Approaches - Hand-flying versus Coupled

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

Ironflight said:

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).

Click to expand...

UGH, no kidding! This is why I've been more interested in FMS-like systems, rather than the G430/530 units, which are awfully complex. It's sad that the 480 got killed off, since it was a bit more intuitive, but that was inevitable since it wasn't invented at Garmin and competed against the home-grown G430/530. The SL30/40 have survived since Garmin has had no home-grown equivalent.

TODR

More in the loop

I have to agree with Paul about this. When I was airline flying we used to fly coupled approaches to minimums and then have to take over at DH or let the plane autoland. Most of us didn't like to stand in the door after an autoland so we landed manually. Then with the advent of CAT II and III and better autopilots more autolands were accomplished with much better results. Still, it was easier to get in the loop outside the marker than at 200 feet. Unless I was legally required to autoland I chose not to. It was my choice and I felt more comfortable with it.
Then with the introductions of HUD's we actually had the option of hand flying down to CAT III minimums and landing manually. Lot's of fun and super accurate. The HUD could make you look really good.
All the above is predicated on the premise that the FMS was programed for the approach and you didn't really have to fool with it once the procedure was began. Also, that you were mentally and physically prepared for the task. Autolands and coupled approaches were the best thing since sliced bread after a 15 hour day in nasty weather.

For the great majority of approaches the weather isn't at minimums and you end up breaking out early and even then, transitioning from the gauges to out the window takes a second or two. I still like the hand flown approach for the majority of the time.
None of this means that I think you shouldn't use the autopilot to alleviate high workload situations. It is another invaluable tool in your box.

It is alot like sitting right seat while someone else is flying the approach. Your constantly doublechecking what they are doing to ensure your OK with it.

I think this is just like everything else, your better at what you practice the most.

For some, hand flying an approach would be much worse because they are so dependant on the AP.

I told myself the day I earned my Instrument ticket that I would always maintain my currency by hand flying the required approaches and never get to comfy following an AP around.

That being said, I definately want all I can get for my buck when I finally pick out my avionics and AP. I just love the AP integration features that AFS, GRT, MGL and Dynon are promissing. I know GRT has been doing it for some time but everyone knows that their interface sometimes requires too many button pushes to get what you want so I expect they will polish this up in short order.

The interface and the features available on the AP/Efis/430 combination will also play a part in how easy it is to use. Having a two axis non vertical capable AP without GPS steering is bound to be a different experience than one with full vertical and horizontal capabilities, GPS steering and all the vertical modes like alt preselect, vs select, airspeed hold, etc.

Either

This is an interesting topic. In the last few months I have been practicing approaches both way, manual and coupled. The GNS480 coupled with the GRT and Digitrak II VSGV, flying a coupled approach is a no brainer with excellent accuracy. My personal issue is that I fly a lot of different planes and none of them have the coupling/glass/autopilot/etc. capabilities of my RV. This is why I have been flying them both ways. My excitement comes from setting up everything to fly the approach coupled then monitor and make power adjustments on the way down. Probably everyone needs to asses their personal comfort levels and fly approaches as they feel most comfortable. So far I have only flown one actual IFR approach and it was an ILS. I decided to do that one coupled and broke out well above DH. Rode the AP down to DH then disengaged. My trip home from S&F was IFR in the clouds most of the way home at altitude but both landings were in full VMC so I went in visually canceling IFR a ways out to keep from hogging the approach for larger aircraft but the entire enroute was flown coupled and it was fun.

No option for me

I do use the pictorial Pilot to maintain track when I am flying an approach and I activate Altrak to hold altitude on nonprecision approaches. I am definitly in the loop and I use the autopilot crutches to maintain state while I do the other work. But a coupled approach is not an option for me. Before I installed the Pictorial Pilot and Altrak it every approach was a wild and wooley affair that worked me to the bone. It is much better now.

