single pilot ifr trip tonight

(Snowbird) writes:

I agree entirely that a handheld GPS in the flightbag is an excellent
safety investment

Well, just to clarify my views: a handheld GPS in the flightbag
is next to useless. It has to be set up, turn on, and acquired
at the beginning of the flight to have practical value if things
go south.

I can see how that would be helpful, but I'm not sure I would be that
strident about it. Again, the most important thing in IMC is to keep
the plane right-side up; the second most important thing is to
maintain altitude and airspeed. Unfortunately, the GPS does not help
at all with any of those -- in fact, it does not come into play until
everything else is calm (or at least stabilized), and you decide it's
time to start heading for an airport.

I fly around with two GPS on and acquired in the cockpit, and
I've never "tuned" one yet . I have selected a navaid or
airport -- is that what you mean?

Exactly. If ATC says (for example), "ABC proceed direct XYZ VOR," and
you don't have a panel-mounted IFR GPS, you have to tune, identify,
and twist for XYZ on the nav radio regardless. If you are using a
handheld GPS, then you *also* have to fiddle with the buttons to set
XYZ as the next waypoint. That's a higher workload, not a lower one
It may well be worthwhile (for the situational awareness benefits you
mentioned), but you cannot argue that it makes the cockpit less busy;
on the contrary, it's one more thing to do. I tend to use my handheld
GPS when things are calm -- when I'm busy, I don't have spare time to
mess with it, and I just stick to the VOR, ADF, and DME. If I had a
panel-mounted IFR GPS, again, things would be different, since it
could be my primary navigation device.

The point is: A moving map GPS is a significant aid to situational
awareness whether the GPS has anything selected, or not. It will
always tell you where you are relative to nearby airports and
navaids.

My stationary paper map tells me the same thing with a much bigger
display higher resolution, but I agree that moving maps are neat, and
I'd love to have a big one on my panel.

So it doesn't have to increase workload one iota.

Remember, I mentioned a handheld originally -- that cannot be your
primary means of navigation, so it's always an *extra* thing to tune.
It has a higher cost in workload, though it's fair to argue that for
you (and many other pilots) it also has a higher benefit in
situational awareness. You have to balance the two off against each
other.

However, given a choice between flying a VOR or NDB approach
or flying a stand-alone GPS approach in actual, I want the latter
every time.

I don't think I'd disagree with this point. A VOR or NDB approach
with the navaid on the field is fairly accurate near the end (where it
counts), but when the navaid is off the field, the GPS approach should
always be better. I've never flown a GPS T approach (since I don't
have an IFR GPS), but it looks like it would be nice and easy at the
end of a long flight.

My thing with simple wing-leveler autopilots is I'm not sure how
well ours (anyway) would work in really nasty conditions. The sort
of conditions most likely to induce spatial disorientation. Not
dissing it as a safety item at all, just saying I see it more as a
workload-reducer.

The STEC-20 is supposed to be good at handling turbulence. That's
what I'd like to install some day.


All the best,


David

(Snowbird) writes:

Sydney (it's not true that all small GA planes are stable enough to
fly hands-off level long enough to "mess with" a chart or plate or
anything else)

Fair enough, but in that case, it's not stable enough to look away
anyway when you're hand flying. My point was that if you're not
looking at the attitude instruments, there's no point messing with the
yoke.

You're right, I do fly a Piper.


All the best,


David

"David Megginson" wrote:
Again, the most important thing in IMC is to keep
the plane right-side up; the second most important thing is to
maintain altitude and airspeed. Unfortunately, the GPS does
not help at all with any of those

Hmmm, actually, I believe mine does help with those, since I use it to
cross-check the HI.

I tend to use my handheld
GPS when things are calm -- when I'm busy, I don't have spare
time to mess with it, and I just stick to the VOR, ADF, and DME.
If I had a panel-mounted IFR GPS, again, things would be different,
since it could be my primary navigation device.

I tend to use mine when things are really jumping. Although I have an
approach certified GPS, I always set up route changes in the yoke
mounted portable GPS first. It's easier to program and is better
situated for maintaining my scan while I'm pushing buttons. Once I get
the new route put in the portable, I will fly off it and set up the
other nav gear at my leisure.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

David Megginson wrote in
:

Peter R. writes:

Interesting you mention this point. I am in the process
of watching a few of the Richard Collins Sporty's aviation
DVDs. In the IFR Tips and Techniques DVD, he offers a PoV
that suggest a pilot hand flying in IMC does not
necessarily have the big picture view that a pilot who
uses an AP might.

I haven't heard that before. Is it because hand flying
doesn't leave you as much time to look at charts, etc., and
interpret secondary information?

