Autopilots are the answer, not the problem...

The ramblings of our community of aviators.

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

User avatar
TwinStarScott
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 3:13 am
First Name: Scott
Aircraft Type: DA42
Aircraft Registration: N189Y
Airports: WN53
Has thanked: 884 times
Been thanked: 224 times

Autopilots are the answer, not the problem...

Post by TwinStarScott »

Decided to start a new post after receiving this email today and the recent off topic A/P discussion on "the Outdated Garmin G1000 software - petition sign-up" thread. This is a brief follow-up and why myself, and others, believe Diamond needs to work with DAN members in finding a cost-effective solution for the Legacy G1000 / KAP140 owners:

Autopilots are the answer, not the problem...

I’ve seen a lot of recent articles, from really smart people, about how pilots have lost their hand flying skills and have become “autopilot dependent”. The theory that follows is that accidents, including the 737 Max, are a result of modern pilots that don’t know how to hand fly an airplane. In a recent survey on Facebook, over 25% of general aviation pilots believe that hand flying is safer than using an autopilot.

I’d like to offer you a different opinion and ask that you reserve judgement until you answer four simple questions.

The first question is how much you can do while multitasking? Flying an airplane by hand uses a huge percentage of your concentration to simply fly straight and level. Now add in busy airspace, changes to your IFR clearance, programming GPS systems, looking for traffic and (hopefully) using checklists. How much reserve brain power is left? Can you really do it all? Having an autopilot fly headings, courses, and altitudes allows you to do more “big picture” flying and get ahead of the airplane instead of falling behind.

The second question is how many accidents and bad pilot decisions are influenced by stress, fatigue and work overload? Take a minute and think about the accident statistics and when workload and fatigue are highest. We’ve known since 1928 when the first autopilot was introduced that they reduce workload, and therefore reduce stress and fatigue.

The third question is simple. How much formal training is required for general aviation pilots and flight instructors when they add new autopilots in their airplane or fly an airplane with an unfamiliar autopilot? The answer is none.

The fourth question is really the important one. If pilots and flight instructors are flying and teaching in airplanes without really understanding the systems, is the problem “autopilot dependency” or a lack of system understanding and training? Any tool, inside or outside of aviation, can be dangerous if used incorrectly.

My thoughts are that general aviation pilots should use autopilots more not less. An autopilot when properly used reduces workload, stress, and fatigue. When I installed a Genesys S-TEC autopilot in my Cessna 206, after hand flying my airplane in IFR for 5 years, I experienced first hand how much better and safer it was. I wasn’t tired at the end of a flight. I was able to spot more traffic, run checklists more and, get much farther ahead. All aspects of my flight were better and easier because of the reduction in workload.

I think we really need to change the way we look at autopilots to being something that makes flying safer especially for general aviation that doesn’t always have the luxury of a two pilot crew. I agree that people still need to practice turning off autopilots and hand flying. The solution is getting trained and understanding how using autopilots correctly make you safer.

Fly safe!

About the author:
Gary D Reeves (The Guy in the Pink Shirt or GPS Guru) is the 2019 FAA National Instructor of the Year. As a Master CFI/CFII/MEI and ATP with over 7,700 hours he specializes in helping pilots master technology to be safer in Single-Pilot IFR. Learn more at www.PilotSafety.org
User avatar
Rich
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 4592
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
First Name: Rich
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N40XE
Airports: S39 Prineville OR
Has thanked: 145 times
Been thanked: 1180 times

Re: Autopilots are the answer, not the problem...

Post by Rich »

Scott, I agree. My primary use of the A/P is enroute and during arrival procedures. It leaves me mental processing cycles to plan ahead. Especially in IFR I'm way ahead of the airplane. And though many seem to dismiss the KAP140 as a piece of worthless junk, I've found it completely dependable for all these years.
2002 DA40-180: MT, PowerFlow, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal., Surefly, Flightstream 210, Orion 600 LED, XeVision, Aspen E5
User avatar
Steve
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1953
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:23 am
First Name: Steve
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N432SC
Airports: 1T7
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 493 times

Re: Autopilots are the answer, not the problem...

Post by Steve »

I agree with Scott and Rich. When I bought my airplane, the autopilot and HSI add-on was $20K. While that is a bargain, I certainly wasn't awash in cash in 2001, and I struggled a bit with the decision to add the autopilot. I rationalized it by considering that it was basically a safety device, not a luxury. I use it extensively enroute, and I am certain that it reduces fatigue, and improves pilot performance in the terminal phases of the flight.

In the Navy, I flew in a P3 squadron as the Flight Surgeon. 11-13 hour missions (often at night) were routine. Flight crew fatigue was a real problem we had to deal with. Most of our aircraft didn't have FMC autopilots. I used to call myself the "autopilot" because I would climb in and fly for 2-3 hours to give the pilots a break on the long trans-pacific flights.

I would not buy an airplane for travel that wasn't equipped with an autopilot.

Steve
User avatar
TwinStarScott
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 3:13 am
First Name: Scott
Aircraft Type: DA42
Aircraft Registration: N189Y
Airports: WN53
Has thanked: 884 times
Been thanked: 224 times

Re: Autopilots are the answer, not the problem...

Post by TwinStarScott »

Yes, Rich, I'm also very happy with the capabilities and reliability of the KAP140. And I couldn't agree more with Steve's perspective / post. However, the concern with the KAP140 is long-term parts support. And quite possibly, even short-term parts support.

As four years ago, according to a highly regarded avionics shop, it requires a lot of creatively by them to source KAP140 parts and they’re advice was to start bracing for the day when these part sources completely dry up.

