Single pilot IFR without autopilot

[DCarlton]

2 hours ago, AndreiC said:

What do people do in situations like these? Should I call it a day on IFR flying, like @A64Pilot? That is very limiting... Is it ok to say I have an IFR-lite rating?

My situation is very similar to yours.  I've flown "IFR lite" since the mid-80's to be able to deal with the marine layer along the coast if/when needed.  There was a period when I was flying cross countries frequently and using my IFR rating (but even then with higher minimums on approaches).  I haven't flown enough the last 10 years or so to maintain that same level of proficiency.  So... I fly with another pilot or CFI whenever I can.  Whenever I fly with another pilot I'll fly with the foggles for at least the approach.  I'll get an IFR proficiency check at least once a year usually after my annual and I hand fly the approaches.  When I'm by myself, I almost always use the NAV system and activate the approach just to cycle through the menus even in VFR conditions.  If I do fly an approach in real IFR, it'll likely be a towered airport with an ILS (I don't have WAAS).  If you do find yourself overloaded, you can at least ask for vectors.  I really don't enjoy IFR training in VFR conditions any more; for me it takes the joy away from VFR flight but I do it anyway... just in case.  

[midlifeflyer]

10 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

You don’t think an IFR pilot should be able to deal with an autopilot failure? Better to practice it in VMC than in the soup. If you anticipate it, it isn’t very good practice.

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. 

[IvanP]

Autopilots can fail just as any other piece of equipment. I like the convenience of having A/P available, but prefer to hand fly the approaches. My equipment is not even close to the latest and greatest out there and by being proficient at hand flying approaches I am ready and not dependent on A/P if/when it fails. I did my instrument training and rating in a plane that did not have A/P, so there was no A/P reliance factor involved. After I bought my own plane with A/P in it, I made it a point to split practie approaches evenly between hand flying and A/P to be prepared for either option. Setting up the A/P for coupled approach also requires practice (some systems are less intuitive than others). When flying IFR in busy airspace, it is not a good time for trying to figure out how to set A/P for approach. I mostly use A/P on long cross country flights to avoid fatigue. 

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, IvanP said:

Autopilots can fail just as any other piece of equipment. I like the convenience of having A/P available, but prefer to hand fly the approaches. My equipment is not even close to the latest and greatest out there and by being proficient at hand flying approaches I am ready and not dependent on A/P if/when it fails. I did my instrument training and rating in a plane that did not have A/P, so there was no A/P reliance factor involved. After I bought my own plane with A/P in it, I made it a point to split practie approaches evenly between hand flying and A/P to be prepared for either option. Setting up the A/P for coupled approach also requires practice (some systems are less intuitive than others). When flying IFR in busy airspace, it is not a good time for trying to figure out how to set A/P for approach. I mostly use A/P on long cross country flights to avoid fatigue. 

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. 

[201Mooniac]

5 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

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. 

I agree completely that this can keep you sharp and allow you to train things that aren’t necessarily easy or safe in the plane.  I use a Redbird TD2 BATD about 2-3 hours a month to fly arrivals/departures/approaches all over the country and practice failures of equipment.  The sim is a G1000 and I have a G500TXi and 2 GTNs so the sim is always more mentally challenging as I am not nearly as proficient on the G1000, it requires more time away from the flying which is always a challenge.  I also agree that hand flying it is more difficult that hand flying the real aircraft due to the lack of feedback.  Really a great way to get the extra practice.

[GeeBee]

Both autopilot and hand flying requires proficiency and you should be equally adept at both modes. You cannot monitor the A/P performance if you are not proficient at hand flying and you cannot properly manage A/P modality and engagement if you are not proficient in hand flying. You need to be ready to hand fly when A/P gives undesired states or failure. The biggest failure I used to see in Line checks is sticking with the autopilot too long when undesired state occurs due to poor flight guidance management. If you have a flight director bars, you need to be able to fly through the bars when guidance is in an undesired state until you can clear the bars. That all said, I believe in the Part 135 standard which is a functioning A/P is required for dispatch into IFR conditions single pilot so if it is broke, depart VFR only. If it fails enroute, complete the mission unless you become fatigued. In that case land.

[Mark942]

I did 95% of my IFR training by hand flying. I have an Avidyne IFD550 with Stec 60-2 AP with VS.  My instructor was not familiar enough with the IFD or the Stec to help me figure out the buttonology  so I was taught hand flying and behind the airplane all the time. Got through it but at 70 years old, it seemed harder than I remember doing in a C140 with wing leveler 40 years earlier (never took check ride because of failed GS on VOR and then work).  Fast forward to a more complex plane, a VERY capable GPS navigator and an AP that did strange things (about $6000 in shop time spread over 3 separate shops and a year of frustration) finally got it wired correctly, but at the time I was doing my training it simply added to the confusion.  Now with everything working, I find flying in actual IMC without a hood easier than the old fashioned hood. My bifocals made it hard for me to use foggles.  Now add in the AP and I feel I'm ahead of the airplane. I will sometimes turn it off part way into the final approach course and hand fly just for the fun of it.