Bob Axsom

Stay with the autopilot on approachs

I flew a 421-C for 17 years and never had the autopilot burp on an approach.
Also did recurrent training every year at Flight Safety or SimCom. At both places all approaches were hand flown with no flight director engaged, only using an HSI. Just recently they have gone to using the flight director and autopilot. You should hand fly as many practice approaches as you can to keep sharp. But when it is 200' and 1/2 mile in the real world I'm going to be monitoring the autopilot performance while coming in on the ILS.

Larry

Interesting!

I appreciate the comments so far! Probably should add that for simple straight-in, or vectored to straight in approaches, I do like to let the autopilot fly the Nav course, coupled to the GPS - that's pretty simple. Of course, like Bob, all I have is an Altrak for pitch, so I fly the step down, and then engage the hold to make sure I don't drop through the floor or the MDA.

So really, my observations were mostly centered on a full ILS and a HITS - flying the HITS is completely different than flying needles - much simpler for me, but I've heard that others don't really like it. Probably depends on the individual. My point was that for me, it was less stressful to just fly the thing than to manage the software - which is, of course a relatively new thing in the cockpit (at least for those of us who started flying IFR with vacuum pumps, DG's, and discrete radios.....).

And Larry, I agree with you on the 200 and a half - although I train like that by hand, it is nice to let the A/P fly it for real. But....if it is 200 and a half, and I'm in the RV, I am generally going to use my superb range capability to go somewhere else....

As one who has just resumed my instrument training in an antique airplane (RV finished almost 7 years ago), complete with - hold on - vacuum pumps and spinning thingys called gyros, this thread is of interest. However, said antique panel includes a fully coupled A/P (i.e., follows vertical guidance), which does an amazing job of flying an ILS or WAAS precision approach. I will train for precision approaches hand flying, obviously, as will be the case for ongoing currency. However, the airplane will be flying itself as I monitor those approaches in actual. We consider an A/P a necessary item for single pilot ifr operations in an RV.

As to specifically the questions raised in this thread, it would be interesting to flow chart exactly the steps - knob turning, button pushing, decision making, etc. that goes on between a classic old system like mine and something like Paul is flying behind. Obviously, there are numerous ways each can be done, but it might be interesting. Both with and without hand flying.

What I do

Since words are free on this forum I'll share my evolution of thought on this.

I got my IFR in 1990. Neither of my 90s airplanes had autopilots. The Mooney had a wing leveler, but I disabled it. My was philosophy back then was that I was a pilot not a passenger - or - real men don't need autopilots. I flew weekly for business purposes in all kinds of weather.

I dropped out of flying at the beginning of 1996, but picked it up again in the beginning of 2005.

This was a Rumpelstiltskin sort of experience. Everything had changed. Virtually all the rentals had GPS & autopilot of some sort. I resisted using both and stuck to what I knew which was ground based navigation and hand flying.

But along with the technological changes, my perception was that ATC had an increased expectation of what an IFR pilot was capable of managing in terms of route changes and other ATC induced workload. Also, I was older and frankly less able to keep multiple balls in the air.

On a night IFR flight from KSMX to KTOA with continuous moderate turbulence, over the mountains, struggling to keep the airplane on course and right side up while finding the intersections on chart related to the umpteenth clearance revision I finally looked at the autopilot and said: "how does that *%$#&%^! thing work?"

I got it working. That was early 2005 and I've been considering an autopilot as virtually mandatory equipment for IFR flight ever since. To my surprise, this resulted in only a minimal loss to manhood

Approaches?

One instructor in 2006 virtually forced me to do a coupled ILS in my Mooney. I didn't like turning over control at low altitude, but Auto flew it better than I ever could. I was also able to do things that I find quite difficult hand flying, like reducing power, reducing speed, and putting in flaps, all while saying locked on the glide slope. That allowed me to pull the hood up at the MAP actually 100% ready to land.

While I have never coupled an approach in actual IFR, when I owned the Mooney it was nice knowing I had a backup in case for whatever reason I might find it difficult to fly an ILS down to minimums.