I have to agree with him. I've done it both ways, and not
having to devote full time to keeping the plane straight and
level gives you more time to look at everything else, not just
the basic T. Even better is 2 pilots and an autopilot. I
normally fly in a 2-pilot crew, without autopilot, & I far
prefer to let the FO fly while I keep track of everything else,
especially approaches and the transition to the approach. The
PICMA concept is something I believe in.

--
Regards,

Stan

Peter writes:

You're right, I do fly a Piper.

NOT a PA38 presumably

No, delta -10.


All the best,


David

If you don't have an autopilot, definitely hand fly it. Problem comes
when you DO have an autopilot. If you have the autopilot fly it, it is
safer and more precise, but if you have the autopilot fly it, then you
don't know if you can do it if the autopilot fails. What I do is use
the autopilot for enroute and handfly the climbouts, arrivals and
approaches. I have used the autopilot for approaches, but I fly so few
in actual, I need all the practice I can get.

It also depends on how good your autopilot is. Mine can outfly me in
smooth air and at cruise speed. I can outfly it in turbulence, and
flying slowly.

David Megginson wrote in message ...
(Snowbird) writes:
Sydney (it's not true that all small GA planes are stable enough to
fly hands-off level long enough to "mess with" a chart or plate or
anything else)

Fair enough, but in that case, it's not stable enough to look away
anyway when you're hand flying.

Sure it is. One just learns to look away in small chunks.
Very small chunks.

And not write down anything which doesn't need to be written
down.

But truthfully, single-pilot IFR would be very difficult
without an autopilot for those times when one has to fold a
chart or copy the clearance for a major rerouting.

What brought me out of the woodwork was what I took to be your
point that simply going "hands off the yoke" is in any way a
substitute for an autopilot.

IMO, that just isn't true. It may be true for some planes
some of the time, but even a Piper will meet conditions
where 5 seconds of hands-off will mean a rapidly steeping
bank.

Cheers,
Sydney

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
David Megginson ) wrote:

Peter R. writes:

Interesting you mention this point. I am in the process of watching
a few of the Richard Collins Sporty's aviation DVDs. In the IFR
Tips and Techniques DVD, he offers a PoV that suggest a pilot hand
flying in IMC does not necessarily have the big picture view that a
pilot who uses an AP might.

I haven't heard that before. Is it because hand flying doesn't leave
you as much time to look at charts, etc., and interpret secondary
information?

I believe that is what he was alluding to, although he did not expand on
the point other than a few general sentences. IIRC, he stating that
allowing the AP to fly frees up the more of the pilot's brain cycles to
monitor engine instruments, charts, GPS, weather, as well as completely
prepare for the upcoming approach.


www.s-tec.com/pdf/AutoPilotBook.pdf

The above is "advertising", but it still makes several good, cogent points.

(Snowbird) writes:

But truthfully, single-pilot IFR would be very difficult
without an autopilot for those times when one has to fold a
chart or copy the clearance for a major rerouting.

Understood. I know that I'm spoiled flying a PA-28 -- I just flew
from Toronto to Ottawa this morning in solid IMC and intermittent
turbulence, and the plane was quite happy to let me fold charts, look
up approaches, etc. etc. On the other hand, I give up a fair bit of
speed to get that stability (my top speed is only around 125 ktas from
160 hp).

What brought me out of the woodwork was what I took to be your
point that simply going "hands off the yoke" is in any way a
substitute for an autopilot.

I suggested that hands off the yoke is a solution for the specific
problem of involuntarily moving the yoke when you look away from the
panel.

IMO, that just isn't true. It may be true for some planes some of
the time, but even a Piper will meet conditions where 5 seconds of
hands-off will mean a rapidly steeping bank.

Even in my Cherokee, I won't look away *or* let go of the yoke for 5
seconds in IMC, except maybe in extremely smooth air. Typically, the
longest I'll look away is 1-2 seconds, and less in rough air (maybe
1/2 second).


All the best,


David

(Snowbird) writes:
Well, just to clarify my views: a handheld GPS in the flightbag
is next to useless. It has to be set up, turn on, and acquired
at the beginning of the flight to have practical value if things
go south.

Hmm, I think my computer ate my first attempt at replying to
this, so I'll try again.

Can you expand on this position? I keep a GPS in my flightbag
with the thought that if I had a total electrical failure in
IMC that I could climb/circle/continue on course as appropriate
using the vacuum instruments during the five minutes it would
take to have the GPS out and knowing its position.

While I can imagine that this would not be adequate in some
circumstances (such as mountainous terrain) it seems good enough
for most of the flying I do in the northeast.

Is there something I'm missing that you feel would be a major
hazard while getting the GPS out should I ever find myself in this
situation?

--
David Rind