This isn?t intended to start a debate, so much as it is designed to seed a discussion - there are no ?right? or ?wrong? answers, so I?d like to hear how things work for various individuals, but don?t try to beat your opinion into anyone else - OK? This is all very dependent on how your own brain works?.
I made an interesting observation the other day while shooting some currency approaches under the hood in the Valkyrie using the Highway in the Sky on my GRT EFIS. The HITS display uses the ILS data to provide guidance down the localizer and glideslope, and all you have to do is steer the Velocity Vector (also known as a Flight Path Indicator) through the boxes to arrive at the end of the runway. I hand flew four approaches, including procedure turns, and at one point I decided to try one with the autopilot engaged - and after a little while, decided to go back to hand-flying because I actually found it EASIER that way!
The ?problem? (if you want to call it that) with the coupled approach - and please remember that I do not have a vertical guidance autopilot, so I have to fly pitch anyway - is that I spend more mental time and energy remembering which buttons to push on the Garmin, A/P, and EFIS than I do simple flying the airplane by hand. The nature of waypoint sequencing and the like that are required in the IFR GPS adds a level of complexity that, if you do it every day is not a problem - but if you don?t use the capability often, requires a lot of memory jogging. And I am not flying IFR every day - more likely, only a few times a year (for real).
It used to be that the most challenging part of instrument flying for most people was creating and maintaining a mental image of where they were relative to the airport, terrain, and a Nav stations. Today, with moving maps showing you exactly where you are, and magenta lines showing where you want to be, this is essentially trivial. Shooting a successful approach means keeping the airplane on the line, and following the appropriate altitude restrictions (or glideslope) to the runway, DH, or missed approach point.
The bottom line (for me) is that it just takes less mental energy to fly the thing to the guidance than it does to watch the machine fly it, figure out if I have to help it (by sequencing or ?Hold?ing for the full procedure), and remember what buttons do what. (Plus staying alert for the ?what?s it doing now?? situation?.)
Now don?t get me wrong - I am still a total proponent of autopilots for enroute use, for being vectored around busy airspace, and for lowering pilot workload under most conditions. It just seems that once I am established on the approach, my full attention is on the approach, and it seems easier to just stay focused on it by being on the controls. One of the major reasons that we always have Space Shuttle commanders take over flying the vehicle from Mach 1 down to landing is that it is easier to ?take over? up high and stay ?in the loop? from there to touchdown that it is to take over suddenly at low altitude if the A/P starts doing something that we don?t like. I think the same sort of applies for me in my everyday flying.
As I said - a bit of an interesting observation (for me). Just curious how others find it works for them.
Paul
I made an interesting observation the other day while shooting some currency approaches under the hood in the Valkyrie using the Highway in the Sky on my GRT EFIS. The HITS display uses the ILS data to provide guidance down the localizer and glideslope, and all you have to do is steer the Velocity Vector (also known as a Flight Path Indicator) through the boxes to arrive at the end of the runway. I hand flew four approaches, including procedure turns, and at one point I decided to try one with the autopilot engaged - and after a little while, decided to go back to hand-flying because I actually found it EASIER that way!
The ?problem? (if you want to call it that) with the coupled approach - and please remember that I do not have a vertical guidance autopilot, so I have to fly pitch anyway - is that I spend more mental time and energy remembering which buttons to push on the Garmin, A/P, and EFIS than I do simple flying the airplane by hand. The nature of waypoint sequencing and the like that are required in the IFR GPS adds a level of complexity that, if you do it every day is not a problem - but if you don?t use the capability often, requires a lot of memory jogging. And I am not flying IFR every day - more likely, only a few times a year (for real).
It used to be that the most challenging part of instrument flying for most people was creating and maintaining a mental image of where they were relative to the airport, terrain, and a Nav stations. Today, with moving maps showing you exactly where you are, and magenta lines showing where you want to be, this is essentially trivial. Shooting a successful approach means keeping the airplane on the line, and following the appropriate altitude restrictions (or glideslope) to the runway, DH, or missed approach point.
The bottom line (for me) is that it just takes less mental energy to fly the thing to the guidance than it does to watch the machine fly it, figure out if I have to help it (by sequencing or ?Hold?ing for the full procedure), and remember what buttons do what. (Plus staying alert for the ?what?s it doing now?? situation?.)
Now don?t get me wrong - I am still a total proponent of autopilots for enroute use, for being vectored around busy airspace, and for lowering pilot workload under most conditions. It just seems that once I am established on the approach, my full attention is on the approach, and it seems easier to just stay focused on it by being on the controls. One of the major reasons that we always have Space Shuttle commanders take over flying the vehicle from Mach 1 down to landing is that it is easier to ?take over? up high and stay ?in the loop? from there to touchdown that it is to take over suddenly at low altitude if the A/P starts doing something that we don?t like. I think the same sort of applies for me in my everyday flying.
As I said - a bit of an interesting observation (for me). Just curious how others find it works for them.
Paul