dvis3yzawwgr9p4du4g7rcqsie1vi7

Essential IFR: Hand Flying Skills!

Published on

in

“Hand flying” (no autopilot😳) is becoming increasingly rare during IFR (and even VFR) flying. We increasingly fly in a totally automated environment, and this deficit of hand-flying skill has huge safety implications when the “magic” fails. For all the hours professional pilots accumulate, less than 3% is probably “hand flown!”

I recently flew with a pilot who was convinced that single-pilot IFR in a piston plane was illegal without a fully functioning 3-axis autopilot. I dutifully pointed out CFR 91.205(d). This FAA regulation is so permissive that it only specifies “navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown.” (and why do they never mention a transponder? C-R-A-F –T? Sorry ATC, “unable!”)

We are so far down this road of “automation dependency” that most instrument CFIs currently teaching do not even know how to properly teach basic attitude instrument flying (BAIF) skills anymore. (Patterns A & B were removed from the FAA Instrument Flying Handbook). Consequently, most accelerated IFR training courses introduce instrument approaches way to early – before a learner has fully mastered aircraft control. This illustrates again the educational fallacy of “teaching final form” – analogous to beginning VFR training with landings (too much/too soon).

Basic attitude instrument flying is, however, still a required element in the ACS for instrument certification and also the PTS for CFI-I evaluations. This article rewinds back to when IFR training required a mastery of the basics *before* jumping into the complex operations; basic attitude instrument flying.

Pilots need to prioritize manual flying skills and manage automation levels to prevent accidents and effectively handle unexpected situations. https://eightify.app

Teaching Basic Attitude Instrument Flying

“Old school IFR training” required mastery of BAIF and then proceeded to “Pattern A and Pattern B” (very similar to standardized approach procedures). Once these basics were mastered,  an IFR learner progressed to instrument approaches. Even before Pattern A & B, was the “Vertical S” and the Oscar Pattern. When I personally go out to refresh my IFR skills or learn a new airframe in the clouds, I solicit a block altitude from ATC and practice the Vertical S maneuver.

The Amazing “Vertical S” Maneuver

The “vertical S” is flown at a constant airspeed. 90K works well in most trainers (about 2100rpm). This maneuver overlays a standard rate turn of 3 degrees a second standard rate turn with a standard 500fpm rate of climb or descent.

To begin, start a 500 fpm climb (or descent) and simultaneously enter a standard rate turn (and maintain each rate precisely while watching the clock) you will end a minute later with 180 degrees of heading change with 500 feet of altitude change. At the one-minute/180-degree point, roll smoothly in the opposite direction and continue your climb or descent. At exactly two minutes, you should be back on the original heading and exactly 1000 feet higher (or lower). This exercise sharpens your scan almost miraculously.

More Basic: “Control Independence”

If this is too much to start with, back up a bit more to a more basic “control independence” exercise. This procedure isolates the vertical control from the rolling operation. To practice this, maintain a continuous standard rate of turn and airspeed. Then add enough power to start a 500fpm climb (or descent) while maintaining the bank and airspeed. In most trainers, this is full power to climb, and 1700rpm to descend. While maintaining the turn, reduce power to level power setting for 90K fly level for a bit, and then reduce power to descend at a precise 500fpm.

As an instrument CFI working with a learner, try to imitate precisely the ATC verbiage your learner will experience when assigning a level off or turn: “Piper 75217, turn right heading 270.” (After every assignment have them ask “Clear?” to make sure you are visually clearing) Try to arrange for an altitude change or level off in the turn. You will know that you have perfected your “ATC speak” when you see your learner reach for the transmit button with their thumb.

Pattern A and Pattern B incorporate these same precise climbs and turns with control independence to precisely track navigational signals (increasing complexity). “Pattern A” tracks a course outbound and performs a precise procedure turn; one minute 45-degree offset with a standard rate 225-degree turn in the opposite direction. Your learner should be able to easily visualize this on a heading indicator or HSI. Once the course inbound is intercepted (180 degrees of heading change and course needle centered), start a 500 fpm descent. “Pattern B” ratchets up the complexity even more. After this practice, instrument approaches are easy!

