Another "Which Course for the IR Written?" Question

MBDiagMan

MBDiagMan

Final Approach
Joined
May 8, 2011
Messages
5,190
Location
Mount Pleasant,Texas
Display Name
Display name:
Doc
I passed the Private test in '92 in short order using the King Course on VHS. (For you young folks, that was a large domino looking thing that you fed into a large box hooked to your TV.):D

After a long lapse, I retook the written in 2010 I think it was, by just using one of the paper study guides.

I have been working toward getting my avionics all sorted out and am now at the point where I want to jump into my IR training with all four feet. My plan is to knock out the written to get it out of the way, then do some deeper reading and study while flying the lessons and preparation.

I had no problem making it through the Kings corny lessons. They worked quite well for me. Would their current instrument training be as good as their private course back then?

Has anyone used the Kings AND some other video aid study course such that they can compare the two. Even if you used King for one rating and something else for another rating. How would you compare them.

Now that I'm ready to go, I'm ready to go and want to knock out the written in an effort to prevent any delay along the way that might cause a gap that allows me to lose my edge.

Thanks in advance for your advice and comments.
 
MBDiagMan said:
I had no problem making it through the Kings corny lessons. They worked quite well for me. Would their current instrument training be as good as their private course back then?
Click to expand...
I'm a big believer in "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Everything the Kings do is pretty much the same methodology, so if those "corny" King videos worked "quite well" for you for PP, stick with them for IR.

BTW, will you be doing the IR flight training in your Cessna 140?
 
I used the King's stuff for my IR and while I can still hear Martha going "Localizer Darn Angle" in the back of my head, it was pretty effective.
 
Yes, I am going to do my IR in my 140. I hope to never fly in actual, especially single pilot in her though.
 
King worked for me for both the private and IR written exams. As Ron noted, if they worked for you for the private, don't change. I know what you mean about Martha's "humor". But, it worked for me, too.

What else? The FAA's documents are a must (and are free to download). I also have Machado's Instrument Pilot Survival Guide. His treatment of and trick for remembering which hold entry to use is the easiest to remember for me. No, I won't give it away, buy Rod's book and look it up for yourself.
 
I have had good luck with the paper books by Gliem.
 
I did my IR a few years ago. Originally I bought the Sporty's course, and worked through that.

I liked it because it broke the course up by the phase of the flight. I would have stuck with it, however I was getting frustrated on some of what I would call more archaic/arcane topics (relative bearing, caging and un caging some piece of equipment I haven't seen in 20+ years of flying). I am not saying they aren't important, they were just difficult for me to relate to anything.

I bought the King course, and in some ways it helped to fill in the gaps. For me I learned from both of them. The King course was a little more geared toward passing the written (I did buy their Oral IR video), I though the Sporty's was more practical based on actual IFR flying.

At the time neither were available on the IPad, which I use 90% of the time. So eventually I ended up buying the Dauntless App, which I ran through about a 100 practise tests.

I am lucky that I could afford to buy both courses. If the goal is to pass the written, then I think the King might be more beneficial. My nature is to get as many sources to learn as possible. I am not a fan of rote memorization.

When I took the private ground school, I did it at the local community college. So I can't compare either of these to that.
 
Ron Levy said:
You do have a glide slope in it, right? Gotta be able to do an ILS or LPV for the practical test.
Click to expand...


Yes, I have everything working for an ILS approach. I did some antenna work over the holidays, and finally got a chance Monday evening to fly to an airport with an ILS approach for a test. GS, LOC and Marker Beacon all work perfectly.

My 140 has a custom built panel with a six pack and center stack. This isn't your Grandfathers Cessna 140.
 

Attachments

  • C140Panel.jpg
    C140Panel.jpg
    94.3 KB · Views: 47
Last edited:
MBDiagMan said:
Yes, I have everything working for an ILS approach. I did some antenna work over the holidays, and finally got a chance Monday evening to fly to an airport with an ILS approach for a test. GS, LOC and Marker Beacon all work perfectly.

My 140 has a custom built panel with a six pack and center stack. This isn't your Grandfathers Cessna 140.
Click to expand...
Cool! If you want to do this on an intensive basis once you've done the written, give me a call -- been a while since I've done one in a taildragger.
 
Another vote for the Kings, used em myself and had all my students use them with great results.
 
I am almost ready for the IR written.
I started with Gleim OGS. I switched to king and I am getting the information at a fraction of the speed and remembering it. I will use them from here on out.

Gleim have mastered the art of making flying boring.
 
sheppardair. buy it today and you'll will be ready for the test by Monday. Just do it how they say. It is only for the written though. Great program and highly recommended.
 
I used the Jeppesen study book for the Private, King for the Instrument and Commercial, and Sheppard Air for the ATP. Sheppard Air was by far the fastest. I studied in a weekend and got a 95% on the ATP written. The best score I got on a written. I liked the King stuff, but I feel Sheppard allowed me to study at a little bit faster pace that was more to my liking. Sheppard Air is more of a "take the test now...Learn and retain the info later" type of program.
 
