Rambling thoughts on IFR training

[MSFT-1]

I am a VFR guy with about 500 hours (around 300 of it in my RV-8). I am working on my IFR ticket now with hopes of being finished in about 60 days. I simply do not understand how those schools claim you can complete your IFR ticket in a weekend. I have been taking serious training from a terrific instructor (Phil) for about two months and am about half way through the process. We fly/train consistently two times per week. I secretly think I have a leg up on ?an average IFR student? because I have shot dozens of practice approaches at the local airport in VFR conditions before I began serious training and have flown quite a bit of cross country. I am finding out the IFR ticket is probably about twice as much work as getting my private pilot license.

Some things I have learned:

I know about 1/100th of what I should about weather. I have never gotten into a serious weather jam, but my training has really driven home how little I really know on this topic. My complete weather planning for many cross country flights used to be to simply call the land line ATIS at various airports along my route of flight. No more. The amount of detailed current weather and the very accurate forecasts available via the web and via the briefers is truly amazing. In particular TAFs, Area Forecasts and the Radar graphics are unbelievably good.

The Rate of Turn Indicator is a lot more useful than I ever imagined. I have always known what it did and occasionally looked at it but never appreciated how much good information it provides. Similarly, I have a fuel flow gauge in my plane that I rarely used for anything more than checking the current fuel burn. I now program it before each cross country flight so I have a good read on things like gallons remaining and time remaining. This is a much more useful instrument than I previously gave it credit for.

There is a lot of stuff in the IFR curriculum that is hopelessly outdated. My instructor smiles pleasantly and shakes his head when I start ranting about this but I simply don?t see a reason to learn to fly a DME arc (my plane doesn?t have DME and never will). And while I am on this topic why are there so many seemingly arbitrary things in flying in general: MOCA only guarantees coverage when within 22 miles of a VOR (not 20 miles or 25 miles but 22). Why is visibility in statute miles but everything else is in nautical miles? Why does class E start at 14,500MSL, 10,000MSL, 1200AGL or at the surface. Why is class D airspace 4.3 nautical miles in diameter? Why, why, why? Oops, am I ranting out loud again, Phil?

Jepp charts are much nicer than the NOAA ones (in my opinion) but not worth the money unless you are a pro pilot (and somebody else is paying for them).

Controllers are my friends. Most of them are particularly helpful when they know you are a student. You can usually tell by the tone in their voice whether they are going to be helpful or harsh.

Some things I still stink at:

Slowing down for approaches. Even in the training plane, I find that I am often too fast during the approaches. My instructor keeps having to remind me about bending the flaps. This is probably a symptom of the bigger problem: getting behind the plane/situation. I think I will get better with experience. Of course this is a bigger problem in my RV-8 than it is in the Archer.

Cockpit organization. I look over at my instructor and he has the most organized kneeboard with a precisely folded sectional and Low Altitude Enroute chart. Two pens clipped to the board. The clearance info written out in perfect block lettering. Then I look down at my own lap. My kneeboard has paper stuffed in each pocket, my little timer is gone (likely on the floor between my legs somewhere). My sectional is invariably open to the North side when I need it on the South side. My pen is missing. I wrote the clearance on the margin of my sectional (and hastily lined through the same entry I did from the last flight).

Distances. I honestly have no idea what the difference between three statute miles of visibility and five miles looks like. I don?t know if I am 500 feet below a cloud or 2000 feet from it.

Conclusion

I am enjoying and benefiting from IFR training. It has really helped me realize how much stuff didn?t completely sink in during primary training.

I wouldn?t mind hearing war stories, tips, thoughts etc. on IFR training.

Cheers,

bruce

 

[gmcjetpilot]

VFR pilots and practice IFR

I secretly think I have a leg up on ?an average IFR student? because I have shot dozens of practice approaches at the local airport in VFR conditions before I began serious training and have flown quite a bit of cross country. I am finding out the IFR ticket is probably about twice as much work as getting my private pilot license.

Bruce it sounds like you have some revelations and rants and raves. I picked up on one thing you said. Not picking on you but want to address IFR practice by VFR pilots. I would just recommend folks with no IFR training and no safety pilot NOT shoot IFR approaches in VFR conditons.

I do recommend students that have reached an advance level of their IFR training go out and practice hood work and IFR approaches on their own, with a safety pilot and under VFR condtions of course. I know I did it and I encourage my students to do it when I became a CFII. There is no need for the instructor to be sitting next to you for all of your IFR training. You are a legal pilot. It is not like when you where a private pilot student. In fact the IFR rating requires only 15 hours of duel, 25 hours can be self paced practice, under the hood of course. However you must do it legally and safely, so I'll address this.