All these maneuvers should incorporate the “change/check technique” for precise control. With every movement of the controls, the eyes should be on the attitude reference. As soon as the change is accomplished (and trimmed), the “check” consults the rate indicator (climb rate or turn rate) to verify the precise result. This is the logical extension of a properly-trained VFR scan: outside change, inside check.

These “non-operational maneuvers” can be frustrating for an impatient learner, but are analogous to the essential VFR practice of climb, descent, turn, slow flight, and stalls before landing “attempts.” Once the basics are fully mastered, instrument approaches are easy. It is pathetically apparent though when a pilot tries to fly an instrument approach without mastery of basic attitude instrument flying (seen on flight tests). These pilots are typically not adequately trimmed and have no idea of what power setting to use. Their struggle with the aircraft is horrible to watch (and I’d hate to be in the back as a passenger). It all is much easier when you master the basics first. Fly safely out there (and often)!


See “SAFE SOCIAL WALL” For more Resources

Join SAFE and get great benefits. You get 1/3 off ForeFlight and your membership supports our mission of increasing aviation safety by promoting excellence in education.  Our FREE SAFE Toolkit App puts required pilot endorsements and experience requirements right on your smartphone and facilitates CFI+DPE teamwork. Our newly reformulated Mentoring Program is open to every CFI (and those working on the rating) Join our new Mentoring FaceBook Group.


Read our February “SAFE Strategies” for great resources and ideas. See the special landing page on survival kits and techniques. There is also a dedicated landing page with extensive free CFI Resources.

11 responses to “Essential IFR: Hand Flying Skills!”

  1. Brian Lloyd Avatar
    Brian Lloyd

    I swear David, you are always looking over my shoulder. I was just dealing with this in the sim with a student a few minutes ago. The AP started doing strange things when it tried to intercept the LOC (snicker) and the student had to punch off the A/P and finish the approach by hand. The point I ended up making with the student was, “When the automation overloads you, turn it off and revert to hand flying with a good instrument scan.”

  2. Warren Webb Jr. Avatar
    Warren Webb Jr.

    I used those patterns from the beginning of instrument instruction in the late 70’s. Nice to have them in the Instrument Handbook to provide a standardized evaluation of how the fundamentals were developing.

    You must be covering your eyes and crossing your fingers when it’s time to do the hand flown non-precision approach. Would you have any numbers that compare the passing rate to the growth and use of autopilot systems?

  3. Brian Lloyd Avatar
    Brian Lloyd

    The issue that keeps popping up is a lack of basics being taught. In the case of primary training, there is a lack of basic skills being taught prior to the student entering the pattern to begin practice for first solo. This includes understanding AND mastery of pitch, bank, and power (energy management) to make the airplane do precisely what the pilot wants it to do, maneuvering (accelerated flight) the aircraft safely, including maneuvering near the edges of the envelope, precise control of airspeed, climb/descent to specified altitudes, and turns to headings. It is only after the student has mastered these things should the instructor bring the student to the pattern. The step from there to performing the same functions while flying solely by reference to instruments should be a short one. If one cannot perform basic maneuvering solely by reference to the instruments it is probably because the student never fully developed these skills in primary training.

    A common problem with the instructor rushing the student to the pattern is that the instructor then feels the need to build “cushion” into operations near the ground (landing mostly). The instructor, fearing that the student could stall the airplane, builds in an extra 5-10 knots over and above the published approach and landing speeds. This is on top of the fact that published approach and landing speeds are already too high since they are based on max gross weight, which is never going to happen in training. The end result is that the student ends up rounding out parallel to the runway at anywhere from 10-20 knots above the correct speed. This extra speed means extra available lift, leading to increased AoA (elevator) sensitivity and the student ballooning. It also encourages the student to try to touch down with extra speed which results in possibly landing on the nose-wheel and/or bouncing. The instructor has set up the student to fail. Is it any wonder that the student is frustrated? This applies equally to instrument flight. Knowing how to configure the airplane for the exact performance desired would make flying on instruments, if not trivial, then at least relatively easy.