Well I got the King Course Friday night and got in about four or five hours this weekend. Martha is not as corny as I remember and I think she is an effective teacher. I only got through 7% of the questions according to the course progress data.

They cover 993 questions in their material. Out of curiosity, I googled and found where there are only 60 questions on the actual test. Is this correct?

I would like to think that I can knock out the written in the next month or less. We'll see. It's not as if this is the only commitment I have. I work a full time job, chair the Veterans Memorial committee and trying to get certified to fly with the Civil Air Patrol. Things around my place need attention as well. Again, we'll see.
 
Ron Levy said:
Cool! If you want to do this on an intensive basis once you've done the written, give me a call -- been a while since I've done one in a taildragger.
Click to expand...

And Doc, if you do invite Ron to come out, please advise. I'll come up and meet both of you for dinner sometime during the training...
 
MBDiagMan said:
Well I got the King Course Friday night and got in about four or five hours this weekend. Martha is not as corny as I remember and I think she is an effective teacher. I only got through 7% of the questions according to the course progress data.

They cover 993 questions in their material. Out of curiosity, I googled and found where there are only 60 questions on the actual test. Is this correct?
Click to expand...

Yes... just 60 questions for the actual exam, but thorough study is needed since you don't know which of the 993 questions will appear on your exam.


Another vote for SheppardAir in addition to the King Material. For me, King did a good job of the what and why. Sheppard did a great job of preparing for the actual exam.
 
Plus one on King and Sheppardair. I got in the 80s on the Instrument written.
 
MBDiagMan said:
Yes, I have everything working for an ILS approach. I did some antenna work over the holidays, and finally got a chance Monday evening to fly to an airport with an ILS approach for a test. GS, LOC and Marker Beacon all work perfectly.
Click to expand...

So you finally got the lights to work? What was it?
 
First off, on another forum Bob Gardner answered a question about the need for MB lights being a "nice to have" and I took that as for training purposes, although he did not clarify that.

Secondly, I did another test approach, but went straight toward the Outer Marker for about six miles to make sure I flew directly over it. I was by myself and busy with lots of student traffic and other distractions, but saw a blink of the blue light. Had I been able to stare at it, I believe I would have seen more than a blink.

I do have one more avionics for training concern now. The ILS approach plate that I've been flying, which is the closest to my home field, says "ADF Required." As I understand it, the ADF is necessary for a missed approach. How will this effect my checkride? I sure hate to add even more antiques to my panel.
 
Last edited:
MBDiagMan said:
First off, on another forum Bob Gardner answered a question about the need for MB lights being a "nice to have" and I took that as for training purposes, although he did not clarify that.

Secondly, I did another test approach, but went straight toward the Outer Marker for about six miles to make sure I flew directly over it. I was by myself and busy with lots of student traffic and other distractions, but saw a blink of the blue light. Had I been able to stare at it, I believe I would have seen more than a blink.

I do have one more avionics for training concern now. The ILS approach plate that I've been flying, which is the closest to my home field, says "ADF Required." As I understand it, the ADF is necessary for a missed approach. How will this effect my checkride? I sure hate to add even more antiques to my panel.
Click to expand...

My understanding (which may or may not be correct) is that for simulated instrument work (which will almost certainly be how your checkride is handled) some of those things can be ignored since you can self-vector and/or get vectors from ATC. However, since we're talking about a checkride you might want to figure out who your DPE is likely to be and contact them about the concern. Worst case, fly a little further away and find an ILS without the ADF requirement.

For others smarter than me, would an "ADF Required" ILS (assuming the ADF was part of the missed approach procedures) flown with a safety pilot in VMC count for logging purposes (currency) in a plane without an ADF? I know you can fly the approach like that in VMC and *believe* it could be logged, but don't know for certain whether it could be logged for currency or not.
 
MBDiagMan said:
First off, on another forum Bob Gardner answered a question about the need for MB lights being a "nice to have" and I took that as for training purposes, although he did not clarify that.

Secondly, I did another test approach, but went straight toward the Outer Marker for about six miles to make sure I flew directly over it. I was by myself and busy with lots of student traffic and other distractions, but saw a blink of the blue light. Had I been able to stare at it, I believe I would have seen more than a blink.

I do have one more avionics for training concern now. The ILS approach plate that I've been flying, which is the closest to my home field, says "ADF Required." As I understand it, the ADF is necessary for a missed approach. How will this effect my checkride? I sure hate to add even more antiques to my panel.
Click to expand...
You can't fly it without ADF. Or you can use an IfR approved GPS like the G430 and use it in lieu of the ADF
 
Whatever works for you. I have always liked the Gleim presentation format, and that's really the only difference between the systems. All of them have the same information including the free stuff from the FAA. All of them can get you a 100%.
 
