Back from honey moon and back on the IR journey

A

asgcpa

En-Route
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
2,559
Location
Illinois
Display Name
Display name:
CPA
Back from my honeymoon and started back on the IR journey.

July 3, got back in the saddle after about a month off of flying IFR. Only flying I did in the month was ferrying an airplane VFR for 1/2 hour and my 2 hour VFR sightseeing flight in Maui with an instructor next to me and my new wife in the back. On July 3, did partial panel, unusual attitudes and one RNAV partial panel approach with a circle to land. It was 2.2 hours.

Flew July 5 and 6 for a total of 5 hours (about 2-3 hours each day). Approaches, holds, etc.

Today I was worn out. Got put through the wringer with 4.2 hours in air and 1 hour ground. Did 10+ approaches today, and those were multiple ILS, RNAV (LNAV+V) full VOR with procedure turns, and VOR vectored approaches. Approach, followed by approach, followed by approach. Very little time to brief the approach plates and the related missed procedures. It was like drinking from a fire hose. My instructor wanted to build my stamina for the check ride. We did 3 or so holds, two were published missed, the other was a non-published hold. We also landed at KMKE, and did a VOT test at KMKE. I have now done a dual VOR test, a VOT, and an airborne test and a ground test. We did partial panel with unusual attitudes and ended with an RNAV + circle to land. I was not allowed to use an autopilot today, except to change fuel tanks. All approaches and holds were hand flown. We polished up on radio calls. I am officially exhausted, but energized at the same time.

Tomorrow I am taking a client VFR flying and then in the afternoon its going to be 4 hours on holds in the Frasca sim tomorrow that is the exact configuration of my trainer. We are going to do AHRS and air data failures with partial panel emergency landings(can't do that in my Elite sim).

Back to the airplane this weekend. Hopefully the stars will align and my instructor will be available to sign me off and then a check ride.

My instructor says I am really close to getting the rating....there is a light at the end of the tunnel and it is not an oncoming train.
 
Last edited:
Based on that training, you'll ace your check ride!

What type are you flying for training? Sounds glass.

Good luck.
 
Sounds like your just about there. Good luck when you take the check ride.
 
asgcpa said:
Today I was worn out. Got put through the wringer with 4.2 hours in air and 1 hour ground. Did 10+ approaches today, and those were multiple ILS, RNAV (LNAV+V) full VOR with procedure turns, and VOR vectored approaches. Approach, followed by approach, followed by approach. Very little time to brief the approach plates and the related missed procedures. It was like drinking from a fire hose.
Click to expand...

A suggestion if you don't mind.... if you are feeling rushed between approaches, ask the controller for one minute longer or whatever you need on the out bound leg to give you more time to set up. I do it all the time during check rides at Albuquerque, especially when I know the next one will be a simulated engine out approach. The ILS to runway 8 missed approach is followed by radar vectors to the ILS runway 3. Sometimes the controller is trying to work us in between traffic and gives us a short turn to intercept, while I am trying to zero thrust the engine and set up for the new approach. I would rather have a few more minutes to prepare.

Good luck on the check ride. The instrument rating is a tough one.
 
Zeldman said:
A suggestion if you don't mind.... if you are feeling rushed between approaches, ask the controller for one minute longer or whatever you need on the out bound leg to give you more time to set up. I do it all the time during check rides at Albuquerque, especially when I know the next one will be a simulated engine out approach. The ILS to runway 8 missed approach is followed by radar vectors to the ILS runway 3. Sometimes the controller is trying to work us in between traffic and gives us a short turn to intercept, while I am trying to zero thrust the engine and set up for the new approach. I would rather have a few more minutes to prepare.

Good luck on the check ride. The instrument rating is a tough one.
Click to expand...

That is a good suggestion and is one my CFII recommended so that is what I have been doing. Thanks.
 
Let me play devil's advocate here:
First it sounds like you are doing great - keep it up.
After you get the rating I would strongly urge that you do some approaches in something without a glass panel - lets say a VOR, DG, T&B and a whiskey compass will do nicely (no horizon). You can do these for yourself on a VFR day and some sink stoppers will set up the panel.

