>
>
>>Do you sit there at your sim, droning along for 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 hours
>>enroute, handflying?
>
>
> No, but I was wondering if I was "cheating" by using the autopilot.
>
>
>>What aircraft/route are you asking about?
>
>
> At this very instant (thanks to autopilot), I'm flying VFR from KPHX
> to KSAN, via GBN JUDTH MOHAK WARTT BZA ARGUS IPL NICKK KUMBA PILLO
> CANNO BARET RYAHH HAILE KSAN. The GPS unit is handling the routing.
> I picked 6000 feet MSL for most of the flight because the manual says
> the Baron is highly efficient at this altitude; I'll go briefly to
> 8500 to get over the mountains on the way in to San Diego.
>
> If this is the way real pilots use autopilot, fine. I just don't want
> to do anything that would handicap me in real flight (I'm not sure how
> experienced real pilots are supposed to be in hand-flying).
>

[Matt Barrow]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
> Turbulence can actually be more difficult on the autopilot. It
> wants to hold you to course and altitude and tends to overcontrol
> to stay there.

Some AP's require you to disengage during moderate or stronger turbulence.
There's also a big difference between rate-based and attitude-based.

> Hand flying you're willing to take the slight
> deviations because you know it will even out in the long term.

As long as one does not over compensate.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> Some AP's require you to disengage during moderate or stronger turbulence.
> There's also a big difference between rate-based and attitude-based.

Is there such a thing as pure "rate-based" vs. "attitude-based" in modern
AP's any more? Back in the days of steam gauges, each state variable
involved another mechanical data pick-off and gobs of discrete circuitry,
so controlling one variable at a time made sense.

In a glass cockpit, I would think you would grab all the data that's
available and come up with a control strategy which mixes inputs.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Within what limits? I fly to a heading and then 30 seconds later when
> I check it again I've drifted two degrees or so and have to move it
> back. Altitude is a much bigger problem, with a constant
> roller-coaster ride through as much as 150 feet or so for quite a
> while. By the time I wrestle it onto a steady altitude, I'm being
> told to climb or descend again.

The accepted limits are documented in the Airmen Practical Test Standards,
which you can read online here:

http://www.faa.gov/education_research/testing/airmen/test_standards/pilot/med
ia/FAA-S-8081-14A.pdf

The limits for Instrument flight are slightly "tighter" and are documented
here:

http://www.faa.gov/education_research/testing/airmen/test_standards/media/FAA
-S-8081-4D.pdf

2 degrees of heading is acceptable. 150 feet of altitude, however, is not.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> The Visitor writes:
>
>> Do you sit there at your sim, droning along for 3,4,5,6,7,8,9 hours
>> enroute, handflying?
>
> No, but I was wondering if I was "cheating" by using the autopilot.
>
>> What aircraft/route are you asking about?
>
> At this very instant (thanks to autopilot), I'm flying VFR from KPHX
> to KSAN, via GBN JUDTH MOHAK WARTT BZA ARGUS IPL NICKK KUMBA PILLO
> CANNO BARET RYAHH HAILE KSAN. The GPS unit is handling the routing.
> I picked 6000 feet MSL for most of the flight because the manual says
> the Baron is highly efficient at this altitude; I'll go briefly to
> 8500 to get over the mountains on the way in to San Diego.

Is this route off-airway? What is the OROCA in that area? 8500 is not an
IFR altitude, so unless you will be changing to VFR on top, you'll probably
either be at 8000 or 10000 in real life. I don't know the area well enough
to know for sure...

It sounds like you have some ideas of what it takes, but you really should
get some formal training. If you're that afraid of flying, you should at
least go to a Ground School course. They are not typically very expensive,
but they are very informative. Another alternative might be to purchase the
Gliem test prep books.

[Mxsmanic]

The Visitor writes:

> Reasonable.
>
> I must ask and encourage you to at least take a discovery flight at a
> local flying school. Have you ever given it a try?

No. No money and no time to try it.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Ron Natalie writes:

> Sometimes it's BETTER FORM to use the autopilot on shorter flights.
> Enroute is generally a lot of inactivity. Takeoff and landing
> is the busy part of IFR. Best to off-load onto George when
> you are busy.

I'm confused. Are you saying that autopilot should be used on
take-off and landing?