Anyway, my current airplane has autopilot, but cannot do coupled approaches. I use the autopilot almost constantly in cruise and have grown very comfortable "managing" rather than hand flying.

I wish I had coupled approach capability, but at this point probably would not use it in actual conditions unless I was in a jam. The reason is that its hard to get IFR practice and I feel I need whatever hand flying of approaches I can get. If I got a lot of IFR I would probably mix it up.

Safety and Practice.

I thought I would throw my $.02. I am still building but fly for the airlines and we are taught to use the level of automation appropriate to the situation. With that said the autopilot is a great source for load shedding the work when things get busy. I would say in the airlines the autopilot stays on until nearing the final approach then most guys kick it off and hand fly. However if the weather is cruddy then it stays on until you break out or auto-land if that is required. Auto-land are rare once or twice a year and most of the time that is for the plane or pilot currencies not true CAT III weather.

An auto pilot frees up brain cells so you can more effectively do other things, listen to the radio, read a chart, look for traffic if not Popeye. You will be amazed at what you don't miss if you are not hand flying. But you must practice.

You don't want to let autopilot engagement procedure, especially for an approach get rusty. Last time you want to be cursing at your autopilot and wondering how to get it coupled is in real weather. Every autopilot will have some idiosyncrasies so you want to use it enough that you learn what these things are and how to compensate for them. New guys and even old guys will all come to the time when "What is it doing" comes out of their mouth, in most cases the cure is to kick off the automation and go back to hand flying. I like a philosophy I like to call :mode agility", you should know what various modes of your automation do and how they can help your situation. Me personally when my RV is done I will fly instrument approaches fairly often and use the various modes so that I am comfortable with them all. Autopilot use on a cross country is a given, I would also use it going into strange or busy airfields no matter what the weather. I live in the NW so to me an AP is a must, there are many days that just about a 2k deck is clear skies for flying.

Automation has progressed to a high degree, the joke in the airline world is the crew will consist of a pilot and a dog, the pilot is there to takeoff and engage the autopilot and the dog is there to bite the pilots hand if he touches anything after that.

Fly safe and remember mode agility, and automation appropriate to the situation.

I agree with RVG8tor completely, but I want to through something else into the mix. I fly for the airlines also and we are taught to use the highest level of automation appropriate for the weather situation.

On a four day trip with multiple legs pilot fatigue sets in quickly, so automation is used for load shedding the pilots. On the other hand automation can increase a pilots load and distract him/her from flying the aircraft. So with these thoughts this is how I fly on the line.

IMC approaches are always autopilot flown and coupled untill I hear myself say "whats it doing now". Reason being an IMC approach will almost always be vectored with appropriate time for the automation to be set up according to the approach being flown.

On the other hand I always hand fly VMC approaches. This reduces the workload of the pilots trying to set up the autopilot for an approach that most likely is vectored in to tight for a coupled autopilot to react appropriately. So with this configuration both pilots are able to monitor the aircraft and the approach path by looking outside, and thus reduced workload, even though the aircraft is being hand flown.

I use these techniques in the general aviation world as well and it works great. You have the safety of automation when it's appropriate and the added benefit of being a pilot when you need to. What you have to do is find what works for YOU. This works for me, but it may not for the next guy. Hope this helps, fly safe!!!

I think in general I would agree with Paul and what most everyone is saying here when it comes to ILS's, but I would almost 100% disagree when it comes to WAAS/LPV approaches. Fly a coupled WAAS/LPV approach and you'll be a convert. The WAAS approaches make the ILS's look like non-precision, wallowing sloppy manuevers compared to an LPV. As most know a coupled ILS approach usuall gets worse with the AP in the last bit of the approach whereas the WAAS remains accurate down to the ground (or thereabouts).