Now, I will hear some protest that they only fly their airplane with their glass panel so they don't need the aggravation of some old buzzard (like me) saying they need to fly some piece of junk with a partial panel of steam gauges.
Fair enough, I say in return. But what happens when you go to a dawn patrol with George in his plane and on the way back the wx decides to go crappy, George blunders into IMC and 2 minutes later scared sheetless George cannot even keep the plane upright?
So there you are doing the VOR-A with my equipment list - from the right seat no less. Do ya think having done it before then would be helpful?

cheers :D
 
Dr. O said:
But what happens when you go to a dawn patrol with George in his plane and on the way back the wx decides to go crappy, George blunders into IMC and 2 minutes later scared sheetless George cannot even keep the plane upright?
So there you are doing the VOR-A with my equipment list - from the right seat no less. Do ya think having done it before then would be helpful?
Click to expand...
Interesting fantasy scenario. If I really wanted to be prepared for something like that I would want to practice it from the right seat as well. Those old analog VOR needles have enough parallax error when viewed from the side to be a problem if you don't know how much you have to compensate.

And if George pulled a stunt like that, it would be the last time I went flying with him. Not to mention, it would mean that in all likelihood I didn't do an adequate weather briefing myself. I don't care whether I'm PIC or not, I check the weather before going anywhere in a bugsmasher. If I don't, shame on me.
 
Dr. O said:
Now, I will hear some protest that they only fly their airplane with their glass panel so they don't need the aggravation of some old buzzard (like me) saying they need to fly some piece of junk with a partial panel of steam gauges.
Click to expand...
Being an "old buzzard" myself this is why my IFR tutorials at AvClicks.com don't, yet anyway, include technically advanced aircraft systems (TAAs). Basic skills, IMO, like situational awareness, timing, and where the plane is with respect to the IFR infrastructure can be obscured by the knobology needed to operate TAAs. I say let's teach IFR in a nice basic trainer without a moving map or glass panel then, after the rudiments are down pat, transition those skills and understanding of the IFR infrastucture to the complexity of the airplane-specific TAA the IFR student plans to fly. Tossing a student into the teeming cauldron of "information overload" on day one just dosen't strike me as efficient or wise.

I've never heard anyone who learned this way say they regret it, but I've heard many say they wished they had done it this way. Also, those who know only TAAs seem to be the ones needing all kinds of extra electronic gadgets packed in their flight bags as no-go items.

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
Being an "old buzzard" myself this is why my IFR tutorials at AvClicks.com don't, yet anyway, include technically advanced aircraft systems (TAAs). Basic skills, IMO, like situational awareness, timing, and where the plane is with respect to the IFR infrastructure can be obscured by the knobology needed to operate TAAs. I say let's teach IFR in a nice basic trainer without a moving map or glass panel then, after the rudiments are down pat, transition those skills and understanding of the IFR infrastucture to the complexity of the airplane-specific TAA the IFR student plans to fly. Tossing a student into the teeming cauldron of "information overload" on day one just dosen't strike me as efficient or wise.

I've never heard anyone who learned this way say they regret it, but I've heard many say they wished they had done it this way. Also, those who know only TAAs seem to be the ones needing all kinds of extra electronic gadgets packed in their flight bags as no-go items.

dtuuri
Click to expand...
For my IR I trained in a 172 with dual G430W's. For my long X Country, my instructor had me navigate without the 430's for one of the legs, simulating a GPS failure. I thought it was a good idea and I try to switch off navigating with GPS and VOR's when I go IFR
 
Dr. O said:
Let me play devil's advocate here:
First it sounds like you are doing great - keep it up.
After you get the rating I would strongly urge that you do some approaches in something without a glass panel - lets say a VOR, DG, T&B and a whiskey compass will do nicely (no horizon). You can do these for yourself on a VFR day and some sink stoppers will set up the panel.

Now, I will hear some protest that they only fly their airplane with their glass panel so they don't need the aggravation of some old buzzard (like me) saying they need to fly some piece of junk with a partial panel of steam gauges.
Fair enough, I say in return. But what happens when you go to a dawn patrol with George in his plane and on the way back the wx decides to go crappy, George blunders into IMC and 2 minutes later scared sheetless George cannot even keep the plane upright?
So there you are doing the VOR-A with my equipment list - from the right seat no less. Do ya think having done it before then would be helpful?

cheers :D
Click to expand...


Seems like a low probability.

The argument that having flying experience on minimal equipment should be a mandatory requirement for scenarios like you are describing is repeated by many but I think it is only one of many equally unlikely possibilities. Why wouldn't the opposite to be as possible if not more which is being in a plane with completely foreign avionics that is above and beyond for the "steam gauge" pilot?