It seems that most autopilots aren't much help with take-off and
landing, beyond following an ILS approach most of the way in. Large
aircraft have fancy stuff that can autoland, but I don't know if small
aircraft can be equipped in that way (?).

> Turbulence can actually be more difficult on the autopilot. It
> wants to hold you to course and altitude and tends to overcontrol
> to stay there. Hand flying you're willing to take the slight
> deviations because you know it will even out in the long term.

Interesting. Are there any fancy autopilots that are smart enough to
deal with turbulence?

On a commercial airliner, wouldn't it be preferable to let the
autopilot wrestle with the turbulence in order to avoid upsetting
passengers with more radical movements in hand flying (assuming that
the pilot does not attempt to correct for minor movements from
turbulence)?

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

[The Visitor]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> No. No money and no time to try it.
>
Where aare you located?

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> The accepted limits are documented in the Airmen Practical Test Standards,
> which you can read online here:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/education_research/testing/airmen/test_standards/pilot/med
> ia/FAA-S-8081-14A.pdf
>
> The limits for Instrument flight are slightly "tighter" and are documented
> here:
>
> http://www.faa.gov/education_research/testing/airmen/test_standards/media/FAA
> -S-8081-4D.pdf
>
> 2 degrees of heading is acceptable. 150 feet of altitude, however, is not.

Thanks. I have saved these documents and will examine them in greater
detail as time permits.

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

[Mxsmanic]

The Visitor writes:

> Where aare you located?

Paris, France

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Is this route off-airway?

It's a route that I concocted myself from waypoints, which I presume
means that it's not on an established airway (although some of the
waypoints are on airways).

> What is the OROCA in that area?

I don't know. I don't have charts, so I guessed based on previous
flights over the area and the en route altitude recommendation of the
simulator (which presumably knows all the heights along the way).

> 8500 is not an IFR altitude, so unless you will be changing to
> VFR on top, you'll probably either be at 8000 or 10000 in real life.

I've never been assigned an en route altitude that isn't an even
thousand by the simulated ATC, but I don't know if that's true in real
life as well. I'm sometimes assigned to the nearest hundred feet for
final descents and interception of localizers and what not.

> I don't know the area well enough to know for sure...

I don't have a chart so I don't know the exact heights. I think 8000
would clear everything. The mountains east of San Diego are the
highest points, I believe.

> It sounds like you have some ideas of what it takes, but you really should
> get some formal training.

Flying a simulator is free and can be done on a time-available basis.
Formal training is very expensive and cannot be easily worked into a
schedule. Otherwise I might well do it, even in a place like France
where I'd be learning a lot of the wrong stuff.

> If you're that afraid of flying, you should at least go to a Ground
> School course. They are not typically very expensive,
> but they are very informative. Another alternative might be to purchase the
> Gliem test prep books.

The best I could hope for would be an occasional book. Even books are
costly.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> If you're that afraid of flying, you should at least go to a
> Ground School course.

I'm not afraid of flying per se, but I'm extremely wary of GA aircraft
and their questionable maintenance records. They are inherently less
safe than larger aircraft as well, but not so much so that one need be
concerned, provided that they are properly maintained and operated.

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

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> I'm not afraid of flying per se, but I'm extremely wary of GA aircraft
> and their questionable maintenance records.

> They are inherently less safe than larger aircraft as well

Please cite a source for this comment.


>, but not so much so that one need be
> concerned, provided that they are properly maintained and operated.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> Please cite a source for this comment.

The accident statistics. Just the fact that they use piston engines
makes them less reliable, and thus less safe.

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

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> Please cite a source for this comment.
>
> The accident statistics. Just the fact that they use piston engines
> makes them less reliable, and thus less safe.

No source, huh?

[The Visitor]

Well that explains it. Flight training is very expensive, by anybodies
standard. I have met millionaires from Monaco, in Canada, to do their
training.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> The Visitor writes:
>
>
>>Where aare you located?
>
>
> Paris, France
>

[Dan[_1_]]

I find altitude much harder to hold steady on flight simulators than on
real aircraft. Something about the control pressures, I suspect.

