I often read some very “opinionated” views on this on the internet.
They range from “no issue at all” all the way to “would never do it unless I had 2 jet engines and lots of redundancy”.
What are the main issues which would “bother” people here?
For example one might not want to depart without a working autopilot, unless the conditions were quite benign (e.g. cloudbases 1000ft). But then autopilots do pack up, and anybody with an instrument qualification must be able to hand fly a plane. But when hand-flying in IMC one is not going to be a hero just for a laugh (especially with passengers) so e.g. one will strongly prefer a radar vectored ILS to any other type of IAP. So it’s a question of what is an acceptable risk. Personally I would not depart without an autopilot (and obviously everything in the plane working) if the destination was OVC002-003 and the alternates weren’t much better (or they were operationally useless, which is usually the case with alternates).
I have done it and would do it if I currently had an IFR capable aircraft. I used to do it quite a bit in a Bonanza with dual nav/com + stormscope but no autopilot. I had a handheld GPS too.
The issues I found with single pilot IFR workload were not approaches (you have a nice chart and can be perfectly briefed on the approach before even getting in the plane) but departures since where I lived it wasn’t entirely predictable what clearance delivery was going to give you – and also getting rerouted in areas in which I was unfamiliar (having to muck around with paper charts, verify I had the route right, jot down the applicable frequencies, read it back, all while trying to keep the Bonanza on an even keel inside a cloud that seemed to give you a jolt at the most inopportune moments).
Autopilots made no odds figuring minimum cloud bases, the sort of autopilots available in the kinds of planes I was flying IFR generally were not autopilots you were using down to 200 or 300 feet on an approach so if I was getting a reroute at night in a bumpy cloud while at 8000 feet I didn’t really care whether the base was 300 feet or 3000 feet. What I really cared about was if there was an “out” within the aircraft’s range which would be a non-challenging non-precision approach if the chips were really down, that I could do with just a handheld GPS (thinking of a total electrical failure, probably the biggest lack of redundancy in that aircraft).
There’s obviously more risk doing this on your own than with a competent second pilot, but the risk/reward relationship was worth it. I was also 20-something and invincible. But then again I’ve traded single pilot IFR in the south part of the US for single engine over water…
I think the problem can be that a single pilot has to fly, navigate, communicate and operate systems and that can lead to being overloaded particularly if you are not current (in a practical sense). Hence the usefulness of an autopilot and other features to remove some of that load.
Personally a non functioning autopilot would rule out anything other than a short VFR trip for me in my plane.
Personally a non functioning autopilot would rule out anything other than a short VFR trip for me in my plane.
The more performance and the more systems that can fail, the more difficult it gets for a single pilot. Here in Germany, at least pre-EASA (no idea if that has changed), in order to fly IFR, you either needed a second crewmember who had to have at least a RT license or a working 2-axis autopilot. Which to me always seemed to be a sensible rule.
Having flown quite a bit single pilot IFR, I must say that I don’t like it at all. The workload can get very high at times, especially before and at departure when you have to look after everything yorself, including collecting and seating the passengers, looking after their baggage, getting ATIS and clearance, reading checklists – and all of it as fast as possible which makes it quite error-prone. Two-crew with a sensible set of procedures halves your workload while you get things done in one third of the time. Much better! And you don’t have to eat lunch and dinner alone all the time…
Here in Germany, at least pre-EASA (no idea if that has changed), in order to fly IFR, you either needed a second crewmember who had to have at least a RT license or a working 2-axis autopilot. Which to me always seemed to be a sensible rule.
In your C172? Surely it depends on the aircraft?
My 0,02€ is that single-pilot IFR shouldn’t be too much of a problem during daytime if the weather is relatively benign. At night, in poor weather with turbulence, it might not be such a bright idea even with an autopilot. I find that the autopilots in our light aircraft cannot cope with very much turbulence, have a tendency go dark accompanied by “trim in motion, trim failed”, and then need to be recycled in order to recover. In turbulence I therefore disconnect the a/p and hand fly until I am back in calm(er) air. My wife finds it more comfortable too :-)
As you understand, turbulence in IMC, and worse, at night, is my main concern when single-pilot IFR because you have to navigate, communicate and operate systems while trying to keep the blue side up.
If you approach it with the mindset of keeping up currency and recurrent training, and trying to emulate the discipline of commercial Standard Operating Procedures (PPL/IR used to have a set of these IIRC? but you could also adapt the training manual from good IR schools), it should be a safer proposition than VFR.
Also consider some self imposed LOFT – not in the sense of a training captain along, although a good instructor would be useful for some trips – but building up your risk tolerance on sectors as you become more familiar with them – without becoming complacent.
Most light aircraft have single channel autopilots (ie no redundancy in the automatics), so your currency and training should presume that the autopilot will go inop at the worst moment. That is why in the light aircraft environment your approach minima may be lower, on a hand flown approach, as the coupled approach minima will require the ability to recover safely from an a/p failure. Some older models had coupled ILS minima of around 500-600 feet agl.
I tended to view my old A/P Flight Director with extreme prejudice, and only allowed it to play in the most benign of circumstances, although the FD wasn’t too bad. The modern G1000/GFC700 combo appears fit for purpose, but the old 1970’s kit which found its way into IFR twins and older turbo props was woefully unreliable.
In your C172? Surely it depends on the aircraft?
There was such a rule in switzerland too, and yes, it applied to C172s as well.
In your C172? Surely it depends on the aircraft?
I looked it up and it is still valid national law, says nothing about aircraft type, therefore also applies to the C172: „Betriebsordnung für Luftfahrtgerät Paragraph 32“ (http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/luftbo/__32.html)
Single pilot IFR is a lot easier with a well equipped aircraft like the Cirrus with a good autopilot and a glass cockpit. If I fly single pilot IFR (which I do most of the time) than I use the autopilot all the time up to the DA on the approach. I know how to deal with the avionics/AP quite well by now. I just recently had to fly IFR in a non-AP aircraft with the old steam pipes at night. I was glad that there was another pilot sitting next to me to help out in monitoring the flight. It is hard work and I prefer to do it only at night in the Cirrus with synthetic vision, G1000 and a good working AP. If the weather is predicted to be marginal or if the flight goes into the night, I spend a little bit more time ahead of the flight preparing everything in order to stay ahead of the game. Actually, it is just this SEIFR game which I like so much. It remains challenging at times.