Anyway, fly both and you'll be in for a treat when coupling an AP for a WAAS approach. I'm an advocate of good two axis AP's for approaches in IMC. Take a look at the NTSB report and the flight track/plot for the last RV-10 that recently crashed in weather - it's a sobering read because it's obvious that the last 10 minutes of that flight had to be sheer and utter terror in the cockpit....pushing the button on the AP may very well have saved 2 lives. I realize I may seem like I'm speculating and to some extent I am but I HATE reading these types of reports over and over again. The etire accident reports along with the end results are often errily all too familiar....and often avoidable. It's not the first RV to come out of the clouds in an unusual attitidue causing a tradgedy and it won't be the last!

I'll stop with my rant! My point is that there are VERY few people flying around in RV's that are current in IMC conditions that do it enough and repeatedly to the point where it's a good idea. I hope Doug Rozendaal will chime in here, because I think he probably has more actual IFR approaches in RV's and rockets than about everybody else I know of.

My personal opinion is a coupled approach is just that - coupled in both axis. If not, then it's not a coupled approach. If one isn't current and proficient in both the RV and in IMC, along with the combination of the two I don't think we have any business shooting hand flown approaches in the clag without either currency or proficiency. Barreling off into the scuz without either using your automation of having a high level of proficiency in specific type is poor judgement to me.

Most of my friends as well as myself also come from the heavy iron...and all other heavy iron drivers here should know what I'm talking about - comapring approaches in a something like a whale or three holer verses an RV is dubious at best. The list of dissimilarities (equipment, crew, environment, training, etc..) is far to long to type in a single response. I'm not harping on Paul because he's no doubt many times over more proficient than me so my post doesn't specifically apply to him or Rozie (or any of you like that), but it does specifically apply to people like me who have no business playing around in the crud with my current level of skill, equipment, and proficiency.

Just my 2 cents as usual.

Cheers,
Stein

I'm with Bob

Bob Axsom said:

I do use the pictorial Pilot to maintain track when I am flying an approach and I activate Altrak to hold altitude on nonprecision approaches. I am definitly in the loop and I use the autopilot crutches to maintain state while I do the other work. But a coupled approach is not an option for me. Before I installed the Pictorial Pilot and Altrak it every approach was a wild and wooley affair that worked me to the bone. It is much better now.

Bob Axsom

Click to expand...

Coupled A/Ps are a big attraction but the Pictorial pilot and the Altrak are a great halfway point that keeps both my head in the game and provides me the stress relief I need in real life approaches.

practice approaches at my home field I do by hand...

Real approaches elesewhere I never couple the PP to the 430W...i guess I'm just a little nervous in "losing control" to the A/P, so I'm comfortable in having the the PP flying the heading thats dialled in...It really good at ajusting for varying cross wind, but allows me to hand fly the glide slope.

Frank

Single engine/singlepilot IFR just doesn't sound like "recreation" to me...coupled or not. JMO as another airline guy preaching about general aviation

Autopilot manipulation proficiency (NOT currency) can be a very difficult thing to establish on a recreational basis. Basic IFR currency is not enough--IMO--to remain proficient...even to hand fly. And I mean proficient to the point that you would put your life, and that of your spouse/child in the other seat, on the line and fly an approach to 200 & 1/2.

I agree with Paul's second post...go somewhere else (or don't go, period)

Joe

Fly what you know

At work (C-130s) it seams that most trust the autopilot for cruise and that's about it. I would say the majority of us don't engage the autopilot until cruise altitude and cruise airspeed then disengage it on descent prior to the approach.

It's hard for people to trust a system that has failed even in straight and level flight so shooting coupled approaches almost never happens. In fact I flew my second coupled approach in 2000 hours this year, the other pilot was showing me how he like the autopilot so we were playing with it. Wx was VMC but with about 20kts of crosswind component. The autopilot flew a less then stable approach (fighting the winds) but stayed within one dot. Now I am not used to taking over at 200' so it was a bit of a change for me, but I would have to say that it was not the smoothest approach and even less of a smooth transition to land.

If the system is capable and the pilot is proficient I think a coupled approach could be a great tool, but for me I love flying the banana bars down and cross checking the raw data from the GS/CDI. This keeps my hands warmed up for anything unexpected and doesn't require me to take over prior to landing as we don't have an autoland feature.