    Now the rest of the question is, how do we convince the rest of the flight training world of this?

    1. warrenwebbjr Avatar
      warrenwebbjr

      I agree completely with all you say.

      The Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge and the Airplane Flying Handbook together have resulted in contradictory and incorrect information being taught and this goes back way before the current automation systems appearing (which are as David wrote making things worse). The Handbooks are technically correct, but they have to be read very carefully – not like a novel. They need to be re-written so there’s consistent and correct interpretation and understanding so that learners are not given contradictory information. You know this problem is easy to prove – just ask ten instructors the same question, and you know you’ll get ten different answers. And the recent re-writes have eliminated explanations that were simple and added information that’s easy to confuse.

      I say this somewhat facetiously but maybe autopilot engineers should get involved with rewriting the Handbooks for clarity. Assuming it was functioning correctly, have you ever seen an autopilot that failed to fly an airplane perfectly in all phases of the flight. Isn’t that our objective too. Wouldn’t we achieve that if we were taught (programmed) to do the same technical things autopilots are programmed to do? Actually that’s how I ‘perfected’ my ILS approaches – by watching the autopilot fly them.

      With that said, a recent report I read indicated flying is getting safer. And one of the factors contributing to that improvement is believed to be something many of us initially rejected – the change in standards for slow flight to keep speed above the stall warning threshold. But I think the most basic problem is the contradiction that has existed for so long – the well known argument of whether you should control the airplane the Navy way or the Air Force way. How is any learner going to have success when the instruction is so confusing.

      1. Warren Webb Jr Avatar
        Warren Webb Jr

        Just wanted to clarify one thing. Regarding the improvement in safety, that was a report on fatal accidents during flight training, not total flying activity. Between 2000 and 2019, fatal flight training accidents were cut in half. https://www.aopa.org/training-and-safety/air-safety-institute/accident-analysis/flight-training-accident-report

  4. Brian Lloyd Avatar
    Brian Lloyd

    Warren, I have a couple of questions: if one is maneuvering, how does one know how far one is from the stall warning threshold? As I see it, the only instrument that will tell you that is the AoA indicator. Airspeed is not particularly useful because stall speed varies with G loading. So the only time airspeed tells you how far you are from stall, is when you are in unaccelerated flight AND you know the gross weight of the airplane relative to max gross weight.

    Second question is, what is the different between USAF and USN “ways”? Are you referring to, “power controls altitude,” versus, “power controls airspeed?” The answer to both of those questions is ‘yes’. If I have an airplane with positive trim stability and/or I otherwise maintain a constant AoA, then power will control altitude. If I use the elevator to change AoA such that lift remains constant in the presence of changing airspeed, then power controls airspeed. Your hand on the stick determines which dominates. Of course that also means that you have available to you everything in-between as well.

    And this can be approached either from the point-of-view of the lift formula or from the point-of-view of energy state. If I have an excess of energy-in (power) then either speed (kinetic energy) or altitude (potential energy) must be increasing. If I have insufficient energy-in then either speed or altitude must be decreasing. For what it is worth, I have seen a LOT of light bulbs go on when I explain the relationship between power, speed, and altitude this way.

    Getting back to instrument flight, it is all about knowing the aircraft’s “presets” for power, configuration, and pitch to determine the aircraft’s performance. They are easily determined ahead of time and used to make the default behavior of the aircraft be what we want it to be. Like David said, do it right and you can almost sit there with your arms folded. I have no idea why this isn’t generally taught. My primary students get this typically during the 2nd and 3rd lessons and then again when they start their instrument training.

    1. Warren Webb Jr Avatar
      Warren Webb Jr

      Brian – if all of the recommended stall training maneuvers are done properly, which includes accelerated stalls, the cues of an impending stall should be well developed – sight, sound, and feel. When I do the accelerated stalls (I do them by gradually slowing during a 45-60° banked level turn), the stall warning horn is always activated well above the bottom of the green, so we make a critical observation of that along with the other cues that are happening at the same time – the position of the controls, the g-loading, our aggressiveness in change of direction, etc. There’s also at all times observation of where the nose is pointing compared to the airplane’s line of flight. That is what I consider the pilot’s built-in angle of attack indicator. To really develop maximum feel, I also do all of the stalls (actually all maneuvers literally) with the instrument panel completely covered. Any instrument can fail, including the AoA indicator (I’ve never flown with one).

