midlifeflyer

I think there’s a little “where and how do you expect to fly IFR?” in the answer to your question. Already mentioned is the potential need for an ILS in case of a GPS failure. Same for VOR enroute capability (I don’t put VOR or LOC approaches in the same category since too many of the remaining ones in many areas also require DME.) A third reason to retain VOR capability is, there are some tasks that are simply easier and more efficient with VOR than with GPS. I’ve seen pilots screw up things as simple as intercepting a radial inbound (outbound is more difficult). One would hope that a GPS only pilot will have learned how to do them, but instrument training, with its emphasis on local approach procedures, tends to be deficient in that area. If none of those reasons apply to you, I don’t see a problem with having only GPS IFR navigation capability.

Whew! Thanks for explaining. I’m glad I misunderstood your comment and that it was about stages of training and not, “with an AP I feel I’m not behind, but without one I feel Iam.”

"Letting go" is actually a big deal. It takes advantage of the airplane's inherent stability. I think all of us have a tendency to unconsciously pressure the controls when we do something else (I do a left climb). When we look back, we are off course, off altitude, or both. When I teach this, I talk in terms of "guarding" the controls rather than letting go entirely - keeping your had around the control without touching it. Usual reaction to my suggestion is, "but the airplane will go all over the place." My response, "Not as badly as when you do it." or "But it gained 50'!" "When you held the controls it gained 150'"

I don’t know what you intended, but as a fellow 70+ I find the juxtaposition of those two statement very concerning.

Yikes! True of course, but the idea of pilots who haven't "figured out" something so basic when flying in the system is downright scary.

Of course I do. Absolutely. But you said you were acting as safety pilot. Unless there was an arrangement that you might toss in a curve ball or create a challenge, it simply wasn't your place to do so.

IMO, he was right about that.

Modern Cirrus uses "Perspective." It's their version of a G1000/GFC700 integrated system. I've flown with it and yes, it's extremely reliable.

Don't be reluctant to fly "IFR light." That just mean high personal minimums. But be aware that the ability to hand fly, while absolutely essential, is the smallest part of IFR flying. Understanding procedures and your avionics comprises the bulk of it. There are a number of ways to maintain an acceptable level of proficiency. 1. Watch for those "acceptable IFR" days and get out there. In reality, in many parts of the country, that can be difficult. 2. Some recommend an IPC every 6 months. I have a couple of people who do that with me, to maintain currency, but I am trying to convert them to a non-IPC flight with me every 3-4 months. These, btw, are people who regularly fly in the system, but are faced with the reality mentioned above - they just don't get the weather that allows them to log the approaches, let alone holds. The problem with IPCs is that the minimum requirements can lead to some very unrealistic scenarios. Without having to check off those boxes, we can focus on proficiency more deeply. A regular flying buddy to act as a safety pilot. The catch here is that you need to create challenging scenarios. Flying the same approach you know like the back of your hand over and over again will do wonders for currency but zero for proficiency. Simulation. It doesn't have to be more than a BATD for currency purposes. Like the flying buddy, you have to be creative in what you do, but it does allow you to toss a virtual dart at a virtual map and pick somehing you are completely unfamiliar with. My own personal sessions have specific goals. It might be to fly something very unfamiliar (even a ODP that doesn't count for currency) or it might be to focus on hand-flying. Simulation is great for hand-flying. Especially with a static BATD, there's no biofeedback from the controls and the controls themselves tend to be a bit squirrely. That's actually a good thing since it makes it so easy to lose control if you are not paying attention.

There are definitely those who believe that unless you are hand-flying as a proficiency exercise, the autopilot should always be engaged when not contrary to limitations. That's not a Cirrus-only thing. Gary Reeves who specializes in avionics has been preaching this for several years. I agree with you - if in the real world, the AP is not doing what you expect hand fly. The only problem is, with modern systems, if something on the approach is not exactly as you expect, the chances are the error is yours. Sometimes, the pilot expectation is incorrect. Other times, the pilot has failed to set things up properly; Still other times, the pilot has failed to monitor progress and fails to notice the flight plan sequencing isn't where it should be. The system simply not doing what the pilot told it to do happens but is pretty rare in comparison. That's the reason I require a coupled ILS on an IPC. I have seen too many pilots screw a simple approach up.

Agree about the need to hand fly periodically to maintain proficiency. The other is to treat the autopilot as an idiot and do the same anticipation mantras as when hand flying. Training is a separate issue. You really need both and while some DPEs will allow it's use most of the time, others will limit it. From an ACS standpoint, at least one of the nonprecision approach must be done without the AP. When I give an IPC, I do a mix. 3D approach is typically a fully-coupled ILS and missed. One 2D approach without either primary flight instruments or autopilot. One 2D approach pilot's choice unless I see an issue with one of the other two.

My NAFI membership is the only reason I get it. I’ve been seriously thinking about telling them not to waste the postage, but I’ve been curious about whether they will incorporate old IFR and Air Safety articles, like they did last year with one of my old ones.