--Dan


Mxsmanic wrote:
> Judah writes:
>
> > The accepted limits are documented in the Airmen Practical Test Standards,
> > which you can read online here:
> >
> > http://www.faa.gov/education_research/testing/airmen/test_standards/pilot/med
> > ia/FAA-S-8081-14A.pdf
> >
> > The limits for Instrument flight are slightly "tighter" and are documented
> > here:
> >
> > http://www.faa.gov/education_research/testing/airmen/test_standards/media/FAA
> > -S-8081-4D.pdf
> >
> > 2 degrees of heading is acceptable. 150 feet of altitude, however, is not.
>
> Thanks. I have saved these documents and will examine them in greater
> detail as time permits.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

The,

> Well that explains it.
>

No, it doesn't. Not by a long shot. Read some older threads with the
troll...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Dan writes:

> I find altitude much harder to hold steady on flight simulators than on
> real aircraft. Something about the control pressures, I suspect.

That's good to hear (in a sense). If it were worse on real aircraft,
I'd be even more worried.

I certainly cannot trim by trying to feel control pressures diminish.
Of course, that method isn't guaranteed to work on a real aircraft,
either.

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

[The Visitor]

Steve Foley wrote:

> Please cite a source for this comment.


Perhaps you want to shoot the messenger, but it is true.

Transport catagory aircraft are safer than GA aircraft.

Dual load paths, for instance. Many critical loads carried by the
airframe are dual load paths, one can actually fail. I think there are
only 2 bizjets certified to the older part 25 standards. Before they got
watered down. Or was it 23? No I think 25. I am Canadian and not up you
your certification standards. But it seems, more-so than you.

Bird strike testing. I have seen birds come off the glass of transport
aircraft, and pictures of birds entering the cocpits of ga aircraft.

Lightning strike protection. Discharge paths, no I am not talking about
the static wicks. I have a friend in a large jet that took a hit that
would no doubt would blow apart a ga plane.

I will simpify this part. One thing that makes turbines safer than
pistons. A turbine (okay yes, there are ga turbines now) never flies out
of the green arc (30 fps). Many piston operators fly (moonies of course)
and decend letting the airspeed build up into the yellow in smooth air.
Aside from not beeing painted, but addressing the certification
standards, a turbine redline(parber pole) allows for the same gust load
tolerance as the top of the yellow arc (15 fps). Pistons are allowed to
fly faster such that less of a gust load and break them. Why? Well so
they can go faster and be popular? Perhaps. Then this was changed for
pistons somewhat but also was the way it was calculated resulting in
little change overall.

Out of time. I am supposed to be working on something.

Cite a source? Ha! Too basic to bother. Get educated.

Adding to safety, dual and triple, "this and thats" (technical phrase
for things like actuators and means to split controls or disconnect).
Plus the way they are required to be operated. I am sure though all this
would go out the window if the pilot training was the same as for GA. I
think is some parts of the world it is.

John

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> 8500 is not an IFR altitude, so unless you will be changing to
>> VFR on top, you'll probably either be at 8000 or 10000 in real life.
>
> I've never been assigned an en route altitude that isn't an even
> thousand by the simulated ATC, but I don't know if that's true in real
> life as well. I'm sometimes assigned to the nearest hundred feet for
> final descents and interception of localizers and what not.

No, that does not accurately reflect the standards for altitude
assignment/selection. Unless you only fly West in your sim.

> The best I could hope for would be an occasional book. Even books are
> costly.

I believe you can find free resources on line for flight training. Google is
a great place to start.

[Judah]

The Visitor > wrote in news:V24%g.172855
:

>
>
> Steve Foley wrote:
>
>> Please cite a source for this comment.
>
> Perhaps you want to shoot the messenger, but it is true.
>
> Transport catagory aircraft are safer than GA aircraft.

The disturbing comment from Manix is that GA aircraft are less safe because
of "their questionable maintenance records."

I believe the comment to be innacurate, biased, and inflammatory.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> If you're that afraid of flying, you should at least go to a
>> Ground School course.
>
> I'm not afraid of flying per se, but I'm extremely wary of GA aircraft
> and their questionable maintenance records.

Can you provide any examples of GA Aircraft that have questionable
maintenance records? I'm not familiar with any. The ones I fly all have had
their due maintenance performed at the proper intervals and with the proper
signatures from IAs and A&Ps.

What makes a maintenance record questionable? What standard do you hold
aircraft maintenance records to - the same as your automobile? Does your
automobile maintenance records include an entry signed, dated, and certified
by an A&P for its annual tune up? Or are you afraid to drive in your own car
because of its questionable maintenance records?

