AUTOPILOTS, Garmin, STEC, King, etc.

[Fly Boomer]

21 hours ago, DCarlton said:

Is the KAP still fairly serviceable?  Plenty of life left in those?  I see quite a few aircraft listed with those installed.  
 

I would add to a comment from @Pinecone above that, based on the slew of questions and comments here on MooneySpace and on BeechTalk, aside from the occasional glitch caused by 50-year-old electronics, the KFC and KAP-150 seem more robust than the GFC-500.  I know the Garmin has more features, and I know that Garmin stands behind it to some extent, but it feels like a huge percentage of new GFC-500 installs result in a variety of problems.  Mooney put in thousands of the BK autopilots at the factory, and they have been pretty reliable over the years.

[Pinecone]

I don't know that the GFC-500 is that problematic.  You always hear about the problems, not the happy owners.  The only ongoing thing I have heard of is the pitch oscillations in some planes.

There are a few quirks running my KAP-150 system.  Not quirks, but things to know.  Due to the analog digital thing, you don't use the NAV function on the autopilot, you use the GPSS on the Aspen.  That way the GTN/Aspen supplies headings to fly to the AP and it works like an all digital setup.  It does things like turn early for fly past waypoints and better intercept and tracking of the course.

My KAS-297B is intermittent in leveling off at the selected altitude.  It will only do a capture from a VS climb.  It will not capture from a pitch attitude climb (or descent).  This may be fixable, but I can live with it for another 7 months when it goes in for a GFC-500 (plus other things). 

[T. Peterson]

14 hours ago, Andy95W said:

@Vance Harral - Please read the last sentence of my previous post.  I specifically said, “Spending money on training is far more effective than adding avionics- and part of that training should be the effective and proper use of automation.”

As a CFI-I myself, I have always agreed with your point- training is more beneficial than technology.  In the airplane I fly at work, we use the autopilot and we are well trained in the automation.  Unless it was inop (unlikely), the Ovation had an extremely capable autopilot already installed in it.  Owners of such aircraft should be as proficient in its use as they are with hand flying.  My point remains that airplanes are crashing due to spatial disorientation even though they have capable autopilots already installed in them.

Proficiency provides the calmness required to correctly use the equipment. Using an autopilot in actual IMC is a great contributor to safety, but as Andy also points out is no substitute for proficiency. Once terror or panic sets in all bets are off. 
Both of you are making valid assertions, and neither of you is actually contradictory to the other.

I think instrument scan is vital and unfortunately perishable if not constantly practiced. Make your eyeballs move. Scan, scan scan. Do it as a matter of course on every flight. You don’t need a hood or a safety pilot to make your eyeballs move!

[kerry]

My pathfinder works great when selecting the wing leveler option. I always remind my wife to push the wing leveler button if I ever pass out.  

[midlifeflyer]

14 hours ago, T. Peterson said:

I think instrument scan is vital and unfortunately perishable if not constantly practiced. Make your eyeballs move. Scan, scan scan. Do it as a matter of course on every flight. You don’t need a hood or a safety pilot to make your eyeballs move!

It's not a huge sample, but I get opportunities to fly with pilots who have become autopilot-dependent. Appears during IPCs of course, but to their credit, pilots  have come to me with that self-assessment and recurrent training goal. At first, I expected to see a "perished" scan. But that wasn't the case. It happens but more often the scan itself  had no or minimal loss and loss came back within seconds. 

The big loss, the thing most perishable, turned out to be anticipation, the purely mental "what's next?" exercise required to stay ahead of the airplane. There's definitely a relationship but to the extent there were scan issues, they seemed mostly the result of the rush to catch up after falling behind by not thinking ahead. 

 

[skykrawler]

When I do practice approaches I hand fly the course intercept and inbound tracking/descent.

When I fly VFR local I almost always perform an instrument approach using the autopilot (KAP-150) to maintain the skill to be ahead of the autopilot and recognize that everything is happening when it should - in case it doesn't.   The KAP-150 has ample authority to tolerate turbulence and still track a loc/lpv and GS.  The KAP-140 doesn't seem to do as well.  Some STECs don't do well at all.

[T. Peterson]

58 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

It's not a huge sample, but I get opportunities to fly with pilots who have become autopilot-dependent. Appears during IPCs of course, but to their credit, pilots  have come to me with that self-assessment and recurrent training goal. At first, I expected to see a "perished" scan. But that wasn't the case. It happens but more often the scan itself  had no or minimal loss and loss came back within seconds. 