Just wish I could find a simulator that had my equipment in it (IFD and Stec).

[midlifeflyer]

7 hours ago, Mark942 said:

I did 95% of my IFR training by hand flying. I have an Avidyne IFD550 with Stec 60-2 AP with VS.  My instructor was not familiar enough with the IFD or the Stec to help me figure out the buttonology  so I was taught hand flying and behind the airplane all the time.

[snip]

.  Now add in the AP and I feel I'm ahead of the airplane. I will sometimes turn it off part way into the final approach course and hand fly just for the fun of it.

 

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

[M20F]

54 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

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

It’s dangerous in front of the plane that is where the chopper/cutter thing is.  It’s safer being behind the airplane. 

[Neshi]

Had this problem this week.

My KFC-150 is dieing after being on for 10 to 15 min. (think is just the computer as in flight director only mode it goes aswell.)

Anyway I've spent this week hand flying.

IFR - Trim and take your hand of the controlls and give the correct amount of rudder pressure to keep the ball happy. (This will help when you get the enavadable reroute.)

VFR - Use the gps for a general direction and just point the airplane to fly between two land marke in that area. (This worked better than relying on the HSI.)

 

For the first approach I felt like I was chasing the airplane around.

That night at home I went into my sim and just pounded it until I was happy with the result.

I'm now flying 1 approach in the sim every morning before work (only wish is that I could log them)

[midlifeflyer]

19 minutes ago, Neshi said:

IFR - Trim and take your hand of the controlls and give the correct amount of rudder pressure to keep the ball happy. (This will help when you get the enavadable reroute.)

"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'"

[Falcon Man]

Along with guarding, I have been instructed to use the least amount of finger pressure on the yoke. The whole hand death grip leads to greater overcorrection.

Another thing to consider is the rigging of the airplane. In still air with hands and feet off the controls does it fly straight and level? If not it needs to be rigged properly. This seems to be a common problem in older Mooney aircraft.

[AndreiC]

As the OP, maybe I should give some background. I got my pilot license 30 years ago, and the instrument ticket 24 years ago. I have about 1500 hours, of which about 100 actual and 100 simulated IFR. My instrument rating was done in a Cherokee 140 with two VORs, one ILS, and nothing else. (Certainly no autopilot. A primitive handheld GPS on the yoke.) When I got my instrument ticket I was very gung ho, flew a lot in that Cherokee including in low instrument conditions, and managed to scare myself badly enough a few times to decide that this is not the way to go. Flying instruments single pilot, in hard IFR, by hand, on a regular basis was just beyond my risk level. So I quit flying instruments completely for about 15 years. 

Three years ago I sold another Cherokee and got the Mooney, and decided to give it a go again in the new environment with a WAAS navigator and an autopilot. I went with a very experienced CFII for about 5 hours of lessons, and at the end he said I did much better than was expected for someone who did not fly instruments in 20 years. He cleared me to fly again IFR. Since then I've used the instrument rating a fair bit (especially on a trip to CA and back, and for 4 months in CA a year ago). As I said, I feel that if the autopilot were to give up the ghost in the soup I'd be able to get the plane down safely, but treating it as an emergency. With job, kids, etc., I cannot find enough time to be at the level where I fly instruments often enough to feel I can do a good enough flying without the autopilot in the soup smoothly. It is just what it is. My question (and several people answered it, thanks) is if flying this way but maintaining the instrument rating is a reasonable thing to do. Seems that the consensus is that IFR-lite is ok, as long as you know your limitations.

[N201MKTurbo]

Flying IFR to minimums doesn’t scare me at all. Flying in wet bumpy rainy clouds can get scarry.

[Mark942]

15 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

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

The topic is flying IFR without an AP.  I just stated that because of technical issues with my AP and complexity of my new IFD 550,  that while Learning to fly IFR by hand I felt behind the airplane.  Lots to do, while maintaining a heading and altitude along with all the other new demands of IFR flight that I originally felt behind the airplane.  That's why we spend so many hours doing the training. We train, and then train some more until we master it.  Then maintain proficiency by practicing more hours than are required by the regs.  I think almost everyone feels Behind the Airplane in their early hours of training ???

[Hank]

12 minutes ago, Mark942 said:

We train, and then train some more until we master it.  Then maintain proficiency by practicing more hours than are required by the regs.  I think almost everyone feels Behind the Airplane in their early hours of training ???

That's generally how it works. Lots of new buttonology to learn, along with the whens and why's and what nexts. And of course, the power settings and responses to learn.

My CFII made me fly with my Brittain autopilot turned off. Then I asked if I could use the heading bug, she said OK, then soon noticed that the plane was turning to follow it. When I confirmed that was happening, it was turned off, too. 

