Could anyone explain me why this video represents an example of GA flying at it’s best?
I wouldn’t call it that at all. He just sits there and bores a straight hole right through everything – presumably because he is not familiar with the radar… but then he does it in VMC also. He appears to think the DA42 is unbreakable.
Regards flying on AP, that is how most long distance flying is done – VFR and IFR. Up there, ATC expect you to fly precisely, respond to radio calls within about 2 seconds (1 second preferably), if your heading changes by 10 degrees for a few seconds they will call you up and query it… An AP reduces cockpit workload by 10x and that’s in good wx. The problem is what happens when the AP disconnects because the wx got too rough and the pitch or roll values became too great for it… have had that a few times 
I’m not against AP, have one and use it
I was just puzzled by some of the previous comments
I was amazed to see that the GFC700 keeps on going, even in strong turbulence. I have a KAP140 and it would have disconnected pretty soon.
Vref wrote:
I reduce the IAS speed way below Va 134Kts to about 125 kts before entering cloud and with my two hands on the controls all the time to sync in case the A/P disconnects Speed control to reduce airframe stress is crucial.
what_next wrote:
The closer he gets to the runway, the more his hands fly all over the place.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
I do think the acid test is that if the autopilot had failed, how would the flight have gone?
Robin_253 wrote:
But there is very little of pilotage, its all on AP.
Peter wrote:
The problem is what happens when the AP disconnects because the wx got too rough and the pitch or roll values became too great for it
What strikes me, when considering this evidence about AP malfunction, is that we never see his hands on the controls.
And from my smallish experience and guts feeling, I would never enter (potentially) turbulent IMC, without controlling my speeds, and my two hands on the yoke.
Considering heavy irons around, I must confess it is not on the top of the list of things that are stressful to me (and the list is long :-). Actually, I consider it to be the problem of the ATC (maybe I am wrong about that), and the only thing I can do is eventually give him more speed.. But it won’t always be possible. So, I get concentrated on what happens inside my aircraft, much less on what is around.
dublinpilot wrote:
On a separate matter, I always hate to see a “follow me car”. It’s like ATC saying “We don’t trust you to find your way on the taxi routes! We trust the airlines, but you’re not one of the big boys and we don’t trust you!”
It’s not like that – it depends on airport. E.g. at LDZA marshalling by car is mandatory for all landing aircraft regardless the size although taxiing can’t be simpler – only one taxiway – exit runway and drive until you reach the apron.
IMHO a follow-me car is a great thing. I would otherwise get lost at most airports
A lot of the intersection placards are not visible from the height of a GA plane, for example.
Throw in some poor ATC ELP and mistakes are easily done.
Good to know that it’s not just for me then!
The first time I saw one, I thought “Hey look! A follow me car! How cute!”
But every time since I’ve thought “Aw crap! They think I’m incompetent. I can do this on my own you know!”
I guess it comes from operating on a large airport with lots of different taxiways, for years, without any follow me 
And from my smallish experience and guts feeling, I would never enter (potentially) turbulent IMC, without controlling my speeds, and my two hands on the yoke.
Make that one hand on the yoke for me. I never ever had to use both hands on the yoke. I rather need the other one for throttle, avionics, gear and flaps …
blueline wrote:
Make that one hand on the yoke for me. I never ever had to use both hands on the yoke. I rather need the other one for throttle, avionics, gear and flaps …
You’re right :-)
Both hands on the yoke, is my way to say both hands in evidence, ready to react, not hidden or occupied by some other stuff :-)
“Pre-activated” hands.
lenthamen wrote:
lenthamen 03-Jun-16 06:28 #73
I was amazed to see that the GFC700 keeps on going, even in strong turbulence. I have a KAP140 and it would have disconnected pretty soon.
My plane also has a KAP 140 AP. In smooth air the AP works really fine. But in turbulence there are some issues. On departure from Carcassonne I experianced some moderate turbulance only a short time which caused the KAP 140 to raise the nose of the aircraft to a steadily pitch up position, this in IMC. The vertical speed was reduced from 600 ft to 100 ft immediately which was noticed by the controller: “Confirm climbing FL 100”. I resolved the problem by AP disconnect. And I had this problem again in turbulence which is quite disappointing. Any ideas to improve the KAP 140 ? There are some SB`s but I do not know if they would help in this matter. Maybe we should discuss this in a seperate thread.
