CFI-I doubts

Areeda

Areeda

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
2,188
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Display Name
Display name:
Areeda
Latest student taking his checkride as I type. I'm reviewing my methods, as I do my usual nail chewing.

Here's my bigest doubt at the moment: It relates to the diversity of approaches.

My emphasis has always been on flawless execution of a small number of approaches with some exposure to "mystery" approaches (ones not prebriefed).

I know other instructors prefer to present a wide exposure to many different airports/approaches until they all come together.

My thinking is that if the student can't get it well within standards doing well known approaches why go somewhere else. We do get exposure to "get the chart out and go there".

I guess my question to the insturment students and insturctors out there is: Do you think it is more effective to do a small number of approaches until they are all in checkride standards or to do a wide variety of approaches until ... well what.. all of them are in standards?

Any discussion on the topic is appreciated.

Joe
 
I think there is definitely something to be said for a wide variety of approaches. While a student should be able to learn properly with little more than one or two of each type of approach, a wider variety selected specifically for their contrast might promote a better understanding of the processes.

There are also things I've seen when pilots upgrade to bigger, faster airplanes that point to having learned approaches in a somewhat rote manner. I don't know that these things would be able to come out of your training program, but why rely solely on quality instruction when you can put random circumstances to work for you ;)

Fly safe!

David
 
Not a CFI-I but pretty much a perpetual student so here's my thoughts:

When I'm comfortable and not rushed, I learn faster and retain better. Tackling a bunch of unfamiliar approaches sounds like something that would leave most any student uncomfortable and rushed, especially before they get a familiar approach or two down pat. But at some point before the checkride I do think it would be a good idea to make a flight or two that involves a string of previously unflown approaches and combine the lesson with techniques for organizing and managing the cockpit as well as some kind of rapid approach briefing system. This is actually needed in the real world on occasion when you have a real miss due to weather and divert to somewhere nearby you weren't planning to visit.

Areeda said:
Latest student taking his checkride as I type. I'm reviewing my methods, as I do my usual nail chewing.

Here's my bigest doubt at the moment: It relates to the diversity of approaches.

My emphasis has always been on flawless execution of a small number of approaches with some exposure to "mystery" approaches (ones not prebriefed).

I know other instructors prefer to present a wide exposure to many different airports/approaches until they all come together.

My thinking is that if the student can't get it well within standards doing well known approaches why go somewhere else. We do get exposure to "get the chart out and go there".

I guess my question to the insturment students and insturctors out there is: Do you think it is more effective to do a small number of approaches until they are all in checkride standards or to do a wide variety of approaches until ... well what.. all of them are in standards?

Any discussion on the topic is appreciated.

Joe
Click to expand...
 
Variety is good. Maybe the first few on a basic localizer but after that, go experience different approaches at different airports with different terrain.

My first eye opener was GPS 8 RHP. I had been used to seeing the airport no more than 400-500 AGL on non-precision approaches. Taking off the hood and seeing myself still well over two thousand feet above the airport? I've gotta wonder how often that one is used in hard IMC.
 
You have two issues one is tightening the flying.

For that a localizer is a localizer. If you fly the same one until you can track it then you can go anywhere else and track a localizer. Same for adding a glideslope to become an ILS.

Everyone needs to fly a LOC BC approach just to experience trying to ignore the active GS needle and the sensitivity. I have found it easier to use the second NAV without GS as my primary on the LOC BC but still have never flown one where I was happy with the track in.

The variety of the same type of approaches needs to be discussed since every VOR approach is not the same. VOR at the airport versus VOR 26 miles away. Same with NDB at airport, LOM or from off the airport. But you don't need to practice them all.

GPS approaches vary greatly but in the end fly the same because the CDI sensitivity is constant for all of them.

I think a lot is learned by briefing on the ground a lot of approaches you may never fly in the actual training. These need to point out some of the unique flavors out there based on terrain, obstacles etc.
 
At first, I usually run them through an approach two or three times. For their very first approach in the airplane (both first NP and first precision), I demo the approach, then have them fly it twice more. After that, they fly it once and if there are hiccups, fly it again. As they progress, it's first-pass "trick or treat."
 
I would focus more on airmanship than the particular type of approach I'm flying. So I guess I have a more generic view of flying instrument procedures, where each element of the approach is flown in an acceptable manner, rather than concerning myself about how different one is compared to another, or their various idiosyncrasies.

I'd think trying to expose a student to a broad variety of procedures during training rather than ensuring mastery of aircraft manuevering in instrument conditions could lead to a sense of intimidation when trying to fly an approach not previously reviewed, unless you intend to practice every existing and planned approach out there.

Quality not quantity, imho.
 