Now I will be installing a 2 axis autopilot in the RV-7 and I will see if the technology has improved from what I am used to =) But I will not be using it in Wx until I am very comfortable with how to use the system.

One last note, if you do find yourself having to shoot an approach down to minimums, that is not the time to try something different.

KC

Fly the highest level of automation that is appropriate

Well, another .02 from yet another airline guy.....

I think RVG8tor said it best a few posts ago. Mode agility. Said another way, use the highest level of automation that is appropriate.

The key to all this is "what is appropriate." It is difficult to attain and maintain proficiency in all the switchology required to set up the GPS, ILS, and the autopilot. If you can master it and keep proficient, great. In that case, use the AP at the highest level of automation that seems appropriate. For an airline guy, that may very well mean a coupled approach right down to minimums even in an RV.

But if proficiency suffers, the highest appropriate level may be something less. Iron, you are thinking right when you choose to use your AP to the level where you feel comfortable.

Everybody seems to agree that the AP is a great workload reliever and I believe that is its greatest feature. So back to RVG8tor's post..... mode agility is exactly right. Use the AP right up until you feel like it's not the right idea, for whatever reason. (And oh yeah, that comment about using the excellent range capability to divert is probably the BEST idea!!)

Fly safe.

Rich Wilson
RV-8 "Katie Sue"

Legal verses Safe - "On Top"

jferraro16 said:

Single engine/singlepilot IFR just doesn't sound like "recreation" to me...coupled or not. JMO as another airline guy preaching about general aviation

Autopilot manipulation proficiency (NOT currency) can be a very difficult thing to establish on a recreational basis. Basic IFR currency is not enough--IMO--to remain proficient...even to hand fly. And I mean proficient to the point that you would put your life, and that of your spouse/child in the other seat, on the line and fly an approach to 200 & 1/2.

I agree with Paul's second post...go somewhere else (or don't go, period)

Joe

Click to expand...

Using the old currency standard of 6 approaches + 6 hours in 6 months it was very difficult for this GA pilot to stay legally current flying actual weather. It ended up being a lot more than 6 approaches, but very hard to actually get 6 hours. If I did get it, I was definitely proficient.

With the present currency standard, I agree it is not enough to stay proficient - at least for me. I try to get in enough approaches, holds, etc, to stay legal, but I use my "On Top" IFR simulator to stay proficient. It boring, but has great payback.

With the simulator I fly approaches, holds, air work such as ascending & descending turns, very unusual attitudes with my wife devious help. Though I've never rolled a real airplane, with On Top I've found I can do aileron rolls in IFR loosing very little altitude. Also, I can fly the simulator when sick or fatigued to push my physiological boundaries. Basically I use the software to make myself as "crash prof" as possible.

In fact, my simulator flying determines what if any actual IFR flying I'll do in the airplane. If I don't have the recent experience or good performance to tackle a flight, I don't go. Conversely, good sim flying gives me the confidence to tackle some flights that I might otherwise reject.

When I get in the airplane to fly some IFR I find that my real flying is better than my simulator flying and having already flown the approaches at home makes me much more relaxed in the cockpit.

jferraro16 said:

Autopilot manipulation proficiency (NOT currency) can be a very difficult thing to establish on a recreational basis. Basic IFR currency is not enough--IMO--to remain proficient...even to hand fly. And I mean proficient to the point that you would put your life, and that of your spouse/child in the other seat, on the line and fly an approach to 200 & 1/2.

Click to expand...

This is the conclusion I was forced to reach. Over the course of a few years I upgraded the panel in my RV-6 with the intention of regaining IFR currency.

But...I had to face the reality that I simply wasn't flying enough to maintain the level of proficiency necessary for me to justify flying a loved one into weather. To maintain that level of currency would require a substantial outlay of cash, time, and stress.