The big loss, the thing most perishable, turned out to be anticipation, the purely mental "what's next?" exercise required to stay ahead of the airplane. There's definitely a relationship but to the extent there were scan issues, they seemed mostly the result of the rush to catch up after falling behind by not thinking ahead. 

 

Excellent point. I will do some thinking about that. I think you have put your finger on the pulse.

[Pinecone]

Scan is one place the new ADI/glass panels are helpful.  All the info is right there.  

But I do find that the tape altitude takes more time to read and process than the needle.

[Ragsf15e]

3 hours ago, skykrawler said:

When I do practice approaches I hand fly the course intercept and inbound tracking/descent.

When I fly VFR local I almost always perform an instrument approach using the autopilot (KAP-150) to maintain the skill to be ahead of the autopilot and recognize that everything is happening when it should - in case it doesn't.   The KAP-150 has ample authority to tolerate turbulence and still track a loc/lpv and GS.  The KAP-140 doesn't seem to do as well.  Some STECs don't do well at all.

Many stec APs are rate based (using the turn rate) instead of attitude based.  I feel like there’s a lag of correction for turbulence in my stec and then when it corrects, it’s a little jarring.  I wonder if it’s just because of the different input.

A bonus for turn rate APs though is that it works without the ADI and without vacuum.  When I had a vac adi, step one of a vac failure was engaging the autopilot if it wasn’t already as I started working on my partial panel scan.

[midlifeflyer]

20 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Scan is one place the new ADI/glass panels are helpful.  All the info is right there.  

But I do find that the tape altitude takes more time to read and process than the needle.

It does, and the ability to process numbers alone comes slowly for many. That's why bugging altitude is important. You get something to fly up and down to instead of a bunch of numbers. 

[PT20J]

On 6/13/2023 at 7:49 PM, hubcap said:

I do not. I assume the limits would be published.

According to the AFMS, the GFC 500 has engagement limits of 50 deg nose up, 50 deg nose down, and 75 deg roll. 

[Pinecone]

13 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

It does, and the ability to process numbers alone comes slowly for many. That's why bugging altitude is important. You get something to fly up and down to instead of a bunch of numbers. 

But the ALT and AS bugs are not that prominent.

But there were several human factors studies that show that analog instruments are much quicker to determine if things are basically OK.  Even better, if you turn the gauges so that in normal operation, all the needles are the same orientation (IIRC straight up or down was best).

[donkaye]

On 6/15/2023 at 3:46 AM, midlifeflyer said:

ESP can be turned off without pulling the CB. Holding the AP disconnect button temporarily disables it. If you have G5s, better solution -  it can be turned off through the menus (there are probably other Garmin PFDs that have that function, but I don't know for sure).

 

The latest system update to the G5 says ESP can be disabled (not temporarily disabled) by holding the A/P disconnect button for 5 seconds.

 

[midlifeflyer]

11 hours ago, Pinecone said:

But the ALT and AS bugs are not that prominent.

But there were several human factors studies that show that analog instruments are much quicker to determine if things are basically OK.  Even better, if you turn the gauges so that in normal operation, all the needles are the same orientation (IIRC straight up or down was best).

There's also a training familiarity issue. Once used to it, it becomes easier, almost as natural as analog. One of the things I do with glass transitions is cover the analogs.

[midlifeflyer]

4 hours ago, donkaye said:

 

The latest system update to the G5 says ESP can be disabled (not temporarily disabled) by holding the A/P disconnect button for 5 seconds.

 

Thanks, Don. I try to keep up, but it's usually when someone calls me for training and I ask for their software version.

[Pinecone]

2 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

There's also a training familiarity issue. Once used to it, it becomes easier, almost as natural as analog. One of the things I do with glass transitions is cover the analogs.

Yes, it gets better, but I still feel that the analog for altitude is easier to fly.

And I flew tapes for number of years in the HUD, so used to them.

[donkaye]

Time to weigh in.  I can't believe it's been 10 years since I did my avionics upgrade.  I further upgraded as new products came out.  There is probably a reason the accident statistics don't show a relationship between glass and legacy instruments.  Approximately 80% of accidents are pilot related and most of those come from poor aeronautical decision making.  Whether a pilot has glass or legacy, a poor decision is a poor decision.  It is surprising that with such good weather products on board and such good preflight information available today that so many of the accidents are weather related.