Joe FWIW from a students persepective. If I followed your procedure I'd be comfortable that I'd be safe. you may do 3-4 approaches that you know well and get them down pat. If you follow that procedcure you will also apply the same standards to a new approach. If Ive practiced the ILS 24 at PNE and the back course 6 at PNE and the GPS 24 at KLOM and one or two others I'd know HOW to brief and approach so that when I fly up to KPVC I would methodically and repetaivly go over the approaches up there in my had and MSFS until it became as familar in my head as any of the others I had flown.
 
Well first the good news, he passed.

The bad news is his answer to my question, what could I have done better was "more emphais on control performance at the end, I guess I reverted to what I was taught early in my private, primary secondary". I thought I beat that part in with a 12 pound sledge.

I think I need more surprise approaches. My insturment course consists of at least 10 different approaches but I concentrate on about 6 (VOR or GPS A AJO, ILS 26R or RNAV 26R, LPV KNO, ILS 9 RAL, VOR-B RAL, GPS A POC, ILS 26L POC, VOR-A EMT) plus the LOC versions of the ILS.

We also do other airports like CMA, OXR, VNY, BUR, LGB but not that much.

I'll debrief with the DPE Monday at the latest, hopefully he will post a debrief of the checkride.

Anyway, watch out if you're flying in the clouds in SoCal Unbeliever may be out there.

Congratulations Carlos!

Joe
 
Steve said:
I would focus more on airmanship than the particular type of approach I'm flying. So I guess I have a more generic view of flying instrument procedures, where each element of the approach is flown in an acceptable manner, rather than concerning myself about how different one is compared to another, or their various idiosyncrasies.

I'd think trying to expose a student to a broad variety of procedures during training rather than ensuring mastery of aircraft manuevering in instrument conditions could lead to a sense of intimidation when trying to fly an approach not previously reviewed, unless you intend to practice every existing and planned approach out there.

Quality not quantity, imho.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately there ARE pilots who can't translate what they do on one approach into safe and legal completion of another one. I used to fly with a guy who was able to pass his ATP/type rating, but couldn't complete the procedure turn on the VOR approach at the home 'drome within 14 miles (10 proscribed by the SIAP). Simply because he was flying approaches using the rote method he was taught.

Adding different approaches once the basics are mastered might avoid the "rote" method for flying approaches.

Fly safe!

David
 
I guess that speaks to the quality of training and rigor of evaluation that ATP received. :(

MauleSkinner said:
Unfortunately there ARE pilots who can't translate what they do on one approach into safe and legal completion of another one. I used to fly with a guy who was able to pass his ATP/type rating, but couldn't complete the procedure turn on the VOR approach at the home 'drome within 14 miles (10 proscribed by the SIAP). Simply because he was flying approaches using the rote method he was taught.

Adding different approaches once the basics are mastered might avoid the "rote" method for flying approaches.

Fly safe!

David
Click to expand...
 
Congratulations.

I am not yet a I-I, although I don't really know why I haven't got my stuff together and done it.

In any case, I would tend to advocate the widest variety of approaches, once they are reasonably comfortable, emphasizing that all the approaches have differences, but are ultimately the same (follow the line to the airport).

Part of my reasoning for this is that to a large extent an approach helps you find and land at an unfamiliar airport, therefore, I think that as much emphasis as possible should be placed on getting the approach acceptable the first time instead of perfect the 4th time. Not to say that the pilot shouldn't go around, put it would not be desirable if they always flew an approach twice (exaggerating).

~ Christopher
 
Steve said:
I guess that speaks to the quality of training and rigor of evaluation that ATP received. :(
Click to expand...
That, plus the attitude of the pilot. And there's no smilie that describes my thoughts on him.

Fly safe!

David
 
Before I sit down and write a personal de-brief, there's a humorous thought I had about both my Private, and now Instrument checkrides with the same DE.

Conceptually, I know that the DE is required to tell you that you failed as soon as it happens. Conceptually, I also know that he can't tell you that you passed until the checkride is over, and the checkride isn't over until you're parked and shut down.

So when the examiner tells you to go park it, and gets quiet on the way to your hangar, there's the dichotomy of "He didn't tell me I failed, so I passed! But he hasn't told me yet." So the suspense builds and so does the urge to bite my tongue to keep from saying "Tell me I passed, darnit!!" *grin* It was worse this time around because the hangar for my instrument was farther away than the tiedown for my private. So we shot the breeze about helicopters.

--Carlos V.
 
Areeda said:
My insturment course consists of at least 10 different approaches but I concentrate on about 6 (VOR or GPS A AJO, ILS 26R or RNAV 26R, LPV KNO, ILS 9 RAL, VOR-B RAL, GPS A POC, ILS 26L POC, VOR-A EMT) plus the LOC versions of the ILS.
Click to expand...

VOR or GPS A AJO

Did that plenty of times. Much harder to do as a GPS because the sensitivity is so tight and the final leg is so short and the altitude loss is big.