The point is, the time is now to start planning for alternative solutions. And at $80,000 for the superior GFC700 (and then another $185,000 to upgrade to NXi), $265,000 is simply not an option for most. This isn’t just an individual owner problem either, as several of the flight school operators I’ve spoken with recently are equally concerned (appalled / depressed) about this number. Even after further clarification from DAI, it turns out to “only” be $185,000 to completely modernize - that’s still a very bitter pill to swallow.

By taking a proactive stance in researching cost-effective solutions, Diamond’s concern and cooperation would not only be much appreciated by all Legacy G1000 / KAP140 owners, but also a wise business decision. Especially given the large numbers of KAP140 A/P’s that remain in their fleet, which obviously includes their core customers - flight schools.

PS - Steve, thank you for your service! Just out of curiosity, were you ever stationed at Whidbey Island NAS?
User avatar
Steve
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1953
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:23 am
First Name: Steve
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N432SC
Airports: 1T7
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 493 times

Re: Autopilots are the answer, not the problem...

Post by Steve »

TwinStarScott wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2019 1:32 amPS - Steve, thank you for your service! Just out of curiosity, were you ever stationed at Whidbey Island NAS?
Scott: No, although I flew there many times for MINEXs at the Admiralty Bay range. I was stationed at Moffett Field, in Mountain View, CA, with 6 month deployments to Japan and Okinawa, and shorter detachments to the Aleutians, Hawaii, Midway, Guam, the PI, and Diego Garcia.

I always feel guilty when people thank me for my service. I should thank you guys, and everyone else in the country, for allowing me to serve on active duty and the Reserves for 22 years. I got to fly $70M airplanes all over the world, travel, get a free education, and meet a lot of great people, some of whom are still my closest friends.

Steve
User avatar
Rich
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 4592
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
First Name: Rich
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N40XE
Airports: S39 Prineville OR
Has thanked: 145 times
Been thanked: 1180 times

Re: Autopilots are the answer, not the problem...

Post by Rich »

Steve and I and several others here are the lucky ones. Changing autopilots for us, should the need arise, won't be the ridiculously expensive enterprise it will be for you guys saddled with the G1000-track.

The general thread still applies: A/P are a really big help, especially in IFR. I hear from time to time about how the emergence of new technologies will increase the danger of flying. Electronic display of traffic, not requiring spin training, blah, blah, blah. Yet the accident and, especially the fatal accident rate continues to decline.
2002 DA40-180: MT, PowerFlow, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal., Surefly, Flightstream 210, Orion 600 LED, XeVision, Aspen E5
User avatar
TwinStarScott
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 3:13 am
First Name: Scott
Aircraft Type: DA42
Aircraft Registration: N189Y
Airports: WN53
Has thanked: 884 times
Been thanked: 224 times

Re: Autopilots are the answer, not the problem...

Post by TwinStarScott »

Agreed on all your points.
Changing autopilots for us, should the need arise, won't be the ridiculously expensive enterprise it will be for you guys saddled with the G1000-track.
My only additional comment is:

Since Garmin owns a DA40 and could quite easily certify the GFC500 (among other complimentary products to the G3X touch display), this begs the question:

Is Diamond encouraging Garmin to have this terrific and affordable A/P certified for this airframe / engine combination?

Current list of approved airframes:
https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/604257#additional

Product overview:
https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/604257

Video presentation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtDiFmGoq3E&t=257s
User avatar
salim
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2019 11:05 am
First Name: Salim
Aircraft Type: DA42
Aircraft Registration: FHVES
Airports: LFPN
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: Autopilots are the answer, not the problem...

Post by salim »

Dear all,

I recently inquired about a possible stec 3100 stc, and got the following answer from Genesys:

« Due to the time and cost associated with an STC project for an airframe/series we are currently prioritizing upcoming STC projects based upon market demand. Typically when scheduling a future STC project we need 30-50 interested owners and 15-20 confirmed purchase orders before beginning the project. »

I believe the stec 3100 would provide almost all the capabilities of the GFC700, at 40% of the price. Only drawback is a lower level of integration with the g1000.

What is the level of interest of fellow legacy da42 owners ?

@ TwinStarScott, do you think we could test the interest of « members » of your list?

Best,
Salim
User avatar
TwinStarScott
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 412
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 3:13 am
First Name: Scott
Aircraft Type: DA42
Aircraft Registration: N189Y
Airports: WN53
Has thanked: 884 times
Been thanked: 224 times

Re: Autopilots are the answer, not the problem...

Post by TwinStarScott »

Way to go Salim! It’s an interesting response you received from them.

One of the biggest hurdles to clear is both DAI and Garmin would need to agree to provide software support for a third party A/P. Of course this type of cooperation for the non-G1000 equipped DA40’s would not apply.

Another possibility would be to inquire with Genesys to discuss a complete glass panel replacement option - regarding another product listed on their website:

https://genesys-aerosystems.com/sites/d ... ochure.pdf

After a quick glance, no prices appear to be listed. And might be geared exclusively for helicopters and higher end GA aircraft.

Instructional video by Gary Reeves on the 3100:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXa4zRNV6UA&t=626s
Tommy
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 801
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:48 am
First Name: Tommy
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N591CA
Airports: KCGF
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 33 times

Re: Autopilots are the answer, not the problem...

Post by Tommy »

The Aerostar community has been talking to Genesys for years regarding the 3100 trying to drum up enough interest to get the STC for the Aerostar. For Aerostar I believe they want something on the order of 20 commitments before they even think about starting on the process and then once started it will be at best a year until approved. All out quoted cost for the Aerostar is around 35 g’s plus or minus.
Post Reply