So....N399SB will fly the remainder of its days in my stewardship as a happy VFR aircraft. I still thoroughly enjoy the EFIS and autopilot, but am never forced to rely on them under duress.

I'll second what Stein said - read his post above it hits the nail on the head.

The thrill of flying IMC wore off years ago for me. Its serious business. We can play around with all kinds of electronic nav systems and I'm sure they're fully capable of flying the RV, fully coupled, on an approach. But that only addresses one link in the long chain required to do this successfully over the long haul.

The airline line dogs here fly roughly 70-85 hard hours per month, and see alot of approaches flown in every kind of weather, day and night. As a regular line pilot myself, I'd like to think that I'm pretty sharp too, but experience tells me that I will make some kind of mistake requiring a correction on a regular basis. After a long flight, at least 90% of us will fly a coupled approach in IMC (int'l fleets). And more than half will do the same in VMC. The transition from autoflight to hand flown is a non event.

Mind you, this is in some pretty good equipment (B777), and there's at least two of us there to monitor what's happening. In my case, the cards are very well stacked in favor of a successful outcome to the trip: heavy jet, full autoflight system, big-time system redundancy, multiple engines, another professional sitting next to you... etc. How is your deck stacked?

For me, I don't plan to shoot approaches in the RV. Not that it can't be done.... but I've decided that the RV is going to be used for recreation only.

On topic Please....

OK folks, lots of really good comments all through this thread, but let's not let it drift off into the "You're crazy to be flying IFR in your RV!!" world.

While that is a perfectly valid point of view for many, I'd ask you to start your own thread (that is really easy to do - just click "New Thread" and type away!)

I think there is still a lot of room for comments on this topic....

Paul

Sorry Paul I'm sitting here in the hotel with my mind numbed from four consecutive oceanic crossings 2 pacific, 2 atlantic (with 2 more atl to go)

But seriously, only thing I will add is if you have a good autopilot that can fly a coupled approach I would certainly use it. If you can't couple it up, can't depend on it, or can't practically use it, then I'd hand fly.

Practice like Paul did on VMC days to really hone your skills. And don't forget even if you can fly the ship coupled up, you still need to keep your manual flying sharp too. Flying IFR is all about risk management, and we all want to make smart decisions doing it. I just can't seem to take those "risk assessment" thoughts out of my head...

Bill

Coupled Approach

7A with GRT Sport EFIS and TruTrak ADI 11, cannot couple to the localizer but find that setting the ILS inbound track (GPS) on the A/P and then adjusting a few degrees as required keeps me on loc and leaves more time for hand flying glideslope. Question - what speeds are you 6/7/8 drivers using coming down the glideslope??

100Knots...

......seems to work well and is close to the flap down speed when they're needed and slow enough to not come screaming down to DH.

My .02c

I've had ATC ask for max speed!

I really hoped they were kidding so I would it up to 140kts and they didn't ask for any more thankfully..

Frank

Speeeeeed....

When I am testing the avionics, I have been known to fly the ILS at cruise speed - not trying to land out of it, just want to make sue everything is working. Interestingly enough, the RV feels just great on the "approach" at those speeds.....there was one time during Phase 1 when I was flying fast on the ILS at KBPT (with their permission), shaking out avionics bigs....and approach had to ask me to slow down for a T-38 that was also in the pattern.....

back on topic, I wanted to add a comment on the hand-fly versus coupled. Probably one of the reasons that the workload appears higher for me in my airplane is that the Tru trak Pictorial pilot doesn't turn at standard rate - more like half-standard. that mean that it tracks courses (including a final approach course) real well, but if you are maneuvering, such as in a procedure turn, you pretty much have to disengage, fly the turn, then re-engage. that's a couple more button pushes.

So really, for vector-to-final approaches where you can leave the A/P engaged, letting the airplane fly itself is lower workload. But if you have to add additional button-pushing to fly the full procedure, well in my airplane, the display features of the GRT make it easier for me to just keep my hand in. With a higher-rate autopilot capable of nailing the maneuvers - it could easily be a different story!

Paul