There are so many potential scenarios to consider, not the least of which is flying a plane with minimal IFR equipment. You could easily have switched the scenario to be an all glass G1000 (not Avidyne), or another with an Avidyne R9, or with GTN650s, or with an Aspen, or a Garmin G3x and a KLN94, etc.

Would you be able to jump into a right seat and fly to minimums if you had to on a single AFS 55xx and a KLN94 with no analog instruments? So, maybe you won't fly experimental? Then how about a Cirrus SR20 on an R9 and 650s with no AP?

I couldn't. And, I have never tried. The combinations are infinite.
 
Experience with steam gauges is completely useless, and should not continue to be practiced.

There. That should get some attention. :)

It is only the (needlessly) glacial pace of technological advancement in aviation that even allows for the opportunity to practice on ancient hardware. We're in a drawn out transition period where the old timers (and it happens in every field) believe that "old" == "better" (more reliable, somehow more pure, less confusing, whatever... they like it more than the new stuff).

Fast forward 30 years. VORs are dead. ADBs non existent. GPS is probably still around, but something has almost certainly replaced it. No one makes mechanical attitude references anymore. Panel is completely digital, reliable and redundant.

The whole "you should still practice on steam gauges" argument won't even be possible, because there won't be steam gauges.

What then?
 
I hope you're doing all this without the stec's help!

If you're feeling rushed get back into the sim

Be sure you incorporate IOAT into your scan, I'd file IFR often, do a pop up clearence, pick one over the phone too and one airborne before entering controlled airspace.

What the others said a out glass, I did mine in a straight 6pack with no GPS or autopilot, heck it even had chitty gyros lol Going from 6 pack to glass is easy (like Tailwheel to trike). Ether way you picked your platform stick with it, keep in mind if you go to a 6pack plane later its going to take a little time to get back in the saddle

Ether way, keep up the good work and good luck on your ride!
 
Last edited:
Mistake Not... said:
Experience with steam gauges is completely useless, and should not continue to be practiced.

There. That should get some attention. :)

It is only the (needlessly) glacial pace of technological advancement in aviation that even allows for the opportunity to practice on ancient hardware. We're in a drawn out transition period where the old timers (and it happens in every field) believe that "old" == "better" (more reliable, somehow more pure, less confusing, whatever... they like it more than the new stuff).

Fast forward 30 years. VORs are dead. ADBs non existent. GPS is probably still around, but something has almost certainly replaced it. No one makes mechanical attitude references anymore. Panel is completely digital, reliable and redundant.

The whole "you should still practice on steam gauges" argument won't even be possible, because there won't be steam gauges.

What then?
Click to expand...

It won't matter because we will all be in flying cars by then which drive,uh fly, themselves, I won't even have to worry about my house because my robotic maid will do it for me ;)
 
Last edited:
Mistake Not... said:
Fast forward 30 years. ... Panel is completely digital, reliable and redundant.

The whole "you should still practice on steam gauges" argument won't even be possible, because there won't be steam gauges.

What then?
Click to expand...

You won't need an instrument rating, or a pilot's license either for that matter. Just rent the plane climb in and go. The attendant will strap you in like an amusement park ride, push a button and weeee! No thinking required. Instead of an instrument panel, you'll have vending machines up-selling the cost of the ticket. Prolly have your choice of flavored high fructose corn syrups, candies, chocolates and alcoholic beverages. Instead of real windows you'll have virtual ones--molded displays giving you your choice of panoramas. Hey, why get stuck with a boring view of fly-over country, huh? Gee I can't wait. :rolleyes:

dtuuri
 
Well, that stirred up some fleas on a sleepy dog :D

It is possible that both VOR/ILS and GPS will be replaced in 30 years. However I remind myself that we are dealing with the FAA who still have to frantically replace tubes in their radar processing equipment when the sector goes down.

Could I take over a fancy schmancy glass panel ship and fly it in IMC in a 'pilot down' emergency?
Well, it is a sure thing that glass panel will require more time and energy than I will have available.
I will settle for having paid attention to how to operate the radio and locating the back up horizon before we took off.

Interestingly I asked for a PAR into our local jet port a year or two back. The controller, who was a grizzled veteran, laughed out loud and said he was the only one there that knew how to do it and that the equipment was no longer calibrated. Time marches on.
 
