Your comment got me looking at my log book. Over 24 years about 8% of my trip time under an IFR flight plan was in IMC.
It would be for me too if I was doing lots more short UK trips, and flying alone. However most of my intra-UK flying is hacking around in Class G, because it is easy (not much point in filing a high altitude Eurocontrol flight plan when it takes say 20-30 mins to climb to FL150). And that flying is often in IMC. The whole flight might be in and out of IMC.
My long trips are usually done with Justine and she is very wary of IMC, turbulence, etc, and anyway m TB20 is not de-iced (TKS de-iced prop only; very effective but...) so I don't fly in any real frontal weather unless the IR images show it can be outclimbed enroute. This means that long trips are mostly in VMC.
For me, TT is ~1500hrs, with actual instrument ~150 and simulated instrument ~85. So not so different to yours, as a %, perhaps.
But I would still not do a long flight if the autopilot was INOP, because the workload is so much higher.
Sadly it is virtually non existent at flight schools
That's partly because they don't have them, and in some cases because making it INOP means its use cannot be required to be demonstrated on a flight test, so the school doesn't have to train its use (same with GPS incidentally).
This is among the reasons why becoming an owner of a reasonable aircraft is such a steep learning curve...
That's partly because they don't have them, and in some cases because making it INOP means its use cannot be required to be demonstrated on a flight test, so the school doesn't have to train its use (same with GPS incidentally).
My FAA flight test involved two hand flown approaches including partial panel followed by an autopilot coupled approach leading to a circle to land. GPS used throughout.
So actually tested real world flying in my aircraft.
The FAA does it right. The examiner can require the demonstration of anything in the cockpit - to the extent that it is applicable to the level being tested (e.g. no need to demo GPS approaches on a PPL checkride).
But in JAA-land, historically, GPS was not touched and the whole test was hand flown. This has changed only in fairly recent years. Now, you can use the AP and GPS for enroute sections, and I gather that GPS/RNAV approaches are OK for the nonprecision approach portion.
My final autopilot coupled approach was an LNAV+V and the autopilot was used to get established downwind and hold the circling altitude before disengaging for the visual landing.
But in JAA-land, historically, GPS was not touched and the whole test was hand flown. This has changed only in fairly recent years. Now, you can use the AP and GPS for enroute sections, and I gather that GPS/RNAV approaches are OK for the nonprecision approach portion.
In JAR, you have to pass an IR check ride every 12 months and that is not just the "fly 1h with an instructor" that PPL holders do every 24h months but a real check ride which you can pass or fail. All depends on the instructor of course. My IR exam was a piece of cake (I think I would have passed without any IR instruction) but the yearly check rides are a lot more challenging. I do them on my own aircraft and my instructor likes to gives me a hard time, asking me to do all kinds of things my avionics, especially the autopilot.
Detlev, let me also add my tupence regarding autopilots. I have said it many times begore in various places: even though I fly mostly N-reg (and thus don't legally require an AP) for __practical reasons, I won't fly IFR without one. And I much prefer having altitude preselect (helps with altitude busts, which can happen sooo quickly). If you want to go the IR route, get that autopilot, one way or another (I hope the price of the Bo was seriously discounted for lack of an autopilot...).
Again, legalities aside, for __practical reasons, on IFR flights, I consider having an AP more important than having a fancy IFR-approved GPS. You can fly all your (enroute) tasks with an old Garmin 196 or so mounted to the joke. So yes, I would actually prefer an airplane with AP and without approved GPS rather than the other way 'round.
You say you toured Europe under VFR this year with the Bo. Even for that, I would sure like to have an AP. As much fun as hand-flying (especially a Bo) can be, it is sure nice to able to sit back, have a bite to eat, etc.
So again, I guess nothing will save you from getting an AP.
As a fairly inexperienced IR holder, my autopilot is invaluable. It's a fairly basic 2-axis job which will hold a heading, track a selected radial, and has an Alt Hold mode. The reduction of workload is significant, even in the cruise. However, it is of most use in the fairly busy sections either on departure or on the approach.
I would probably not launch on a long distance IFR flight without it, simply because of the extra workload it imposes. In the initial IR training, you prove you can do without, but hand flying long distances is just a pain. It may not be legally required, but I think it is effectively essential. Single Pilot IFR is illegal for PT in the UK without an autopilot for a very good reason!
Single Pilot IFR is illegal for PT in the UK without an autopilot for a very good reason!
I don't think it always was though... the knackered Islanders going to Jersey etc were single pilot and hand flown, and the pilots were ever so proud of it!
Class 1 medicals every 6 months - all the right stuff 
I've had loads of autopilot failures but would not embark on a long trip without it. As you say, too much work.
Thanks Boscomantico, step by step. As my wife and I enjoy flying we rather fly 3 x 1 hour a day, than 3 hours in a row.Also there is always the fight for who flies the next leg. The way we make holidays we fly from town to town for a coffee,sightseeing or simply larking around. I think in the last 10 day trip we saw 25 new airfields in 6 countries. Right now we don't enjoy sitting cramped for 3-4 hours in a plane. My experience is also that after say 2 hours the concentration goes down quickly. As we have lots of time we have no need to rush somewhere, so when we had some miserable weather we went golfing or sightseeing. The reason for me trying to make IFR is hopefully to be a bit more independant of clouds. I don't want to fly in rough or very low visibility weather. When we bought the Beech we were not thinking of IFR and for sure were not aware of the need of an AP. We are very happy with the plane and if you look very deep there would be always something critical to be found. Thanks for all the input. regards detlev
Question about the EASA rulemaking around autopilots. Now, I fly a Piper Archer 3 sometimes that is on a Dutch register and is IFR equipped but has no autopilot. Theoretically I can fly it to minima without autopilot. I have heard that the new EASA rules do not enforce autopilots to be present, but they do state that you cannot fly it to minima anymore. Or is this more of a EU-OPS thing? How knows more about this? And … even though I do fly the PA28 to minima if needed, I do agree that a good working AP is more or less essential in flying an aircraft in IMC. That is, with an AP enabled, you have more time to scan for issues. That is, if you know how the AP works.
