|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

05-16-2019, 02:48 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 6,797
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dugaru
I agree. And I don't think this is limited to RVs.
|
My first and only RV10 instrument student: On our long x/c I had him hand-fly the first 2/3, including an ILS with ceiling 200? (vis underneath was >1). He did fine. On the last leg I let him use the autopilot, and he remarked how less stressful it was. OTOH, on his check ride, he failed the coupled approach task, when the autopilot flew thru the final approach course. The very next day we repeated the same approach, and were unable to duplicate the failure. We could only conclude that he pushed or didn?t push the right button at the right time. So autopilots are great, but they do add complexity. And the PIC should certainly be capable of flying in IMC without it.
|

05-16-2019, 02:56 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 6,797
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbRVator
Have any of you actually flown an ILS approach on the portable Navcom radios?
Just wondering....
|
I have the original Sporty?s handheld, which offered digital bearings to-from a VOR, only. No needles, no ILS. I did a few VOR approaches under the hood, using just the portable, and it wasn?t too hard. I think it helps if you?ve done some NDB approaches - same sort of visualization (only easier) required.
|

05-16-2019, 05:49 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,285
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobTurner
My first and only RV10 instrument student: On our long x/c I had him hand-fly the first 2/3, including an ILS with ceiling 200’ (vis underneath was >1). He did fine....And the PIC should certainly be capable of flying in IMC without it.
|
I'm a CFI Inst Multi, 1600 dual given. I don't actively teach now, but I agree a pilot should be able to hand fly without an autopilot in IMC. However dual instruction isn't really single pilot IFR. You're not going to let him screw up, where if he is solo, nobody to back them up. I flew part 135 in a light twin single pilot, the workload could be very high. I recall the OP Spec required a working autopilot.
I don't know how the rv10 flies, but I'm guessing it's a little more stable than the 2 plc birds. RV's are a delight VFR or IFR, they do what you want with light balanced controls. There is no real issue flying IMC with an RV. My point is they are clean. You inadvertently get too high bank or nose low pitch it will go Vne quickly.
Autopilot is the copilot. It allows you to do management, planning, communication, without also having to keep your scan up and control the aircraft. Even on autopilot you should keep your scan, but having hand off stick reduces the physical and mental workload verses hand flying. I have seen many students reach over to switch the frequency on the radio, and put the aircraft in a bank, due to momentary loss of scan and reaching with one hand with their other hand still on the yoke. There are techniques I taught to avoid that. However flying is your number one job and you only have a little extra bandwidth to do other tasks, which you have to divide up. Autopilot is a super nice thing to have to reduce workload, which does increase safety. My first flying job was in the metroliner, two pilots but no autopilot.
Agree you need to be proficient in autopilot use and monitor it's doing what you want. You can't just push a button and look away. You need to verify the mode it is in. The larger more sophisticated planes have a FMA or flight mode annunciation. That was your go-to scan item to make sure you were in the proper autopilot mode. Didn't matter what button you punched or what you thought it was doing the FMA was what it was really doing.
__________________
George
Raleigh, NC Area
RV-4, RV-7, ATP, CFII, MEI, 737/757/767
2020 Dues Paid
Last edited by gmcjetpilot : 05-16-2019 at 06:02 AM.
|

05-16-2019, 06:17 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dallas/Ft Worth, TX
Posts: 5,687
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmcjetpilot
Autopilot is the copilot. It allows you to do management, planning, communication, without also having to keep your scan up and control the aircraft. Even on autopilot you should keep your scan, but having hand off stick reduces the physical and mental workload verses hand flying. I have seen many students reach over to switch the frequency on the radio, and put the aircraft in a bank, due to momentary loss of scan and reaching with one hand with their other hand still on the yoke. There are techniques I taught to avoid that. However flying is your number one job and you only have a little extra bandwidth to do other tasks, which you have to divide up. Autopilot is a super nice thing to have to reduce workload, which does increase safety. My first flying job was in the metroliner, two pilots but no autopilot.
|
Agree with the above 100%, no way would I depart IFR without the AP. When things get busy, hand flying in actual can be very challenging.
__________________
Walt Aronow, DFW, TX (52F)
EXP Aircraft Services LLC
Specializing in RV Condition Inspections, Maintenance, Avionics Upgrades
Dynamic Prop Balancing, Pitot-Static Altmeter/Transponder Certification
FAA Certified Repair Station, AP/IA/FCC GROL, EAA Technical Counselor
Authorized Garmin G3X Dealer/Installer
RV7A built 2004, 1700+ hrs, New Titan IO-370, Bendix Mags
Website: ExpAircraft.com, Email: walt@expaircraft.com, Cell: 972-746-5154
|