ILS 26R CNO

Done plenty of times

GPS LPV 26R CNO

Done plenty of times.

ILS 9 RAL

Done that 3 times, once as a circle-to-land at night.

VOR-B RAL

Done that once, and started a GPS thread here and the red board about it.

GPS A POC

Did that once, at the end.

ILS 26L POC

Never did that.

VOR or GPS A EMT

Is the Pope Catholic? Home drome. 1000 foot AGL minimum. Which made for some cancellations in good IFR, but were too low to come home. Much more interesting as a GPS since the sensitivity gets tighter as opposed to looser as you approach. As a VOR was a snoozer even partial panel because it takes a ton of movement to get the needle to move.

--Carlos V.
 
Home drome ILS and/or VOR every flight, with frequent nearby approaches repeated as able, then reaching farther out for infrequent one time approaches. It'll come together sometime during that time.
 
As many different approaches as you are able to find within a reasonable distance; the more the merrier. I like exposure to different situations: radar vs non-radar, TRACON vs Center app/dep, land and depart from an airport without an approach, etc etc etc. A thorough understanding of the IFR system is more important than shooting an approach to perfection. Perfection is required of ATP applicants, not IR applicants.

Bob Gardner
 
I second Mr. Gardner.

And, if a particular student is having some problems that I think it will help, we may well go over a particular appch. a number of times, get his technique nailed and get him ahead of the aircraft. It depends on the student. But we don't go up and drill a specific appch over and over and over. I've given a mock checkride to applicants at the request of the CFI, and sometimes I'll find that their appch's have all been done at one or two local airports, sometimes all at one. Laziness on the CFI's part??
 
Baron 55 said:
I second Mr. Gardner.
Click to expand...
My pre checkride prep is to sigh read at a distant airport. If David is reading this, he'll try to prepare. But it's NOT possible. Acceptable safety, not perfection, is the criterion.
 
Ditto.

Because, ultimately, they're going to mostly be using it at someplace they go once or twice in a rare amount of time, instead of regularly.

~ Christopher
 
Areeda said:
I guess my question to the insturment students and insturctors out there is: Do you think it is more effective to do a small number of approaches until they are all in checkride standards or to do a wide variety of approaches until ... well what.. all of them are in standards?
Click to expand...

Ummm... I'd have to say "yes." B)

At the start, a few nearby approaches to practice and get used to doing approaches. Then, add on more and more unfamiliar approaches. Heck, you're gonna get an approach at the home drome every time to exercise the ones you know. Heck, I know all three ILS's at the home 'drome by heart.

But, I've also done a ton of weird approaches at other fields - LOC BC, SDF, LDA, VOR/DME RNAV, etc. which was nice to learn all the various idiosyncrasies of each type. Doing unfamiliar approaches of the same types I was already flying was helpful too - We even did some in the sim that are out in the big-rocks country, like an ILS somewhere in Montana that had 1000-foot minimums. It all helps. :yes:
 
I think I kind of overstated my case but I am modifying my syllabus based on this discussion to include a longer middle part.

I really appreciate the discussion.

Right now my syllabus looks like
  1. Basic Attitude Instrument flying, about 10 hrs of PCATD and airplane to introduce Control Performance technique and get the student to be able to hold altitude, direction, airspeed, turn rate thorugh complex maneuvers while performing other tasks like carry on a conversation, look up a frequency and copy an ATIS... Including partial panel, compass/timed turns, unusual attitudes full and partial panel.
  2. Holds and DME arcs, same standards. I consider them more complex maneuvers at this point.
  3. A single ILS done multiple times with a VOR/GPS return home. Usually done on and IFR clearance (TEC) and cancel before multiple low approaches. Must be able to copy clearances, deal with vectors, and understand ATC while flying.
  4. Introduce other approaches, including circle to land from fairly low MDA. Usually 3 different approaches per flight with a land and get new clearance, or low approach and hold to get new clearance. All are pre briefed.
  5. Some approaches where we pick the airport and approaches during preflight briefing.
  6. IFR cross country
  7. High workload mock checkride until they can do it without a bustable deviation.
What I am changing is #5 will be expanded in hopes that more breadth of experience will help with #7. I do like to do a repeat flight to the same airports if an approach doesn't go well. I'm not talking about a 150' altitude deviation or a 2 dot ILS, but rather they misinterpret a clearance or go full scale deflection after the FAF. I think not giving them time/repetition to get an approach correct on their own is a mistake.

Carlos listed 8 approaches (not counting doing one as a VOR vs GPS or ILS vs LOC) but he left out at least 5 that I can think of (ILS25 OXR, RNAV-Z 26 CMA, RNAV 18 F70, VOR-A PRB, LOC-BC SMX), I will get a full list from him. We could easily have made that 20 or 30 without going to far away. We're talking a matter of degree not a big philosophy change here.