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> No, that does not accurately reflect the standards for altitude
> assignment/selection. Unless you only fly West in your sim.

Only westbound traffic is assigned thousands? I thought it was odd
thousands for 0-179 and even for 180-359, or something like that.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Or are you afraid to drive in your own car
> because of its questionable maintenance records?

If the engine fails in my car, it rolls to a stop. If the engine
fails in my aircraft, I risk hitting the ground at high speed. In any
case, it will not simply roll to a stop in midair.

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

[Kev]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> If the engine fails in my car, it rolls to a stop. If the engine
> fails in my aircraft, I risk hitting the ground at high speed. In any
> case, it will not simply roll to a stop in midair.

If the engine(s) fail, a plane turns into a glider, whether it's a tiny
GA plane or a huge jetliner. And the higher you are, the more likely
you are to be within gliding distance of an airport. So in a funny
sort of way, being a jetliner without engines is probably safer, since
they fly so high and can glide over two miles for each thousand feet of
altitude. OTOH, a light plane is, well much lighter, and does pretty
well at making safe off-airport landings.

Kev

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> No, that does not accurately reflect the standards for altitude
>> assignment/selection. Unless you only fly West in your sim.
>
> Only westbound traffic is assigned thousands? I thought it was odd
> thousands for 0-179 and even for 180-359, or something like that.
>

Only westbound traffic is assigned even thousands. But if you already know
the rules, why are you asking about them?

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> If the engine(s) fail, a plane turns into a glider, whether it's a tiny
> GA plane or a huge jetliner.

In a true glider, you can stay up indefinitely by taking advantage of
things like thermals. Does that work for a powered aircraft when the
engine fails?

> And the higher you are, the more likely you are to be within gliding
> distance of an airport.

Yes, but it depends a lot on your region. In Iowa, there are lots of
places to land. Over the Rocky Mountains, much less so. And if you
are in IMC and you lose your instruments, your flight may be cut very
short.

> So in a funny
> sort of way, being a jetliner without engines is probably safer, since
> they fly so high and can glide over two miles for each thousand feet of
> altitude. OTOH, a light plane is, well much lighter, and does pretty
> well at making safe off-airport landings.

The ideal is not to have engines that fail. One of the handicaps of
GA is the use of piston engines, which are far less reliable than
turbines. The list of accidents and incidents associated with "engine
trouble" in GA seems endless, but the same is not true for jets, which
rarely have engine issues.

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

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> Or are you afraid to drive in your own car
>> because of its questionable maintenance records?
>
> If the engine fails in my car, it rolls to a stop. If the engine
> fails in my aircraft, I risk hitting the ground at high speed. In any
> case, it will not simply roll to a stop in midair.

If the engine fails in your aircraft, the aircraft essentially becomes a
glider. You still have lift, and directional control, as well as speed
control. Depending on the type of aircraft, you might eventually roll to a
safe stop on a runway, golf course, or even a state highway. But you
needn't hit the ground at any speed higher than normal landing speed.

Dealing with such a scenario is all part of pilot training.

By the same token, if you have a blowout in your tire on the highway, you
risk hitting a guardrail, or another vehicle at high speed. If you are
driving too fast on a highway, you risk hitting the car in front of you, or
flipping during a turn. If you drive too slowly, you risk being hit by a
car behind you or beside you. Even if you drive at normal, legal speeds,
lacking proper spacing, you risk hitting the car in front of you if he is
forced to stop aggressively. Typically, if you are in a traffic situation
that leaves you too close to the car in front of you, the traffic is heavy
enough that you can't switch lanes either. And unless you are on a 3 lane
highway, you may not even have 2 options for diversion.

On the other hand, you're rarely, if ever, only 2 seconds away from the
plane in front of you... And if you find yourself in such a situation, you
have twice as many options for diversion.

Most (admittedly not all) public airports are maintained better than most
(admittedly not all) public roads. And of course there is no physical
maintenance requirements for airways. They pretty much keep themselves
clean most of the time (although I've managed to see the occassional mylar
baloon or bird fly through).

You are comfortable dealing with the day-to-day dangers of driving, so you
don't really worry about them. But that doesn't mean they are not there.

You don't check your oil levels every time you get in, and you don't do a
fuel check to make sure that your gas guage is reading accurately. If the
tread on your tires is getting a little worn, you schedule an appointment
to get them changed eventually - when the money comes in. If you know you
are going to drive at night, you don't turn on all your lights and do a
walk-around to make sure all your markers are working. You just trust it.
You trust your car, even though it is very dangerous.