I admit to really being spoiled with all the advanced equipment I have in the plane, especially the GFC 500.  I repeat, especially the GFC 500.  Gone are the days of "dive and drive" on a NP approach.  Most LNAV approaches have +V now and even the traditional VOR approaches at many airport have +V attached to them.  Knowing what to look for, I can brief an approach that I have never flown quickly, and run it to perfection with VNAV and GP.  And on the missed approach having the ability to set up another approach to a different airport while still flying the original missed is not something that was available a few years ago.  If you read the documentation before getting pro-training from an instructor who knows your systems backwards and forward, and then practice using it until it becomes second nature, then in my opinion the new glass makes for a safer and more comfortable flying experience.

There are a couple of areas where I think the legacy instruments makes it easier.  For example, for the Commercial Rating lazy eights and chandelles are easier with the round dials.  But ATP smoothness and anticipation comprehension that these ratings lead towards comes with experience, and that experience can be gained with glass over time.

I've been flying a lot of years and glass has made it possible to accomplish a lot more things in a given amount of time while flying, provides a greater picture of my surroundings for situational awareness, and makes possible better and faster appropriate decision making than ever could have been achieved with legacy instruments. 
 

[Steve Dawson]

On 6/14/2023 at 9:49 PM, Andy95W said:

Strongly disagree.  Used correctly, it’s a huge safety tool.  There’s a 73 year old Ovation owner that just crashed and died today after departing in low IFR conditions.  Don’t you think he’d likely still be alive if he’d used his autopilot?  Or looking back 20 years, that the same could be said about JFK Jr.?

The rest of your post was spot-on IMO.  Spending money on training is far more effective than adding avionics- and part of that training should be the effective and proper use of automation.

 

With all due respect, you have no idea what the cause of this accident was even if you were the investigating officer. That will take time with professionals investigating this. There's many scenarios so have some respect for the families involved. 

[midlifeflyer]

5 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Yes, it gets better, but I still feel that the analog for altitude is easier to fly.

And I flew tapes for number of years in the HUD, so used to them.

I think it mostly depends on us. Do you have a reference to any of the studies? Curious to know how the test groups were determined. Would be interesting to read. 

[Pinecone]

18 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

I think it mostly depends on us. Do you have a reference to any of the studies? Curious to know how the test groups were determined. Would be interesting to read. 

Not off hand.  It was a number of years ago.  But the basis is, to read a digital readout out, you have to see the number, interpret the number and then decide if it is an issue or now.  With an analog gauge, you just need to see the needle position to know that things are OK.

 

[0TreeLemur]

On 6/19/2023 at 9:11 AM, Pinecone said:

Not off hand.  It was a number of years ago.  But the basis is, to read a digital readout out, you have to see the number, interpret the number and then decide if it is an issue or now.  With an analog gauge, you just need to see the needle position to know that things are OK.

 

I've got both.  I've taken over several times from George when it has either disconnected due to turbulence, or failed to capture the vertical descent path (typ. due to operator error learning a new system or a slam dunk).  I look at the steam gauges to get the quickest sight picture, especially the VSI and altimeter.   The glass attitude indicator is easier to read than the vacuum one though.

[Utah20Gflyer]

The autopilot safety discussion reminds me of when people say they are moving to a twin for the safety of a second engine.  Unfortunately that second engine kills a lot of people.  Technology kills a lot of people too.  Each pilot gets to choose via their decisions whether these features are going to be an asset or a liability.

[McMooney]

On 6/17/2023 at 7:04 PM, Pinecone said:

But the ALT and AS bugs are not that prominent.

But there were several human factors studies that show that analog instruments are much quicker to determine if things are basically OK.  Even better, if you turn the gauges so that in normal operation, all the needles are the same orientation (IIRC straight up or down was best).

I've noticed ever since getting the g5's something about having the numbers  seems to cause me to fly more exact.   It's not actually reading of the numbers, my brain seems to just better respond to the movement of the display rather than the analog instruments.  I'm a computer guy so that probably has something to do with it.

[201Steve]

5 hours ago, McMooney said:

I've noticed ever since getting the g5's something about having the numbers  seems to cause me to fly more exact. 

100%. It’s not a “that looks close to 80” it’s a 78. Or whatever. 

[GeeBee]

Every system has its strengths and weaknesses. I was recently flying with an instructor at a MPPP under the hood when he pulled my AHRS C/B. So I looked over at my standby and flew the airplane for a minute. Then I reached over and engaged my S-Tec 55x in heading and alt hold mode. Try that with your GFC

With regard to that " little blue button" everyone raves about. If you find yourself in an unusual attitude due to AI failure such as gyro or AHRS failure (which is the most common mode in IMC), unless you have a switchable attitude source that little blue button is worthless.

Basic attitude instrument flying skills. Accept no substitute.