PilotEdge Forums

I've been reading through the V-2 instructions and watching the video and was wondering if I should use the autopilot to get to Paradise VOR and then to do the heading 360, just to take some work load off of me. I'm very familiar with the autopilot from flying off-line for a long time, so it would indeed simplify things for me instead of adding stress.

I'm on the fence if I should fly the entire flight manually do make it more "pure", or to use the technology that my plane has (The C172 in X-Plane after all has autopilot)? Is there a right way to do this, or is it just a personal preference? Or is there even a rule in the real world that the use of autopilot is prohibited for VFR rating tests?

Just trying to keep it real!

I've flown V1 to I8 on manual control. In simple aircraft it's completely possible. I personally did not attempt the ratings until I was quite confident in what I was doing there. On the other hand I didn't seen any informations not to use AP in those ratings.

I have recently posted similar doubts regarding I9- viewtopic.php?f=26&t=2397 . It regards complex jet airliner, but nevertheless you may look at some opinions there.

Thank you, I saw your post. Starting with I-1 onwards, I will definitely use the autopilot where I see fit, because it's all about procedure and using the instruments. I'm just not sure about the V ratings, as they are on one hand about basic flying, but on the other hand for V-2 and V-3 I'd think that the autopilot makes sense. But again, I'm not sure and I'd like see if it's a definite no-no to use the autopilot during V ratings ......

The ratings are more focused on ensuring you're aware of airspace, communications and procedures. We can't and don't attempt to enforce stick & rudder technique. There is no 'right' answer on this one...it really depends on your goals.

If you're trying to simulate a typical VFR flight in a typical GA aircraft, the a/p probably wouldn't be used, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong to do here. Real world planes are considerably easier to fly and trim in real life than they are in the sim unless you have $500 flight controls for your sim, so don't feel bad about engaging the a/p for any reason.

On one of the Sporty's DVDs, I heard Richard Collins (an 18,000+ hour pilot) say something about a pilot should use every resource available to him/her. In his purview, he does not consider a pilot with stick-and-rudder mastery as being superior to the pilot that lives in a glass cockpit encrusted with avionics. He also stated further that any pilot who refuses to use all available technology is not a very wise pilot. But, he cautioned not to become "too" dependent on any one technology since "that" technology could fail. His bottom line was a pilot should do everything he/she can to ensure a safe flight.

That's a very interesting statement. And it makes perfect sense. In the RC world (I fly RC planes and helicopters), the competition pilots use every mix that their transmitter has to offer to take workload off of people, and traditional pilots say it's cheating to use those methods. Seems like it's the same in the real flying world!

Based on this (and Keith's response) I'll choose for myself to simply mix it up during practice for V-2 and V-3 (V-1 I'll definitely do manually; but don't think I haven't at least thought about using heading hold mode!!! ), but during the tests I'll definitely use the autopilot for V-2 and V-3, simply because it seems to make sense to do so.

Thanks for the responses!

Once out of the "high risk" envelope of flight, I will generally use autopilot as much as possible. Anything that will reduce my workload and let me concentrate on navigation and safe operation of the ship is good by me!

Since the sim is more difficult to control than a real aircraft, I tend to use autopilot even more. My rw aircraft is a Cherokee 180C with single-axis autopilot (heading bug). I'm not shy utilizing 2-axis autopilots in my sim flights.

My goal with simming is mostly to work on procedures, for a bunch less money than the real thing.

I've got to concur with others here, and especially with the idea that trimming up a simulated aircraft is much more difficult than trimming a real airplane for level flight. I don't hesitate to use the AP for altitude and heading holds. I find it substantially reduces the cockpit workload and lets me concentrate on making sure I know where I am and what I'm going to do next.

One of the fascinations for me is cross-checking all of the fancy nav equipment against each other. The GPS says I should be here, which means I should also see this VOR radial centered at X DME, and there should be a sports complex just off my right wing -- and when all of that lines up I get a deep sense of satisfaction.

Which may also indicate that I should get a real life....

Mark Hargrove wrote:...
Which may also indicate that I should get a real life....

Nope, just a real airplane.

Mark, don't stop cross-checking (although it is less critical with an IFR-approved GPS, I suppose). Many is the time I thought I've been in good shape with DME, only to find the cross-radial not agreeing. Sometimes it's a result of having the wrong radial, other times it's a result of misreading the required DME figure, or having made an incorrect calculation.

Richard Collins has it right, with the caveat that technology shouldn't replace a pilot's ability to fly the airplane. Note, many airlines are making changes to their training/currency programs to ensure the pilots still remember how to fly the airplane.

Here's a practical case...take a pilot who is comfortable and proficient with hand flying single pilot IFR, versus one who, when all is said and done, really isn't able to balance the workload of SPIFR, working with ATC, briefing approaches, etc. As long as the autopilot and glass screens are available, the distinction is moot. It becomes a lot less moot when something fails (and GA autopilots are notorious...just see how many are placarded as inop), though, and you're back to hand flying with 'raw data'. Now we've gone from a seemingly academic distinction between the two pilots to one pilot living and the other one spiraling to their death. I don't think that's a sensational representation, either.

So, if an experienced pilot is using all resources available to him/her, that's smart. If a pilot is using the automation as a crutch (whether they know it or not), it's a problem. In the case of student pilots, heavy use of automation denies them the ability to hone those stick & rudder skills, as well as the ability to fly raw data. Check out this "Children of the Magenta Line" youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3kREPMzMLk (admittedly, I haven't watch it in full yet myself, but I keep hearing about it, and the name really does say it all).

In short, if you're using the automation for the right reasons, fantastic...that IS smart. It's a slippery slope, though, and the less experienced a pilot is prior to using the automation, it can be a case of "they don't know what they don't yet know." This is why in the 2nd workshop video, I rule out the use of GPS for the flight. It's not that I have anything against GPS, I love it. I just don't love how it's replacing certain skills which are critical to safe flight.

Note: all of this applies, btw, to real world pilots only. There is no "critical to safe flight" aspect for a sim-only pilot (I hate to make the distinction so bluntly, but I want to be realistic, and to remove the burden of training from sim-only pilots who aren't trying to build ALL of the real world flying skills). So, if you're sim only, and you'e positive it's going to remain that way for life, then don't feel obliged to be a hand-flying, raw-data compatible pilot unless you're motivated to do so.