Thanks very much for the research Mike. It was thoughtful of you to do that, but now I am back to square one needing more equipment for the checkride.:(. Two steps forward and three back.
 
MBDiagMan said:
Thanks very much for the research Mike. It was thoughtful of you to do that, but now I am back to square one needing more equipment for the checkride.:(. Two steps forward and three back.
Click to expand...

Alternative would be go see Brandon Ayers over at KGLE and see about using his 172.
 
Thanks Mike, but I think I have it covered now.

I was talking to the UPS pilot at the airport this afternoon who flies into Ardmore on a daily basis. He whipped out his plate book and showed me that no ADF is required on their ILS approach. More looking and I discovered that Greg county in Longview also is an option. With some work I might find some others.

Looks like I don't have to start over again.
 
AggieMike88 said:
ADF Required...

This might help answer the question: http://www.askacfi.com/2796/adf-required-is-it-really.htm
Click to expand...

That's a great reference and reaffirms the idea that ADF is required to fly the approach in IMC due to needing to be able to handle lost comms, missed approach, etc. But I've flown a few VFR practice approaches where the chart says equipment is required that I don't have on board. It seems to me that it would be legal to fly those approaches VFR. So, if the DPE approved (which is why I suggested finding/contacting the DPE to be used) wouldn't that be OK for the checkride? (Understanding that finding a non-ADF required option is probably better in this case.) Additionally, if not on a checkride but flying an approach like this as a VFR flight (foggles, safety pilot, etc) could it be logged for currency?
 
mjburian said:
That's a great reference and reaffirms the idea that ADF is required to fly the approach in IMC due to needing to be able to handle lost comms, missed approach, etc. But I've flown a few VFR practice approaches where the chart says equipment is required that I don't have on board. It seems to me that it would be legal to fly those approaches VFR. So, if the DPE approved (which is why I suggested finding/contacting the DPE to be used) wouldn't that be OK for the checkride? (Understanding that finding a non-ADF required option is probably better in this case.) Additionally, if not on a checkride but flying an approach like this as a VFR flight (foggles, safety pilot, etc) could it be logged for currency?
Click to expand...
I would think that this would be discussed on the ground. Maybe he would pull out the plate and ask you what equipment you need for the approach and if you could legally fly the approach if you are missing any of the equipment.
 
Sounds like you have it covered, Doc. I used King also.
 
Ardmore is a good spot. Offers several approaches to work and practice.

Can get active during the day since it's a frequent training and practice place.

And you're right next door to KPRX... Great spot to practice your DME arcs! http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1502/00803V35.PDF
 
No DME in the plane and I didn't remember there being a DME approach at Cox Field.

I learned to fly at KPRX ca. 1992. I was my instructors first student upon his retirement and taking up flight instructing full time. We started in an Aeronca Champ with no radio.

In my early hours of flying, he kept after me for fixating on the instruments. We eventually went to a 150. On my duel cross country to a towered airport, we went to Tyler. When we left Tyler to come home, I took off and started the climb out. He handed me a hood and said "I think you are going to do well at this." I put on the hood while he took the controls. After getting on the hood and taking back the controls, he gave me headings and altitudes and I picked up the VOR just South of Cox Field and followed the radial as I descended. At a few hundred feet he told me to take off the hood. I saw the runway and landed.

When I took up flying again in 2011, I flew four or five hours with him and soloed. For various reasons, I then bought Miss Piggy, hangared at a different field and flew with a different instructor to learn the tailwheel and finish my private.

Once I get the written behind me, I will be doing my instrument training with the original instructor at Cox Field. Kind of nostalgic. He's kind of a sarcastic old fellow, but a nice guy and a GREAT instructor. He taught me things and went over stuff that no other instructor since then has ever mentioned.

If he can make an instrument pilot out of me, it will mark about 23 years of intensive, every day flight instruction for him and I plan on doing something special for him. He is a bit of a fixture around Cox Field and we have mutual acquaintances in and out of the aviation community.

Anyway, I wish Cox Field had more approaches available and reasonable fuel prices. I will be in and out of there a lot, since I will have to go there to pick up the instructor.
 
Last edited:
They'll all work. Back in 1990 and 2003, I did Aviation seminars for my private and instrument writtens respectively...mid-90's on the scores both times. When I started more advanced training, I used the Gleim on-line ground schools. Less expensive, do at your own pace, etc. I used Gleim for my Commercial, FOI, AGI, CFI, and CFII and did high 90's to 100 on them all, so I can't complain. They'll let you do one module for free, so check it out if you like. I've seen Sporty's video stuff too and that looks OK...like King, but a little less maise.
 
Shepperd air is BY FAR the best way to study for writtens. If you study the way that they tell you too, you can be fully prepared and make atleast an 85 in about 3 days
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top