Here is why I don't recommend VFR pilots with no IFR training do IFR practice approaches under VFR.

Although VFR you must follow also IFR rules and ATC instructions. Most VFR pilots do not know the details of the communication and pilot controller responsibility for IFR. This can create a little hazard and confusion.

With out a Safety pilot looking for traffic you are taking a risk, even if you are not under a hood. How can you focus on instrument flying and look for traffic? You really can't or at least you can't do both well. (Safety pilot must be current and qualified in the plane and know their job, looking for traffic. A IFR rated safety pilot or another IFR student would be ideal but not needed if flying VFR.) Of course do I need to say it is stupid to fly with a hood and no safety pilot? Don't laugh pilots do it or at least think about it.

Practice done badly and improperly is negative learning. If you don't know how to control your speed, turns, rate of climb or descent precisely, what you're really doing is just practicing mistakes, which is hard to unlearn. First learned is best learned. Learn properly from the start. Get dual first. The self guided practice ideally should be administered under you CFII's direction, who should encourage self practice with another safety pilot. People (and some CFII's) are under the impression they always need a CFII to practice. However there are cautions to be followed to maintain safety. Some pilots may need to have their CFI ride shotgun or they just don't want to practice without their instructor. That is fine and understandable, but if you are going to do self guided practice the pilot must know the tolerance or acceptable performance standards and be able to self critique oneself. Not everyone can do that well.

Flying procedures, holds, approaches, missed approaches are what I called ADVANCED IFR training. There is ATTITUDE INSTRUMENT FLYING, the art of flying by sole refrence to instruments, and than there are procedures. They really are two different things, but you can't do procedures until you have learned the first.

I don't pound out one instrument approach after another and holds with a brand new IFR students until they master attitude instrument flying. That can take many hours, up to 5-10 hours. There is no need to go on to approaches if they can't fly the plane well by instruments. Once attitude instrument flying is learned and they're proficient, the "procedures" are perfunctory, routine, easy. If you can't fly precisely by instruments first, than you can't fly approaches well. It takes practice to get a good workable scan going, but it is key, fundamental.

There are standard patterns that you can practice under the hood (with a safety pilot) to build your instrument attitude flying skills. These pattens are called the (B) Bravo pattern, (C) Charlie pattern and Vertical-S to name a few. They can be flown away from the airport without bothering ATC.​

I am not picking on you, but I just want those planning on a IFR rating to get some training first, before thinking about intensive self paced practice hood work without an instructor (and a safety pilot). If you just want to practice basic hood work, straight and level, turns, climbs and descents that is fine. I am talking about IFR maneuvers.

An IFR student who can't fly an ILS is not because they don't understand how the Localizer or Glide scope needle works, it is because they can't hold a heading or know how to set up 500 fpm descent at 110kts. Until you know what Pitch, Power, Performance and what Cross-check, interpret and control means you have no business practicing an approach.



I did lots of self practice IFR work for my IFR rating with out an instructor. I guess I had about 20 hours of dual when I took my check ride, the rest was self practice. Yes, I did approaches VFR but after I had done enough with my instructor to understand how it all fit together. My safety pilot was another IFR student. Partnerships work well for IFR, even dual. One sits in the back and watches the other flys. I did this with my IFR students all the time. It worked well. Just be careful with the temptation to do solo hood work, it's if you can't find a safety pilot but ill advised. Instrument work with not HOOD is really not instrument work and it still is not safe.

HERE IS A TIP: The Pilot doing the practice under the hood AND Safety pilot BOTH can log the fight time during the time they are practicing! This has been ruled on. You might hear differnt things but it is true. Both pilots can log flight time as PIC. One is PIC because the are current, qualified and sole manipulator of the controls. The safety pilot, also current, qualified and is responsible for the safety of the flight. Some say you can only log it as safety pilot time? Well I say you can log it as PIC.

I did not find out the PIC time for safety pilots until I was CFII, but it could be an incentive to get safety pilots for you practice. ALSO this is good for all of you practice you instrument skills even if not after a IFR rating. Practice: level turns L&R, straight and level, straight ahead climbs and descents and combos of climbs and turns or descents and turns. Try for standard rate turns (3 deg per sec) and fixed rates of climb & descent at fixed rates of rates (e.g., 500 fpm) and fixed air speeds (100 or 120 kts for example).

Sadly many mid airs have occurred involving IFR training in VFR conditons, even with the CFII aboard. Just make sure your safety pilot or CFII is looking for traffic. Somebody has to look out the windows for traffic. Also "Flight Following" helps. Even if you are just doing practice patterns in a circle, away from the airport in a small area, ATC can still help be an extra set of eyes if they have time. Still the ultimate responsibility is on the pilot looking out the window.