When will you learn to trust airplanes?

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Only westbound traffic is assigned even thousands. But if you already know
> the rules, why are you asking about them?

If you don't want to answer my questions, don't bother.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> When will you learn to trust airplanes?

When the statistics show that they've become trustworthy.

That is already true for most large airliners, but not for GA
aircraft. I suspect that it's not possible to make them completely
reliable and still keep price points affordable enough to ensure
sales.

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

[The Visitor]

Judah wrote:

> The disturbing comment from Manix is that GA aircraft are less safe because
> of "their questionable maintenance records."


Ha! We've seen that applied to large jets too. Remember the seat belt
holding the fan blade picutres. About 1990 I went shopping for a 172
(and it kinda grew an extra engine), I found all kinds of aluminium
sins. 2000 hour airplanes with foot holes worn in origional carpets. And
around the airport I see all kinds of things that shouldn't be
happening. Everybody means well enough and much of the mods happening
are basically okay but some things that shouldn't happen also. People
getting carried away. Then again on the other end, operators would not
snag something because they don't have maintenance, and can't do the
take off so the part fails in the air and they can continue to the next
stop.

Design can only do so much, what people do with it trumps all else I guess.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> When will you learn to trust airplanes?
>
> When the statistics show that they've become trustworthy.
>
> That is already true for most large airliners, but not for GA
> aircraft. I suspect that it's not possible to make them completely
> reliable and still keep price points affordable enough to ensure
> sales.

Can you document a statistic that shows what percentage of aviation accidents
are caused by Pilot Error vs. Equipment Failure?

I think the statistics would show that it's safer to trust airplanes than it
is to trust pilots.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> I think the statistics would show that it's safer to trust airplanes than it
> is to trust pilots.

If they are well maintained, that's probably true. But it's safer to
trust uncomputerized instruments than computerized instruments,
too--and for the same reasons.

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

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Judah > wrote:

> I think the statistics would show that it's safer to trust airplanes than it
> is to trust pilots.

<sigh> statistics don't show safety (consider that no one actually knows the
distribution function). But applying accepted safety analysis techniques
would likely show airplanes can be trusted more than pilots. Here's one
issue with that: what is the reliability of any specific pilot?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Noel writes:

> <sigh> statistics don't show safety (consider that no one actually knows the
> distribution function). But applying accepted safety analysis techniques
> would likely show airplanes can be trusted more than pilots. Here's one
> issue with that: what is the reliability of any specific pilot?

The human variable always has the largest range.

I'm sure there are pilots who could safely fly a broken washing
machine back into the airport, and would survive just about any type
of situation conceivable. There are also pilots who would kill
themselves in every one of those same situations, thanks to a serious
lack of skill or prudence. The only variable that changes is the
pilot. So pilots make a big difference.

I daresay that the number of accidents in which no pilot could have
possibly saved the day is very small. Similarly, the number of
accidents or in-flight incidents that even the worst pilot could
handle is also very small. So it usually depends on who is at the
controls when bad things happen. Indeed, depending on the pilot,
things that should be routine can become deadly, and vice versa..

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

[Kev]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> I daresay that the number of accidents in which no pilot could have
> possibly saved the day is very small. Similarly, the number of
> accidents or in-flight incidents that even the worst pilot could
> handle is also very small. [...]

Although this sounds reasonable on its face, I think it misses the
point. It's not about handling the incident, it's about not having the
incident to begin with.

There are a number of accidents where no pilot could save the day.
Instrument failure, pressurization failure, engine falling off, these
are all famous accident causes.

If you leave aside those catastrophic causes, then the majority of
accidents are not really about being able to save the day once the
emergency exists. They're about avoiding the situation in the first
place. VFR pilot flight into IMC, or pilot into thunderstorms, or
trying to stretch low fuel.

Headed to bed now, but you get the idea I hope.
Kev

[Mxsmanic]

Kev writes:

> Although this sounds reasonable on its face, I think it misses the
> point. It's not about handling the incident, it's about not having the
> incident to begin with.
>
> There are a number of accidents where no pilot could save the day.
> Instrument failure, pressurization failure, engine falling off, these
> are all famous accident causes.
>
> If you leave aside those catastrophic causes, then the majority of
> accidents are not really about being able to save the day once the
> emergency exists. They're about avoiding the situation in the first
> place. VFR pilot flight into IMC, or pilot into thunderstorms, or
> trying to stretch low fuel.
>
> Headed to bed now, but you get the idea I hope.

