2 pilot/small airplane CRM

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

Mike
MU-2


"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Mitty wrote:

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

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


Matt

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael

Michael wrote:

"Mike Rapoport" wrote

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


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

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


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

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


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

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



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

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


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

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


Matt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael

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

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

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

Thanks for your perspective.

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

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

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

Mike
MU-2



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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael

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

Mitty,

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

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

Aviation-Articles-Travelogues-Exercise in Crew Coordination

Safe flying,

-Doug

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

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

snip

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

Aviation-Articles-Travelogues-Exercise in Crew Coordination

Safe flying,

-Doug


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

Geo.

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

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

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

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

Dave