My best clients are those who come to me complaining that they are concerned they have become too autopilot dependent. When I fly with them, these are the top three things I see, in order if their prevalence and seriousness 1. Loss of anticipation. The basic, “what’s next laterally and vertically?” that slows things down and keeps us ahead. I wrote about that this past year in IFR Magazine. It’s not only #1 on my list. It is so far above the others it could arguably be the only one on my list. . 2. Poor division of attention. Autopilots get us used to not having to look at the instruments. We can take our time looking up frequencies, loading approaches, copying instructions. This includes a wide area from the way most of us tend to pressure the controls when we do something else (that’s your 20° off) to not following a “3 second rule” (when doing something else, check the instruments at least every 3 seconds) to fixation to failing to prioritize 3. Scan breakdown. Loss of basic attitude instrument flying. It’s last and way behind the other two because (a) it’s the fastest to come back and (b) it’s usually caused by 1 or 2. I can’t count the number of times I see a CDI needle moving left and a “rusty” hand flyer turn away from it rather than toward it. But I think that’s more about poor division of attention and the rushed feeling we get when we don’t anticipate adequately than not knowing how to interpret instruments,

Makes sense…so long as it comports with requirements.

I’ve seen the same thing. I pull breakers during complex transition training too. Don’t be shocked. People get fixated and distracted.

Despite a start that had me (and the judge) laughing, Ken did pretty well in his law practice. OTOH, I’m the one who’s been accused of doing stand-up in courtrooms, so maybe the lesson stuck.

Fortunately, since I use a checklist I haven't been placed in a situation where I had to be rescued by one because I didn't use it and then decided to. I'm not sure what you are asking about but it reminds me of something non-aviation that happened ages ago. I was still in law school and my friend Ken got a student prosecutor position with the local DA's office. He was going to have his first trial that day, so I came to watch. The case was about a kid sniffing airplane model glue (aha! an aviation connection!) from a paper bag, a popular albeit stupid pastime of the era. Anyway, the police never secured the bag in a sealed enclosure so, by the time of the trial, the evidence was gone. Undeterred, in response to the defense motion to dismiss, Ken valiantly argued, "Airplane glue smell dissipates with time, so the fact that it's not there now means it was airplane glue."

Could be. But I think it's more likely that the term "teardrop" just puts a picture of a teardrop into some people's brains. So that's what they do. Fly away from the runway just enough to get back to it quicky after a descending turn when we are really being asked to fly about 2 miles from the downwind leg as it exists at the time . If we could find a another shorthand, it might help.

That's probably exactly why they added "not to scale." No one (including you?) was reading (quoting from your picture) "fly clear of traffic pattern (approx. 2 mi.). Descend to pattern altitude, then turn." But that's the way it's been described in print as far back as I can recall, not as a descending teardrop turn onto the Cessna below you.

That's probably the reason for the term "teardrop" instead of "crossing midfield at [altitude] to return on a 45." The problem I have with the term is the number of pilots who treat is as a teardrop. They say "words mean somehing," but the way we phrase things often leads of mirroring behavior. I notice, for example, that @201er's teardrop depiction actually looks like a teardrop and is the way I see pilots do it all the time. But that is not what the FAA recommends for that entry. Here's the FAA's graphic for comparison. I think there's quite a bit of difference between: (1) flying "clear of the pattern" - 2 miles beyond the patten which may be wider and possibly higher than normal that day (i.e, at least 3+ miles past the runway), then descending to pattern altitude (which will put you another 0.5 to 1 mile away from traffic in the pattern, then turning around for what is basically a 45° entry 3-4 miles from the airport; and (2) a descending teardrop turn into a pattern that has pilots in 152s doing 737 downwinds.

Paranoia is definitely one of mine. So's a consistent point in time when I deploy it (habits are hard to break), although IFR and VFR and different. But one is actually a bit counterintuitive. I fly a number of different airplanes. Some fixed gear, some retract but, what they have in common is different target landing speeds. As a result, I pretty much always have to use the before landing checklist as a pre-landing briefing. That acts as a big reminder and is the trigger for the later multiple flow/memory confirmations.

Paranoia can be a pretty effective mitigation strategy.

Just a little of that FAA "invulnerability" hazardous attitude mixed in? There's really no guarantee about this, just ways to mitigate the risk. All most of us do is choose the methods we think will do the job for us. I can guarantee one thing: no one who ever landed unintentional gear up thought they would.

Don't forget the twin and Part 135 guys, including even with a crew of two. Out of curiosity, I went to the NTSB accident database and input Part 135 flights landing accidents with the word "gear" in the narrative. I wasn't sure what I would find because many gear-ups are not reported and others are going to involve mechanical failures or other factors (the second hit was a pilot who hit an Elk). But by sheer coincidence, of the 138 hits I got, the third one involved a 15,000 hour scheduled air taxi pilot landing a Baron gear up simply because he forgot to put it down. Obviously one of those junior old farts who rarely flies

I couldn’t answer the first question since whether I do a crosswind to downwind at pattern altitude vs cross the airport above the pattern and return on a 45 (I will not say “teardrop”) depends on traffic flow. As Mr Miyagi might say, “there is no typically.” On the other, I fly approved procedures which pretty much cover everything other than violating the regs, so that was an easy one.