Yes. I agree to a point, but there are also circumstances that only
become incidents when the pilot is not competent. For example, a very
steep turn may carry risks with it that a good pilot can understand
and deal with, whereas these same risks in the same turn might be
beyond the capacity of a lesser pilot. Thus, the good pilot makes a
safe, steep turn, and it is not necessary for him to avoid such turns.
The bad pilot makes a mistake in such a turn and it becomes an
incident, or an accident.

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

[The Visitor]

Mxsmanic wrote:


> Yes. I agree to a point, but there are also circumstances that only
> become incidents when the pilot is not competent.

Unlock your brain and let it think.

[Mxsmanic]

The Visitor writes:

> Unlock your brain and let it think.

In other words, you disagree.

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

[The Visitor]

>>Unlock your brain and let it think.
>
>
> In other words, you disagree.
>

No. I am saying you are looking at this with "tunnel vision".

If you want to learn from this group, know when to step back and open
your mind up. That skill will also serve you well in aviation (not that
you will ever need it) and other diciplines also (you must be working
towards something other than a debating degree).

[Mxsmanic]

The Visitor writes:

> No. I am saying you are looking at this with "tunnel vision".

No. Personal attacks are almost always synonyms for disagreement.

> If you want to learn from this group, know when to step back and open
> your mind up.

If you want me to learn from you, then discuss the topic of the
thread, not your personal animosity towards me.

> That skill will also serve you well in aviation (not that
> you will ever need it) and other diciplines also (you must be working
> towards something other than a debating degree).

Good aviators keep a cool head. People who attack anyone with whom
they disagree do not have cool heads.

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

[The Visitor]

It isn't a personal attack. I harbour no animosity towards you.

In fact tunnel vision is a dangerous pilot trait. You are so fixated on
your point you refuse to realize Kev's distinction. Fear of criticism
and interpreting same as a personal attack, is also a bad sign for
somebody flying, well actually anybody really. (I know of some Captains
like that, yes they still exist.)

The fact is this is not in any way a personal attack of any sort. I am
saying you are wrong and missing somebody's point, and >why< you are
wrong and missing somebody's point.

I do not attack anybody. I could have put up with allot. I don't know
about you really but, I expect kids in school to be argumentative,
arrogant and im-mature. They even go through a phase when they think
they are better than their parents. I also expect them to drive silver
Hondas, all jazzed up and cut people off in traffic. It is all part of
the circle of life. I am very patient and discussing, arguing doesn't
bother me. But your accusation, or attempts to put words in my mouth, I
can not endorse by further participation. This can only degrade into a
spiral dive, so to speak. It's tempting to think I can get through to
you, but then I would be looking at this with tunnel vision.

Since you have wrongly claimed I am attacking you, I am compelled, to no
longer read your posts. That was going too far. Some games I won't play.
So we will part company here.

Have a good day.

(kids, scheese!)





Mxsmanic wrote:
> The Visitor writes:
>
>
>>No. I am saying you are looking at this with "tunnel vision".
>
>
> No. Personal attacks are almost always synomyms for disagreement.
>
>
>>If you want to learn from this group, know when to step back and open
>>your mind up.
>
>
> If you want me to learn from you, then discuss the topic of the
> thread, not your personal animosity towards me.
>
>
>>That skill will also serve you well in aviation (not that
>>you will ever need it) and other diciplines also (you must be working
>>towards something other than a debating degree).
>
>
> Good aviators keep a cool head. People who attack anyone with whom
> they disagree do not have cool heads.
>
No kidding!!!!!










========================================
Very good. Your flying along and you have stepped down over the vor and
will step down again at 4 DME out and again at 4.8. ATC said something
that didn't quite sound right to you but you keep droning along intent
on hugging the radial you set in, because you are doing a beautiful job
flying it. You've changed frequencies to the airport unicom now as you
were told to on the descent, as the controllers signal dropped out. Your
friend who came along that day kept asking about something, irritated by
his tone of voice you told him your busy flying the approach right now
and you'll explain it on the ground later.

Hand's up who wants in the back seats right now?
========================================