Pilots as a general rule are always trying to improve the flight experience. Take my own example. After the PPL I decide to get an IMC rating, to help me be confident in reduced visibility or the occasional penetration of a cloud. That escalated into getting the full SEP/IR, to help me fly in the above conditions but inside controlled airspace. Then came the realisation that this would expose me to icing problems. At that time (mid 1980’s) there was no single engine aircraft with de-icing equipment so obviously the way to go was a twin rating, as it was twin engine a/c that had de-icing boots etc. So I took the twin rating. Then some financial realities set in. Twins are very expensive to operate never mind ownership costs. A twin wasn’t the answer for me.
Coming up to date and looking at all the “must have” electronics on offer you can see how easily one can get distracted from the basics of why we fly. We forget that you can complete a lot of missions with what you have rather than stopping yourself from doing it because you haven’t got a perceived “must have” bit of equipment.Unless you are into aerobatics or warbirds etc most PPL’s fly to get from A to B in the months of the year when operating a light aircraft is prudent, and you have nice weather at the destination. Otherwise there is no point. It is possible to get from A to B without:
a: an autopilot
b: oxygen equipment
c: a turbo charged a/c
d: glass cockpit avionics
e: de-icing boots
f: TKS de-icing
g: data link weather
h: weather radar
i: storm scope……………………I could go on……………….
My point is, that you have to look at your mission profile. If you fly an average leg length of say 2hrs, then a short term forecast should be enough to prevent you from getting into trouble with weather. So you don’t need g:h: & i. If your 2hr leg doesn’t have a weather problem, then you don’t need to fly at oxygen on top levels, so no need for b:c:e:f: If you fly in CAS, you don’t need a: if you have a co-pilot.
So it is the mission length that defines the equipment not the equipment that defines the mission. If I had all of the above I would still want a comfort break after 2 hours. No pee bottle for me.
Most PPL’s would probably agree that flying around the world in a light aircraft is the ultimate challenge. Look on www.earthrounders.com, and see how many people have achieved this without all of the above “must have” equipment.
Agree – disagree?
If your 2hr leg doesn’t have a weather problem, then you don’t need to fly at oxygen on top levels, so no need for b:c:e:f: If you fly in CAS, you don’t need a: if you have a co-pilot.
If your 2hr leg doesn’t have a weather problem, you don’t need to fly IFR, hence no need for a: an autopilot. Period. I don’t see where the CAS bit and co-pilot are a factor, here.
So it is the mission length that defines the equipment not the equipment that defines the mission.
I disagree that this conclusion follows from your arguments above. I also disagree that the mission length is the defining factor. The mission and all its parameters define the equipment required. Likewise, a given set of equipment defines the range of missions you can execute.
I agree that a lot can be achieved without the set of equipment listed above.
If I had all of the above I would still want a comfort break after 2 hours. No pee bottle for me.
I’ll happily fly 4h-legs across Europe in an aircraft without any of the equipment listed above, with no co-pilot and definitely without a pee bottle.
If your 2hr leg doesn’t have a weather problem, you don’t need to fly IFR, hence no need for a: an autopilot. Period. I don’t see where the CAS bit and co-pilot are a factor, here.
I fly in CAS if the weather is in my favour and I can get a smoother ride. You may have seen an earlier post some days back where someone pointed out that the regulations in some European countries specify an autopilot for IFR if you do not have a co-pilot.
I’ll happily fly 4h-legs across Europe in an aircraft without any of the equipment listed above, with no co-pilot and definitely without a pee bottle.
Patrick you are obviously a younger man than me
I completely agree – and yet I have spent far too much time and money on fitting that kit to my lowly TB10 (I have added a, b, d and g, as well as an engine monitor and an audio panel with bluetooth music)
We flew to the Faroes, in March. The last leg was hand flown (due intermittent light icing), out of range of the satellite weather radar and out of range of VHF comms and navigation. I do find the glass cockpit indispensable – the scan is much much easier. 3 hours of hand flying in IMC right at the freezing layer is still no fun, but it is doable.
Also, I agree with patrick – 4 hours is fine for me. I have the “hygienic” pee bags with the gel – with that I do plan 6 hour legs, although it can get very dull.