For your question "Why?".....it just is.....now you are 60 feet low and 5 degrees off heading concentrate.... IT just is Actually there are good reasons and the history is interesting for another time, however you should know why more than ever. The main reason for airspace is to separate VFR traffic from IFR traffic and high speed jet traffic. The NM to Stat Mile conversions are just throw backs to old rules when they used Stat Miles. I am glad they did not convert 5 stat miles into 5 NM, a 32% increase in volume! The GOOD news you fail to realize or notice is AIRSPACE disappears when you're on a IFR clearance, since you have been already cleared through it. Cool

 

[Dgamble]

Sadly many mid airs have occurred involving IFR training in VFR conditons,

Yep! I quickly learned that the absolute worst weather for hood work was the bright, shiny VFR weekend day when everyone who could fly, was. You'll also find that a lot of your hood work will have you making long, straight in approaches which are going to cause problems with the VFR folks in the pattern, particularly as you start speaking the IFR lingo. "Procedure turn inbound" is pure gibberish to a low-time VFR pilot, even if he can pick it out of the normal CTAF weekend cacophony.

 

[RVbySDI]

"Procedure turn inbound" is pure gibberish to a low-time VFR pilot, even if he can pick it out of the normal CTAF weekend cocophony.

cocophony??? Wow! I am now embarrassed to post in these forums if I have to do so in the presence of people who know what cocophony means!

 

[keen9a]

I don't know what cocophony means either. Is that annoying noise having to do with coco beans? I do know what cacophony means.

 

[Highflight]

Cocophony ~ adjective: Describes the pleasureable experience of sipping on a cup of hot chocolate while listening to your favorite relaxing music, usually after a late night RV building session.

 

[WildBill]

ifr

on dme arcs:

Hadn't done one in about 14 years, until one day down in the islands, in clear blue sky, (I'm sure it was non-radar) we were assigned one. I have to admit we had to do some quick thought mining since it had been so long. The turning and twisting sure did go a lot faster than I remembered it in a light single. Its definately not a much used approach; but worth knowing.

 

[Mike_ExpressCT]

Bruce,

First, let me say congratulations on the work you're putting forth for your instrument rating! You're absolutley correct in saying that it is a lot of work, but believe me, you will be very happy when you complete your checkride.

You're also correct in that a lot of the IFR training curriculum is somewhat dated, but it is vital that you are very familiar with it. There are many approaches that begin with DME arcs out there (they're really not hard at all to fly, just hard to describe), Class E can also start at 700' AGL,....etc. Remember, when learning all of the IFR related FAR's, you are learning an entire new set of rules to fly by, so take the time to learn all of it.

At the university where I instruct, we take the instrument training syllabus and divide it into building blocks: basic attitude flying - VOR/GPS/ADF intercept and tracking - holding patterns - non-precision approaches - precision approaches - cross country flying (putting everything together). Just like George said, one of the most critical aspects is really learning the basic attitude instrument flying portion of flying. You must know what power/pitch/airspeed attitudes will give you such things as constant airspeed and/or rate climbs/descents, level flight, constant rate turns, etc. That will enable you to really divide your attention between flying, tuning radios, copying clearances, looking at charts, and the rest.

A few things to think about:

1. The best thing you can do is stay ahead of the situation. That means, have appropriate approach plates organized as early as possible (before takeoff if possible), start your approach briefing as early as possible, etc...basically, always be thinking two steps ahead at all times. That way, you can catch errors early and fix them before you have a problem.

2. Stay sharp: Don't forget, your checkride will include holding patterns, unusual attitudes...don't forget to continue practicing those.

3. Get your FAA written done a.s.a.p. if not already done.

4. Remember that every approach is intended to be a path for a landing. Many students who are trying to get their rating quickly will do several approaches in each lesson, but never actually land. Practice the transition from approach to landing, especially if it involves side stepping to a different runway or cirlcing. That way, when you are 1 mile from the runway and your instructor says "take off your foggles", you know how you are then going to make a landing.

5. If you ever want a real simulation of actual IFR conditions, ask your instructor to do an approach lesson at night. The lack of sunlight makes for a more "authentic" IFR condition. Embry Riddle-Prescott does most of their instrument training at night for that reason.

6. If anything is confusing, don't hesitate to ask! Your knowledge of the IFR system has to be very strong...don't leave any part of it in question.

Good luck...let us know how the rest of your training goes.

 

[tomcostanza]

Bruce,

Are you doing your IFR training in the RV? I was hoping to do the same in a 7A (if I ever get it finished). If you are, I'd be interested in your experiences. You can e-mail privately if you wish.