      I think the main accomplishment of the new ACS procedure has been to get an earlier reaction to increase power and reduce the angle of attack. Before, slow flight was flown with the stall warning horn blaring for several minutes at a time, practically the entire time the pilot was at minimum controllable airspeed. It is thought that this conditioned the pilot to ignore the stall warning horn. With the new standards, corrective action must be taken much earlier, which should be 5 to 10 knots above stall.

      From what I’ve read, this doesn’t mean the FAA is abandoning flight training at critical speeds. It is still expected that training includes the safe handling of the airplane at minimal speed. We intentionally pass through those speeds on every takeoff and landing and during stalls. Personally to accomplish that I still include all of the slow flight training I’ve always done which includes slow flight down to the last knot of airspeed above a stall which is below the white arc. But during normal flying, if pilots are now correcting earlier because of the new standards that’s a good thing.

      On the second question, you guessed right – it’s the old power for altitude vs power for airspeed debate. Can power control altitude? No. Never. Simple reason. There are no civilian airplanes that have enough thrust from the engine(s) to oppose the weight. The maximum force of the thrust is generally at best around 25-30% of the weight and that includes numbers I’ve seen on airliners. What is really happening when you increase power, maintain a constant AoA, and gain altitude is just an acceleration of the wing and then it produces more lift. The increase in altitude is still coming from the wing – not the power. Holding the same AoA and accelerating the airplane with the power is not a practical solution for normal adjustments when low on an approach but on speed. The objective is to correct the altitude without a change in speed which requires an increase in both power (to maintain airspeed) and angle of attack (to correct altitude).

      1. David St. George Avatar
        David St. George

        If this is going to turn into the same old pitch/power debate (head butting) again, I respectfully ask that you guys take it off-line. That has been endlessly debated in aviation and there (unfortunately) never seems to be a productive resolution, just animated disagreement (red state/blue state?)🙏

  5. Richard G Avatar
    Richard G

    I specifically picked a plane that had a good autopilot for my instrument check ride. I got to the place where the DPE was waiting and the DPE said… I know Cessna knows how to fly, I’m here to see if you can fly. Flying multiple approaches and reprogramming each one is a mental and physical workout. I remember how tired I was after that flight.
    It isn’t something a pilot would do normally, make three instrument approaches while had flying within 50ft of an assigned altitude and maintaining a course, while programming the GPS. I believe that was my hardest and longest check ride for the practical.

    1. David St. George Avatar
      David St. George

      Good for you passing that evaluation despite the elevated demands of hand-flying! That is certainly the most challenging part of my annual 61.58 checkrides (approaches hand-flown with an engine failed, and even a SE go-around). That is why we train hard.

  6. Brian Lloyd Avatar
    Brian Lloyd

    My apologies David. Arguing for the sake of arguing is great for Debate Club but not necessarily useful in this medium.

    Warren: I respectfully disagree with some of the things you say. Rather than continuing the back and forth, I invite you to come to 1T7 and fly with me. There I will let the airplane show you the points I have been making. You can find me through http://lloyd.aero.

Tell us what *you* think!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Thanks for Visiting!

Thank you for visiting the SAFE Blog. There are over 500 specifically tailored articles covering a wide range of aviation issues related to flight training both as a pilot and as a CFI. Search HERE for a specific article, and Join SAFE

Please try our new AI Tool (Chat 5.2 trained on SAFE Blog content) for your specific topics of answers to your aviation questions. SAFE crafted AI Tool


Notification Here!

Stay updated with our latest tips and other news by joining our newsletter.


Free SAFE Toolkit App

Everything a busy CFI needs at their fingertips, *plus* resources for pilot applicants: “Checkride Ready” (with all the DPE advice on how to pass your practical test) FREE Download

Discover more from Aviation Ideas and Discussion!

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading