What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

IFR ground training

The choice is most dependent on your learning style: what format/ experience aids your learning best?
Note that your study/ prep for the practical/ oral [and real life] will have a different focus than the prep for the written. In my case, that meant an intensive focus on the test prep was more effective.
Not saying the knowledge base is entirely irrelevant to actual flying -- but, e.g., I take the CR-2 out once a year just to remember I could use it to calculate fuel burn for a given leg to 0.1 gallons....
 
I got both the Kings Ground course and Shepherd Air for my IFR, and here are my thoughts on them.

Shepherd Air was extremely helpful for the IFR written test as I was able to understand more of the details of how the test questions were written and the "quirks" of why specific questions were scored a certain way. I really didn't find Shepherd helpful in truly learning about IFR concepts or as a good replacement for a true online Ground instruction course. (I.E. Shepherd Air will help get a good score on the test)

I used the King online videos for both my PPT and my IR and while they can be hard to watch at times, the did a fairly good job at teaching the concepts. I'm sure some of the other sites you list below also work well (M0A, or even https://rodmachado.com/), just find something that speaks to you. I'm not sure I could have made it through the M0A stuff as I don't mesh with his speaking style :)

I should be taking my IR Checkride in the next 30 days and hopefully it goes well! (Just waiting for a slot with my DPE).
 
Congrats on starting your IFR. After your done, you will have a new level of proficiency and fun on your cross countries. No more scud running.

I really enjoyed the Sportys IFR video series for the IFR training and King for the written. Remember anything over a 70% on the written is showing off. The real understanding comes after the written is done.

If possible, try to have the written done before or in the early portions of your IFR training. This way you can concentrate on the actual training (Sportys).

The bummer about IFR training is you have the written, flying ability, to pass your checkride, and than finally the most important..how to safely fly a planned IFR crosscountry and all the thought processes that go with that.

Another program I like for real IFR flying / decison proficiency (not just training for the check ride) is:

https://www.pilotworkshop.com/

Best of luck what ever you decide. IFR is one of the most useful and intense flight certificates / ratings one can earn.
 
Glad to see this thread! I'm VFR only but have recently been thinking about an IFR ticket. Hope others chime in with their experience! Watching with interest!!!
 
I took the Gleim for my instrument written this summer and it worked just fine - but be aware that it "teaches to the test". Their goal is to get you to pass the test, and they don't necessarily teach some of the "here is why" behind the questions. Knowing that, I don't think I would recommend it.

Time didn't work out for me to take my instrument checkride prior to Reno, so I'll have to schedule it for afterward, but I'm very close.
 
Read the Gleim book chapter introductions, then do Sheppard Air. I scored over 90% on all writtens I've taken using these methods, and most were done in short timeframes, week to two weeks start to finish.

Pass the tests, the "why" will come with real-world experience.
 
Gleim has a test prep and also an Online Ground School. I took the latter to get my commercial certificate last year and it worked well for me. It includes reasonable written descriptions of the material that I studied before taking the online questions. The test prep part helped some, especially for me to prepare for the oral almost two years later. It took me a while to get the practical part done after I took the written. Gleim was very easy to work with to get extensions to the test prep software since normally access only lasts for 12 months.

Gleim allows you to take a chapter of the training for free, so you can see what the program is like.

I took my Instrument Rating in the late 90’s using a Jeppesen program similar to Gleim, but with paper books. I studied on my own until I was ready to take the test and then found a CFII to signs me off. I looked at the Jeppesen program for my Commercial Certificate, it they were totally unresponsive to some questions I had. Gleam was very proactive, even calling me after I took the free trial, and offering some discounts. They were friendly and helpful, so I went with them.

I tried some of the others (e.g. Sheppard Air), and most seemed ok to me. The interfaces on their web sites are very 1990’s, but the material seemed like it would work. I went with Gleim because they were the most eager to help me, and it worked out that they gave me free extensions to their test preps when I took too long to take my check ride.
 
Last edited:
My son started private pilot training this summer and I was tasked with finding him an online study program for his ground school and there are so many options out there to choose from. Of all the choices he choose http://fly8ma.com It is free for private pilot training. The courses teach the material not just test prep. The private pilot ground school is broken down into about 90 small topics, with each video only about 5 minute long. Having the course broken down into small chunks makes it nice so you can spend as little or as much time during a training session and get something accomplished. Although my son has not yet taken his written exam, the course seems to be working for him. And agin, it is free for the private pilot.

A quick look at FLY8MA for instrument training and it was not clear how much it costs. I saw $29 per month and $127 per month and $299 for a year access to the IFR training program. (Rant: I hate web sites that make it difficult to figure out how much their program costs). Not sure if I helped at all, except for giving you another option to evaluate.
 
My Vote is Aviation Seminars

I tried all the home courses, and felt like I was getting nowhere. I signed up for Aviation Seminars and was pleseantly surprised. Passed my test first time 87%. I now have my instrument rating, and I got it in my RV-6. I just found that for me sitting in a classroom type environment works. Also the instructor had a lot of little tips and tricks to help with the test. I am also going for my Commercial and CFI. I took the Aviation Seminars courses and passed the written for both.
 
Bob,

When you say the Gleim book are you referring to this book?

http://www.gleim.com/products/productdetails.php/IPKT-_-Instrument-Pilot-FAA-Knowledge-Test-book

Curious why you mix it this way, why not use the Gleim online ground school? Have you cracked a secret formula?

Inquiring minds want to know...

Read the Gleim book chapter introductions, then do Sheppard Air. I scored over 90% on all writtens I've taken using these methods, and most were done in short timeframes, week to two weeks start to finish.

Pass the tests, the "why" will come with real-world experience.
 
Flying on a schedule? Non-professional IFR?

Glad to see this thread! I'm VFR only but have recently been thinking about an IFR ticket. Hope others chime in with their experience! Watching with interest!!!

Earned my IFR rating in 1985, now VFR only. Retired, no schedule!

Clearly getting an IFR ticket is a great accomplishment, and would likely enhance a pilot?s skills and safety.

I?d be interested to know how often non-professional pilots hand-fly IFR approaches in an RV down to 400? to 500? above the runway. And how often the non-professional pilot actually launches into weather that will require an IFR approach at the destination, with a forecast including moderately challenging weather.

My experience and opinion, it?s challenging for a pleasure-only pilot to fly IFR often enough to safely hand-fly approaches, particularly in moderate rain, or night, or .... However VAF threads describe the common autopilot features that will fly coupled, hands-off approaches. Do you want to count on Otto? Maybe so.

I tell prospective and new VFR pilots that they need to fly at least an hour a month to stay reasonably safe. I?d recommend non-professional IFR pilots shoot at least two approaches in actual IFR weather every month if safe hand-flying in real IFR, to keep a schedule, is their desired skill level.

Before investing in IFR I?d talk to local IFR-rated private pilots and find out how they actually use that rating. Calibrate your expectations.

If the IFR rating is to occasionally punch through a cloud layer less practice might be acceptable.

Carl
..
 
I tried all the home courses, and felt like I was getting nowhere. I signed up for Aviation Seminars and was pleseantly surprised. Passed my test first time 87%. I now have my instrument rating, and I got it in my RV-6. I just found that for me sitting in a classroom type environment works. Also the instructor had a lot of little tips and tricks to help with the test. I am also going for my Commercial and CFI. I took the Aviation Seminars courses and passed the written for both.

Richard,

The Aviation seminars are simply over a 2 day weekend? Eight hours each day? And that is all you needed to prepare and pass the written? Sounds too easy...

ajay
 
Yes

The first day was 8am to 6 pm, The second day was 8am to 4 pm if I remember correctly. I took it at Waterbury Oxford, OXC. It was the same for the commercial. And yes it was well worth it. I have sent a few friends there later and they agreed. One was for his private pilot test, and another for his IFR. You do get online books to read and when your done with the course you take their online practice tests. You take the practice tests and see how you are doing right away. They recommend getting at least an 85 on the practice tests, then go take it for real.
 
I?d be interested to know how often non-professional pilots hand-fly IFR approaches in an RV down to 400? to 500? above the runway. And how often the non-professional pilot actually launches into weather that will require an IFR approach at the destination, with a forecast including moderately challenging weather.

My experience and opinion, it?s challenging for a pleasure-only pilot to fly IFR often enough to safely hand-fly approaches, particularly in moderate rain, or night, or .... However VAF threads describe the common autopilot features that will fly coupled, hands-off approaches. Do you want to count on Otto? Maybe so.


..

Carl, totally agree with your observations. In my case I wanted to be a safer pilot and be able to fly "in the system". I have 0 intentions in flying hard IMC or flying approaches to minimums in my RV but do plan to maintain my IFR rating.

As much as I look forward to finishing up my build and having all the bells and whistles (auto-pilot, coupled approaches, etc), as you said you should not count on it and you should be prepared to hand-fly.

Who knows, my opinion may change over time, but just because I can do something doesn't always mean I should, right?
 
How long do you have between passing the written and get your ticket do you have before the written expires?

Thanks,

Bob
 
Earned my IFR rating in 1985, now VFR only. Retired, no schedule!

Getting there, yay! :cool:


My experience and opinion, it?s challenging for a pleasure-only pilot to fly IFR often enough to safely hand-fly approaches, particularly in moderate rain, or night, or .... However VAF threads describe the common autopilot features that will fly coupled, hands-off approaches. Do you want to count on Otto? Maybe so.

I tell prospective and new VFR pilots that they need to fly at least an hour a month to stay reasonably safe. I?d recommend non-professional IFR pilots shoot at least two approaches in actual IFR weather every month if safe hand-flying in real IFR, to keep a schedule, is their desired skill level.

Before investing in IFR I?d talk to local IFR-rated private pilots and find out how they actually use that rating. Calibrate your expectations.

If the IFR rating is to occasionally punch through a cloud layer less practice might be acceptable.

Carl, my thoughts exactly up until a year ago. I got my VFR ticket back in '97, and would abandon thoughts of progressing to IFR after re-doing the cost/benefit analysis and realizing it's just not in the cards to remain current and proficient as a weekend warrior.

Several new developments made me change my mind, so I'm about to take my IFR checkride in a few weeks (wish me luck).

First, piston-single flying has changed a whole lot since the days of "ADF INOP" clunkers I trained in. The situational awareness afforded by Dynon/Garmin glass is just a whole different world, and BRS changes the risk equation of night/icing/rain quite dramatically, much more so than a second engine.

Second, after puttering around VFR in my little ultralight for a hundred hours, I really really wanted that IFR ticket on enough occasions to make it annoying. West coast has frequent marine layer and smoke from fires, perfect conditions for gentlemen's IFR.

Third, the rules were changed to allow maintaining currency in simulator alone. The club I frequent has an approved sim, and grants an hour a month of free sim time to paying members. So, for six hundred bucks a year I can now stay current and reasonably proficient without touching a real cloud.

Fourth, life is short. Just do it. :D


To answer the OP's query: my path was self-study from ASA books, then used Gleim's online test prep tool ($65) for a few weeks to cram for the test.

The written is valid for a couple of years.
 
Great questions and observations.

I do a fair amount of traveling in my RV-9A under what I think of as "gentleman's IFR" conditions. I don't mind a forecast that requires an approach at the destination. But I'm generally looking for 1000-foot ceiling there, with stable or improving weather, and decent ceilings en route. If there is convection about, I need to be visual.

I don't usually get to fly two actual approaches a month. I do train to be able to shoot approaches in actual to minimums by hand, but I try very hard to avoid ending up in that situation.

I also consider a working two-axis autopilot to be required equipment before launching single-pilot IFR.

Following these guidelines, my dispatch rate is still pretty good, although it ticks downward in winter when the potential for icing is much higher.

I have not flown other RVs. So I can only assume that the -9 is slightly better than the other two-seat RVs for instrument flying by hand. Maybe not. In any event, the -9 is not a totally ideal platform for single pilot hard IFR, owing to its light weight and relatively high performance. In particular, maintaining a precise altitude at cruise speed in cumulus in the -9 by hand is doable, but requires real effort. The good news is that the -9 flies slowly like a charm, so you can always slow down if ATC permits.



Earned my IFR rating in 1985, now VFR only. Retired, no schedule!

Clearly getting an IFR ticket is a great accomplishment, and would likely enhance a pilot?s skills and safety.

I?d be interested to know how often non-professional pilots hand-fly IFR approaches in an RV down to 400? to 500? above the runway. And how often the non-professional pilot actually launches into weather that will require an IFR approach at the destination, with a forecast including moderately challenging weather.

My experience and opinion, it?s challenging for a pleasure-only pilot to fly IFR often enough to safely hand-fly approaches, particularly in moderate rain, or night, or .... However VAF threads describe the common autopilot features that will fly coupled, hands-off approaches. Do you want to count on Otto? Maybe so.

I tell prospective and new VFR pilots that they need to fly at least an hour a month to stay reasonably safe. I?d recommend non-professional IFR pilots shoot at least two approaches in actual IFR weather every month if safe hand-flying in real IFR, to keep a schedule, is their desired skill level.

Before investing in IFR I?d talk to local IFR-rated private pilots and find out how they actually use that rating. Calibrate your expectations.

If the IFR rating is to occasionally punch through a cloud layer less practice might be acceptable.

Carl
..
 
I’d be interested to know how often non-professional pilots hand-fly IFR approaches in an RV down to 400’ to 500’ above the runway. And how often the non-professional pilot actually launches into weather that will require an IFR approach at the destination, with a forecast including moderately challenging weather.

Carl
..

I got my rating 1.5 years ago and don't regret it for a second. I have made several flights in Wx requiring the rating, though most approaches have been with ceilings >700-800. However, I have done several to minimums in actual for practice and would do the same on a x country trip. I have launched into clgs as low as 500 for actual trips (had to do this for OSH this year) and lower for practice.

I have made a lot more flights that were much more comfortable due to the rating. I have limited desire to do a 2 hour x country below the cond. alt. where it is bumpy. In order to go above them means going through them, even at cruise altitude sometimes.

I would say that over 25% of the x country flights that I took required IFR for some portion of the flight.

I have an Autopilot, but pretty much shoot every approach by hand. It is a perishable skill and requires practice to stay competent. It seems a waste to not use each approach as practice. I feel sorry for the guy who only does the minimum 6 approaches with the autopilot to stay current. Heaven forbid the AP fails in actual, he will have a rough ride.

Larry
 
Last edited:
A lot depends upon your learning style. I read a couple of thorough books that covered everything a ground school would to develop my knowledge. I then used sheppard to prepare for the test. I got a 90%.

Some struggle without an instructor-led course. It really depends. I would discourage just the shepard program, as it doesn't really build a strong base of knowledge that I think a pilot should have.

Larry
 
I have made a lot more flights that were much more comfortable due to the rating.

Good point. This is a really underappreciated benefit of the rating. Or at least I didn't sufficiently appreciate it before getting instrument rated.

With the rating, flights that would be extremely sketchy and stressful to conduct under VFR very often become complete non-issues.

It also simplifies dealing with airspace. I do a lot of flying in the fairly complex airspace around metro DC, Baltimore, Wilmington, and Philly, and the rating makes that a total breeze compared to begging for flight following and Bravo clearances.
 
Good discussion!

Glad to see this thread! I'm VFR only but have recently been thinking about an IFR ticket. Hope others chime in with their experience! Watching with interest!!!

Appreciate all the feedback on my ?flytoday? post.

We likely know student pilots who flew many hours and never quite finished the PPL. Similarly PPL pilots that fly for a few years and stop. I also believe that it would not be difficult to find IFR-rated non-professional pilots that don?t use the rating as they originally intended, if at all.

I agree, the technology today is tremendous compared to learning IFR in 1985, flying a 172 with an ADF, two NAVCOMs, one with LOC/GS. I did have a LORAN so I had such an advantage by entering lat/long digits and getting range, bearing, and TimeToGo data. That was fantastic in 1985!

Now with FFlight or Garmin Pilot or ... we have information in the single-engine cockpit that may exceed the A320 or 737 flying way up there. I use that information to fly VFR with vastly improved safety margins than in the 70?s and 80?s.

As I posted originally, the IFR rating is very likely a skill and safety enhancement for every pilot, and I wouldn?t discourage anyone from accepting the challenge.

Talk to pilots that fly similar missions to your expectations and proceed with the data!

Carl
..
 
Back
Top