Regards,
Tom Costanza
RV-7A
Fuse
([email protected])

 

[grover]

Bruce,

Are you doing your IFR training in the RV? I was hoping to do the same in a 7A (if I ever get it finished).

ditto here, except 8A (the advanced model )

 

[n5lp]

...And while I am on this topic why are there so many seemingly arbitrary things in flying in general: MOCA only guarantees coverage when within 22 miles of a VOR (not 20 miles or 25 miles but 22). Why is visibility in statute miles but everything else is in nautical miles? Why does class E start at 14,500MSL, 10,000MSL, 1200AGL or at the surface. Why is class D airspace 4.3 nautical miles in diameter? Why, why, why?...

Well, it doesn't justify why things are still this way, but to find the answer convert 22 nautical miles to statute and 4.3 nautical miles to statute. At least they have made some headway on standardizing the units. When I started flying most everything was in statute miles. There are still way to many arbitrary things.

 

[MSFT-1]

IFR training in the RV8

About 90% of the training is in a PA-28. My instructor did fly with me in the RV-8 for some BAI skills and holding patterns.

bruce

 

[gmcjetpilot]

Instrument tranning in a RV-8(A)?

ditto here, except 8A (the advanced model )

Hey Grover not to rain on your parade , but I am a CFII and have a hard time seeing anyone doing serious Inst. training in a RV-8(A), much less do a check ride. The military of course has and does use tandem's. The Air Force specified the T-37 Tweet (side by side) as a primary trainer for a reason. They recognized side-by-side has training advantages. On the other hand the Navy went with the tandem Texan turbo prop. In either case, all military tandem trainers have full controls and instruments, both front and back. The RV-8(A) issue is strictly practical and even an FAR issue, the instructor shall have full control of the aircraft.

Look at your RV-8. How is the instructor going to monitor flight and nav instruments. When you are an instrument student, under the hood or IMC, keep in mind the CFII is the PIC, not you. This means the CFII is responsible and must have access to the controls and instruments period. The regs require this. It is pretty clear. The back seat of a RV-8(A) is not really a "Pilot Station". It is a glorified passenger seat with a stick. I wish I could log Boeing 777 time when I am sitting in the back.

How is the instructor going to fly the plane (rudder, throttle, prop, mixture), not to mention set and radios from the rear. Also most new Inst. students need the instructor to act as a copilot and help set up for approaches. It will take a special CFII and examiner (one who is willing) to fly in the back of your RV-8(A) unless you have full instruments and controls in the back.

Last point is traffic watch. instrument practice is often in VFR conditions. The PIC ( the instructor) is responsible for looking for traffic while you are under the hood. A tandem like the RV-8, where the rear seater has such a limited view, is in my opinion not real safe. However that is a judgment issue. Like MSFT-1 said, plan on using a Piper for 90% and 10% in the RV for practice, with the check ride in the Piper.

If asked if I would do dual anything in the back of a RV-8(A), the answer would be no, with out rear instruments and nav. I could do some DEMO or practice in a RV-8(A) in VFR conditions, if the pilot was current and qualified for the flight operations and I knew them. Which means I am there as a passenger, safety pilot and observer, not a CFII.

This is kind of what MSFT-1's CFII did. He flew with him until he was pretty much up to speed and did some practice in the RV-8, after he knew what he could do. I am not sure how they logged it towards the rating, if it was just practice or any counted towards the min requirements of the rating. You only need 40 hours of dual towards the IFR rating, 15 hours dual and 25 hours practice, even with just a safety pilot. I suspect his CFII was acting as a safety pilot and not a flight instructor. If the instructor can fly the plane than they really can't be an instructor. I have to know someone real well to climb in the back and let them fly me around without any controls or instruments even as a passenger.

I think I could do a Inst. Comp. check or flight (Bi)-annual review I suppose, if the pilot was still current, but that would not be comfortable for me unless I really know them. Still even with the pilot under the hood, as a safety pilot, you still need to have controls to take the plane if needed. If just a stick is acceptable to the safety pilot, than I guess that is OK.

Regardless, for me I still need to see some kind over the shoulder view of flight/nav instrumentation and at least have rear throttle and stick / rudder controls at min, just for safety pilot. I would talk to your local CFI's or CFII's. Also ask you local FSDO. It does not hurt to talk to the FAA and ask the question. All they can do is say no. I would hate for you to do a bunch of training in a RV-8 and find out it was basically invalid or worse, a technical violation. If the CFI can't full monitor the flight and take control, the CFI is violating regulations, whether they are willing or not. This is my opinion and interpretation of FAR's, so please check it out as I suggested.