Mistake Not... said:
Experience with steam gauges is completely useless, and should not continue to be practiced.

There. That should get some attention. :)

It is only the (needlessly) glacial pace of technological advancement in aviation that even allows for the opportunity to practice on ancient hardware. We're in a drawn out transition period where the old timers (and it happens in every field) believe that "old" == "better" (more reliable, somehow more pure, less confusing, whatever... they like it more than the new stuff).

Fast forward 30 years. VORs are dead. ADBs non existent. GPS is probably still around, but something has almost certainly replaced it. No one makes mechanical attitude references anymore. Panel is completely digital, reliable and redundant.

The whole "you should still practice on steam gauges" argument won't even be possible, because there won't be steam gauges.

What then?
Click to expand...
But you should practice on steam guages. You be abe to know exactly where you are if you PFD/MFD craps out. You should be able to shoot an ILS and identify fixes via a cross radial. You should be able to navigate on a Victor airway using VOR's and be able to find an intersection using a cross radial. Not saying you aren't proficient on the 6 pack as well as glass but there are some pilots that as soon as you take away the magenta line, they just scratch their heads and say what now.
 
jordane93 said:
But you should practice on steam guages. You be abe to know exactly where you are if you PFD/MFD craps out. You should be able to shoot an ILS and identify fixes via a cross radial. You should be able to navigate on a Victor airway using VOR's and be able to find an intersection using a cross radial. Not saying you aren't proficient on the 6 pack as well as glass but there are some pilots that as soon as you take away the magenta line, they just scratch their heads and say what now.
Click to expand...

My elite sim has an archer with 6 pack configuration. I practice on that at home.
 
And I maintain the reverence for steam gauges is misplaced.

I know many of you take a lot of pride in being able to visualize your position from the sacred six and a couple of VORs, but it's stone age technology and the sooner dead, the better.

There's no reason instrument flying has to be difficult as it is.. A computer can easily take the raw sensor data (gps loc, attitude, altitude, climb rate, air speed, etc) and recreate the out the window view. "but, but... what if you have an sensor failure (partial panel)?" Well, what if I do? The computer is much better at detecting that failure and using data from the other sensors (or the second set, since dual redundancy would be possible if the FAA didn't make everything so damned expensive), and compensating.

The "sucky six" and the mind games that must be played as a result of the primitive data displays account for much of the difficulty in flying by reference to instruments. It's entirely likely that safety would be improved by eliminating the old style instruments.

The day's coming, gents. I can't wait. :)
 
Mistake Not... said:
And I maintain the reverence for steam gauges is misplaced.

I know many of you take a lot of pride in being able to visualize your position from the sacred six and a couple of VORs, but it's stone age technology and the sooner dead, the better.

There's no reason instrument flying has to be difficult as it is.. A computer can easily take the raw sensor data (gps loc, attitude, altitude, climb rate, air speed, etc) and recreate the out the window view. "but, but... what if you have an sensor failure (partial panel)?" Well, what if I do? The computer is much better at detecting that failure and using data from the other sensors (or the second set, since dual redundancy would be possible if the FAA didn't make everything so damned expensive), and compensating.

The "sucky six" and the mind games that must be played as a result of the primitive data displays account for much of the difficulty in flying by reference to instruments. It's entirely likely that safety would be improved by eliminating the old style instruments.

The day's coming, gents. I can't wait. :)
Click to expand...

It's not about the gauges, it's about the pilot flying the plane.

Glass is wonderful for flying, but depending on it as a crutch and not being able to resolve "why is it doing that" scenarios WILL come back to bite you, just like depending on automation in any other field.
 
dtuuri said:
Basic skills, IMO, like situational awareness, timing, and where the plane is with respect to the IFR infrastructure can be obscured by the knobology needed to operate TAAs. I say let's teach IFR in a nice basic trainer without a moving map or glass panel then, after the rudiments are down pat, transition those skills and understanding of the IFR infrastucture to the complexity of the airplane-specific TAA the IFR student plans to fly.
Click to expand...
I think this is key. Its all about the crucial fundamentals of instrument flying.
 
I don't think that is unique to glass. If you can't figure out your vacuum pump failed or your pitot is blocked while on final in IMC, you are not going to have a fun either.
 
Mistake Not... said:
Experience with steam gauges is completely useless, and should not continue to be practiced.