I fly in CAS if the weather is in my favour and I can get a smoother ride. You may have seen an earlier post some days back where someone pointed out that the regulations in some European countries specify an autopilot for IFR if you do not have a co-pilot.
Ah – so this is the typical CAS intepretation (UK vs. non-UK) problem. The autopilot for IFR if no co-pilot requirement is clear. What was not clear was the “IFR required for CAS” portion. Of course, no IFR is required for CAS penetration per se (Class C, D, E are perfectly fine for VFR flights and they are certainly controlled airspace) but the usage of the term in the UK seems to be different.
Patrick you are obviously a younger man than me
That may be so. 
Having said that, 4 hours is about the max that is durable and fun before I have to land and convert urine and euros into avgas. I don’t drink coffee at all and usually don’t drink too much BEFORE the flight but I’ll have enough water and coke at hand during the flight to keep hydrated and awake.
audio panel with bluetooth music
Hehe. I think that would be the number one range extender for me personally, Johannes.
If your 2hr leg doesn’t have a weather problem, you don’t need to fly IFR, hence no need for a: an autopilot. Period. I don’t see where the CAS bit and co-pilot are a factor, here.
Patrick,
there is an error in that thinking (often made by VFR-only pilots, but not only) that I’d like to point out. Sorry for the slight OT.
It is the notion that flying IFR somehow requires “precision” whereas VFR does not.
That is fundamentally not true. It is not the flight rules which are important, it’s whether the flight is under ATC control or not.
If you are IFR, flying along enroute in class G, you can be sloppy with altitude and heading and nobody will care much. Because you are not under control.
Likewise, if you are VFR but flying through say a CTR (class D or C) you are under control and even though you might not get separated by ATC from other traffic, they expect the same kind of precision as from the IFR flyers.
So, again: airspace class matters, not flight rules.
Obviously: The reason why we often equate IFR with “precision required” and VFR with “sloppiness allowed” is that when we fly IFR, we fly under control most of the time, whilst when we fly VFR, we fly uncontrolled most of the time.
It is the notion that flying IFR somehow requires “precision” whereas VFR does not.
Practical test standards AFAIK are 150ft altitude tolerance for VFR and 100ft for IFR…
If the plane is not totally shagged and of the stable variant, it should not be too much effort to remain within that tolerance in VMC (and not too turbulent). It’s much more effort IMO to do that in IMC.
So it makes sense to invest in an autopilot for IFR, and less so for VFR…
The reason why we often equate IFR with “precision required” and VFR with “sloppiness allowed” is that when we fly IFR, we fly under control most of the time, whilst when we fly VFR, we fly uncontrolled most of the time.
In Croatia all flights are controlled hence your previous sentence on precision applies both for IFR and VFR.
so it makes sense to invest in an autopilot for IFR, and less so for VFR
To me an autopilot is a must.
Not that I can’t hand fly (following one of my many KFC225 servo burnouts, I have hand flown Corfu – Santorini – Mykonos – Corfu – Cannes – Shoreham, and later Zagreb-Shoreham, albeit with Justine who could hold wings level) but it buggers up the options for taking photos and such.
And almost any emergency is BIG because you can’t attend to it. Yesterday I had an inlet oxygen hose pop out of the O2D2 regulator and the gas was escaping at about 20psi. The cylinder would not have lasted very long, and fancy trying to push it back in while hand flying at FL200.
Also much VFR flight is bumpy as hell. In the summer, any flying under the white fluffy bits of stuff (I did my Met theory on the online QB, sorry) is bumpy enough to upset many non-flying people. I was in a plane a few years ago with the pilot’s wife throwing up in the back seat, just flying around at 2000ft.
Plus an AP is great for having a pee 
Yes, like you I have flown to Sweden, Greece, Morocco and a couple of times to Croatia without an A/P. Because I couldn’t afford an A/P back then, that was about the only reason. I would not undertake such flights without an A/P anymore, and I guess that’s a sign of becoming older too … First a good A/P is a huge safety factor, but also flying long distance is much more fun with an A/P.
