Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By Chilli Monster
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#154165
Non-handling pilot monitors the approach with head out most of the time, handling has head 'in'. Non-handling calls 'visual' when sufficient cues are established, allowing handling pilot to look up and transition to visual cues.
User avatar
By Pilot H
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#154171
The answer for me depends on the equipment too -

My recent experience is

Cessna 400 series, 30 years old, prone to occasional pitch divergence in level flight for no apparent reason, usually OK.

- OK for level flight at altitude but needs to be watched like a hawk


Malibu Mirage - year 2000 with S-Tec 55X, including yaw damper, altitude preselect, and about as sophisticated as one would find in a light aircraft.

- Flies the glideslope perfectly, and I have confidence in using it - but pre flight checks include ensuring that it is possible to overpower the servos in the event of a runaway - the circuit breakers are to hand, and the auto-trim annunciator is part of the scan (checking for anomalies)

...so it depends on the "cruddiness level" of the kit.... most GA kit is cruddy and has failure modes which are not always easy to spot, and are moderately likely to happen - so 2D's advice is very sound.
User avatar
By Iceman
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#154177
2D wrote "All this talk of 200 AGL, whatever happened to the 50ft altimeter error?"

Whether or not the 50ft altimeter error correction is applied now depends on the aircraft you're flying. If the aircraft documents state that the altimeter correction has been considered, and is not a factor, then it can now be ignored, and a Cat-1 ILS flown to 200ft. If the aircraft documentation does not mention that the altimeter error has been considered, then it must be assumed that it hasn't been approved, and the 50ft altimeter correction still applies.

The Senecas I fly (including the one that has now left Le Touquet) are all approved for 200ft Cat 1 ILS ops. Similarly, a friend did his IR at Exxter last year on the Duchess, and all their IR approaches (including IR test) were down to a DH of 200ft (obviously subject to OCH limitations).
By bookworm
#154191
Chilli Monster wrote:Non-handling pilot monitors the approach with head out most of the time, handling has head 'in'. Non-handling calls 'visual' when sufficient cues are established, allowing handling pilot to look up and transition to visual cues.


Thanks. That's as I suspected.

So I guess my point is that if multi-pilot SOP is to segregate the handling from the head-out visual-cue search, there is potential value in doing something similar using the automatics as "handling pilot". There are, of course different risks associated with the sudden failure of the "handling pilot" in the case of a GA autopilot.
User avatar
By Timothy
#154222
Chilli has described one SOP, but there are others.

For example PNF monitors the instruments, head down, calls "100 to go" and "decide" at which point PF looks out, that being the first time anyone looks outside. The rationale is that you are either flying instruments or visually, not a mixture (it's the mixture that gives you the dangerous misleading cues) and the PF knows exactly what he expects to see (in terms of Xmas tree, PAPIs etc) when looking up, so there is less likelihood of mis-recognised cues. It also has the advantage that every IFR approach is flown on instruments to minima, so ensuring the recency that Paul says he lacks.

Another technique that used to be applied by BA is for PF to fly to minima and PNF to take over and land visually at DH. This methodology causes as much debate as QFE/QNH and Mac/PC, and I am agnostic. The advantage is that PNF is wholly focussed on visual and PF wholly on instruments and there is no transition, the disadvantage is that PNF takes over without getting his brain and muscles in gear over the previous five minutes. This is not really a problem on short haul where the pilot is flying six sectors a day every day.

I am not advocating either of these over Chilli's (though we used to use the first above) merely pointing out that there are variations.