There. That should get some attention. :)

It is only the (needlessly) glacial pace of technological advancement in aviation that even allows for the opportunity to practice on ancient hardware. We're in a drawn out transition period where the old timers (and it happens in every field) believe that "old" == "better" (more reliable, somehow more pure, less confusing, whatever... they like it more than the new stuff).

Fast forward 30 years. VORs are dead. ADBs non existent. GPS is probably still around, but something has almost certainly replaced it. No one makes mechanical attitude references anymore. Panel is completely digital, reliable and redundant.

The whole "you should still practice on steam gauges" argument won't even be possible, because there won't be steam gauges.

What then?
Click to expand...

Then don't fly instruments in any of our club planes. They all have steam gauge panels. Even the plane with a 430W. Whether all that stuff is dead in 30 years or not, you need it today for many of the planes in the fleet. Heck, that 430W is the most advanced avionics I've used. Maybe 30 years from now your scenario will be reality, but it isn't today. Train for what you use, not what will be the way might be after I'm likely dead and buried.

There's a big difference between today and 30 years into the future.
 
Good thing computers never fail huh?!

If you can't fall back to the very basics your foundation was built on some deadly ground.

Even the big boys flying 121/135 have to do a raw data approach for their checkrides.

If you rely on something so much, Murphy will take it from you when you most need it. When it comes to flying you want to be a belt and suspenders kinda guy ;)
 
I think the main disadvantage to having a pure steam gauge airplane is that there are many fields where it is no longer possible to get in on IFR days without an approach-capable GPS. I'm based at one at the moment, though the field I'll be at from now on has at least an ILS. There used to be a VOR approach here, and technically it's still on the books, but the VOR it's based on is "indefinitely" (read permanently) OTS. My first CFII didn't have anything but old-style gauges and nav instruments in his 172. He's still based here too, I don't know if he ever put in a GPS. If he didn't, knowing his aversion to having to get a ride from PTK, he won't be taking any IR students into actual except on those very rare days when it's VFR here and IFR conditions very close by.
 
I guess no one noticed that the OP was doing airplane tricks on his honeymoon :rolleyes2:

Happy wife, happy life.

Congrats :D
 
azure said:
I think the main disadvantage to having a pure steam gauge airplane is that there are many fields where it is no longer possible to get in on IFR days without an approach-capable GPS. I'm based at one at the moment, though the field I'll be at from now on has at least an ILS. There used to be a VOR approach here, and technically it's still on the books, but the VOR it's based on is "indefinitely" (read permanently) OTS. My first CFII didn't have anything but old-style gauges and nav instruments in his 172. He's still based here too, I don't know if he ever put in a GPS. If he didn't, knowing his aversion to having to get a ride from PTK, he won't be taking any IR students into actual except on those very rare days when it's VFR here and IFR conditions very close by.
Click to expand...

No argument there. You must have the equipment on board for the approaches at your destination. But that's not a steam gauge vs. no steam gauge situation. That's an equipment issue. Not a new issue, and one that won't be going away anytime soon.
 
azure said:
I think the main disadvantage to having a pure steam gauge airplane is that there are many fields where it is no longer possible to get in on IFR days without an approach-capable GPS. I'm based at one at the moment, though the field I'll be at from now on has at least an ILS. There used to be a VOR approach here, and technically it's still on the books, but the VOR it's based on is "indefinitely" (read permanently) OTS. My first CFII didn't have anything but old-style gauges and nav instruments in his 172. He's still based here too, I don't know if he ever put in a GPS. If he didn't, knowing his aversion to having to get a ride from PTK, he won't be taking any IR students into actual except on those very rare days when it's VFR here and IFR conditions very close by.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that every airport I want to fly into in SE Michigan either requires ADF or GPS, and damn near all I can rent is /U. Time to buy a plane :)

Good luck on the rating. You will do great.
 
ChrisK said:
It seems to me that every airport I want to fly into in SE Michigan either requires ADF or GPS, and damn near all I can rent is /U. Time to buy a plane :)
Click to expand...
Or doesn't have any approaches at all (like 76G). There's always PTK or YIP though -- all you need besides a VOR receiver is radar.
Good luck on the rating. You will do great.
Click to expand...
Hopefully that was directed at the OP... I've already posted my checkride experience (with the DPE who freaked out at 2 ppm CO).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top