But I did get lots and lots of practice, under goggles and in actual, of pressing and clicking on the G430W. That is still what I have the most difficulty with, making the box do things that I don't do often. But now I have a lovely EFB on my lap, with georeferenced approach plates and airport diagrams, it almost feels like cheating!

[hubcap]

I won’t takeoff on a cross country trip in IMC with a non-functional autopilot. Hand flying 3 hours  in IMC doesn’t seem like a good idea to me. I did my instrument training in a plane without an autopilot, so I learned how to hand fly, and I do hand fly over half my approaches in order to maintain proficiency.

Using technology to make us safer seems like a great idea. Technology becoming a crutch seems like a bad idea. When I was getting an IPC at a MAPA class my instructor told me he didn’t like giving IPCs to Cirrus pilots because as soon as he failed the autopilot the pilots all failed too.

[midlifeflyer]

7 hours ago, Mark942 said:

The topic is flying IFR without an AP.  I just stated that because of technical issues with my AP and complexity of my new IFD 550,  that while Learning to fly IFR by hand I felt behind the airplane.  Lots to do, while maintaining a heading and altitude along with all the other new demands of IFR flight that I originally felt behind the airplane.  That's why we spend so many hours doing the training. We train, and then train some more until we master it.  Then maintain proficiency by practicing more hours than are required by the regs.  I think almost everyone feels Behind the Airplane in their early hours of training ???

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.”

[M20F]

7 hours ago, hubcap said:

instructor told me he didn’t like giving IPCs to Cirrus pilots because as soon as he failed the autopilot the pilots all failed too.

I have over 200hrs in a SR22 and it is without a doubt the hardest plane to hand fly that I have come across.  I doubt I could pass an IPC in one flying by hand.  If the auto trim went for sure I couldn’t. 

[TGreen]

On 5/2/2025 at 7:34 AM, N201MKTurbo said:

An airport neighbor asked me to be his safety pilot for some approaches. He was flying a Rocket. On his third approach he was about to the FAF and I pulled the CB for his autopilot. He totally lost it and had to take off the hood. It took him a while to find the pulled breaker. He would have been dead in real IFR. He got mad as hell and was yelling at me. He said I had no business doing that and he was going to report me to the FAA. I wish he would have, that would be a fun conversation. He told me he would never fly with me again. Which was fine with me, I didn’t think he was safe. 
 

The funny thing is, when he sold his plane, the buyer hired me to ferry it. He had to hand me the keys to his plane.

This is not what I expect a safety pilot to do, no matter how many initials they have after their name.

Separate point: This has been a great thread!

[N201MKTurbo]

46 minutes ago, TGreen said:

This is not what I expect a safety pilot to do, no matter how many initials they have after their name.

Separate point: This has been a great thread!

That’s why I did it. You didn’t expect it.

[TGreen]

55 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

That’s why I did it. You didn’t expect it.

"You"?

[N201MKTurbo]

2 minutes ago, TGreen said:

"You"?

Sorry, the pilot flying.

[IvanP]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

That’s why I did it. You didn’t expect it.

While the training value of the unexpected "failure" of the AP during the practice flight cannot be denied, I believe that safety pilot should not interfere with the aircraft systems without prior consent of the pilot. Your intentions to enhance the training experience of your colleague may have been good, but your actions agruably crossed the line if you have not discussed with the pilot in advance that you would engage in such simulations. 

Unless I am on a training or proficiency check flight with an instructor or examination with DPE, the person in the right seat is a passenger, no matter how experienced they may be and how many rating they may hold. Part of my pre-flight passenger briefing is - "Do not touch any controls or switches unless I tell you to or become incapacitated" and I expect my passengers to follow this to the letter.    

[Utah20Gflyer]

37 minutes ago, IvanP said:

While the training value of the unexpected "failure" of the AP during the practice flight cannot be denied, I believe that safety pilot should not interfere with the aircraft systems without prior consent of the pilot. Your intentions to enhance the training experience of your colleague may have been good, but your actions agruably crossed the line if you have not discussed with the pilot in advance that you would engage in such simulations. 

Unless I am on a training or proficiency check flight with an instructor or examination with DPE, the person in the right seat is a passenger, no matter how experienced they may be and how many rating they may hold. Part of my pre-flight passenger briefing is - "Do not touch any controls or switches unless I tell you to or become incapacitated" and I expect my passengers to follow this to the letter.    

While I agree with the idea that it isn’t the place of a safety pilot to unexpectedly fail systems I would also like to make the point that a safety pilot IS NOT a passenger, they are a required crew member while the other pilot is under the hood and have certain duties that must be performed for the safety of the flight.  
 

It is always a good idea to have a conversation about these duties and what the expectations are before the commencement of the flight.  I would expect everyone involved to confirm to those expectations.   Failure to conform would be a serious issue for me.