06-02-2019, 10:22 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Brentwood, CA
Posts: 659
|
|
I remember watching a VCR tape by Richard Collins a few years back...ok, maybe it was couple decades...anyway, he said something that really stuck with me: “never fly into IMC as a single pilot”. He went on to explain that meant either have a working AP to help fly the airplane, or a pilot in the right seat doing the same. I have and continue to operate by this motto.
So, I agree completely as well that I would not take off into IMC without a working autopilot if I’m by myself or don’t have another proficient pilot in the right seat. However, that’s not the same as just flying IFR, which I do nearly every flight when I fly cross country regardless of weather conditions.
I’ve been doing GPS approaches for many years and my Garmin Pilot logbook shows 2128 of them. The last RAIM failure I had was in 2006 on approach in to Offutt AFB with a King 94 GPS unit freshly installed in our AeroClub Baron. Since then, aside from testing in progress, I’ve never had a GPS failure - the system is extremely reliable with a statistically much higher up time than either a VOR or ILS system - significantly higher, as in 6 sigma high, 99.999999 uptime. This goes along with Bob’s comment earlier about GPS failure during testing. It happens. However, all testing is NOTAM’d, so be informed before you fly. And if you’re doing an GPS approach in actual instrument conditions, the magic words to stop or inhibit testing caused failures are “STOP BUZZER”. Simply tell ATC this and they are required to immediately cease testing. I’ve done it and it is effective; I did end up going around and re-performing the approach, but it worked out fine.
I would not go buy and install a NAV unit just because of the “what if the GPS constellation failed?” line of thinking. You only need 3 satellites to navigate laterally and 5 satellites to do WAAS navigation (which includes an LPV approach). The next time you’re at your GPS, take note of how many active satellites are in the sky and available to your unit...something around 12-15 generally. Now consider how many of those would have to fail to limit your approach.
The decision really comes down to your mission. For my little RV12, I have a GTN 625, which is essentially the same thing as the new GNX 375, minus the cool transponder stuff. And I’ve flown almost 200 approaches with this so far sans a NAV radio without issue.
I’ll add that I don’t have a second COM either. My thought is that everything required by 91.205 is a starting point for what is essential, and then pare it down to only what is needed for “aviate, navigate and communicate” (which isn’t much); after that, if my radio failed, I’d just squawk 7600 and go land somewhere using that minimum 60 minutes of fuel reserved just for this purpose. It gets down to what is essential, and your definition of essential; mine is to be able to find somewhere to land safely. So Aviate, Navigate and then communicate.
My opinion is that a GNX 375 would be a fine single IFR navigation device for your RV. Just be aware of it’s limitations and risks and then plan accordingly.
__________________
Ron Gawer
- RV10, Build in progress.
- RV12, N975G, "The Commuter"...many great hours and happy landings so far.
- Several others that are now just great memories for me.
Last edited by rongawer : 06-03-2019 at 03:03 PM.
|

06-05-2019, 12:37 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Evanston, IL
Posts: 124
|
|
My RV-7 is VFR only for now but I hope to add an IFR GPS in the future just so I can file if I need to deal with some clouds. I don't plan to do a lot of hard core IFR flying. For that reason I won't be installing a full Nav/ILS radio setup.
To gmcjetpilots point, think about how much IFR flying you might actually do. How often do you plan flying in weather where you'll be shooting approaches to minimums with no clear weather alternate? Let that guide your decision.
Totally agree on the AP. During my training I hand flew everything but would seriously hesitate to do much instrument flying other than climb thru a thin layer without one, especially in an RV.
__________________
Matt K.
RV-7 Tip-up - Flying!
XP Superior IO-360 w/cold air sump, Catto 3 blade prop
Garmin G3X
CFI, CFII, MEI
|
| Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:18 AM.
|