I do find that we spend more time on the (artifically) high-workload mock checkride than I'd like. Hopefully this won't increase the training time much but make it more effective.

What I like about teaching is that with almost every student I learn more than they do.

Thank you all for the helpful comments.

Joe
 
I would suggest a little more on step 5 after the briefing a call to FSS for weather and of course NOTAM's specifically those that could impact the approaches planned and GPS availability.

Good habits and processes learned don't break easily.

On step 7, I suppose this will depend on the local DPE as well, tailor your activity in the cockpit to match theirs.

My particular DPE breifed this way, not exact quote. This flight will be single pilot IFR, I will not touch the controls or make any radio calls. We will discuss what we are going to do but the student will have all contact with ATC to communicate the requests. For VFR related communications the DPE will tell the student what to say. The DPE will hold books, etc but provide no more assistance than the empty chair. She allowed the use of the auto-pilot except inside the FAF on the approach.
 
Areeda said:
What I am changing is #5 will be expanded in hopes that more breadth of experience will help with #7. I do like to do a repeat flight to the same airports if an approach doesn't go well.....I think not giving them time/repetition to get an approach correct on their own is a mistake.

Joe
Click to expand...
That sounds like an excellent syllabus with the expansion of #5.

I also agree that a second chance at a botched approach BEFORE telling them what they did wrong/how to fix it is an excellent teaching technique.

Fly safe!

David
 
RMCN172RG said:
I would suggest a little more on step 5 after the briefing a call to FSS for weather and of course NOTAM's specifically those that could impact the approaches planned and GPS availability.

Good habits and processes learned don't break easily.
Click to expand...
Ray I agree. I didn't go into this level of detail but I do empasize good weather, NOTAM breifing. We mostly use the Internet but we do use FSS by phone plenty.

On step 7, I suppose this will depend on the local DPE as well, tailor your activity in the cockpit to match theirs.

My particular DPE breifed this way, not exact quote. This flight will be single pilot IFR, I will not touch the controls or make any radio calls. We will discuss what we are going to do but the student will have all contact with ATC to communicate the requests. For VFR related communications the DPE will tell the student what to say. The DPE will hold books, etc but provide no more assistance than the empty chair. She allowed the use of the auto-pilot except inside the FAF on the approach.
Click to expand...
I don't want to give the impression there is only one scenario during this part. I don't have an in with the DPE knowing exactly what he's going to do. But there are several scenarios that check off all the boxes.

The hardest part of this is for me to keep my damn mouth shut and hands off the controls for a whole flight, but I do my best.

Joe
 
MauleSkinner said:
That sounds like an excellent syllabus with the expansion of #5.

I also agree that a second chance at a botched approach BEFORE telling them what they did wrong/how to fix it is an excellent teaching technique.

Fly safe!

David
Click to expand...

Thanks David,

I think it's getting there.

Joe
 
Areeda said:
Carlos listed 8 approaches (not counting doing one as a VOR vs GPS or ILS vs LOC) but he left out at least 5 that I can think of (ILS25 OXR, RNAV-Z 26 CMA, RNAV 18 F70, VOR-A PRB, LOC-BC SMX),
Click to expand...

We also did an LDA-C VNY and an VNY ILS 16R . For pedantery, we also did a CMA ILS 26 and an CMA RNAV Z 26 CTL 8. I think that covers them all.

LDA-C VNY was weird. MDA is 2600, but pattern altitude is 1800. Droning along at MDA to the MAP, tower calls a "Hey, pattern altitude is down here. Descend now." Actually, the ILS was also interesting. Down the glideslope at pretty much idle thrust. (4 degree).

Edit: I listed off those you listed in the post I quoted.

Add two more approaches. VOR/DME or GPS B into EMT. Twice. And LOC/DME 24 FUL. Into FUL was interesting It was into the evening sun on a particularly hazy day. Visibility flying into the sun was about 1 mile, but 6+ flying the other way. I didn't catch the approach lights until about 30 seconds from the MAP.


--Carlos V.
 
Last edited:
Checkride writeup (long)

The checkride total was from 12:30 to about 6:00. 2 hour oral, 2.2 hour flight, with about 30 minutes for a pre-flight and another 20 minutes or so for a de-brief.

The checkride started with a review to make sure 1) I had all my paperwork, 2) The aircraft maintenance logs were reviewed, and all appropriate IFR requirements were met, (24 mo static/xponder, 30 day VOR, GPS update log, annual), and 3) My ID was checked. As soon as all his checklist items were satisfied, he accepted his fee and the exam begun.

Overall, the examiner did standard information mining. If I didn't completely answer a question, he would present another scenario to try to jog my memory without trying to prompt. "When do you need a current IFR rating?" "On an IFR clearance, in IMC, or in Class A." "Anything else?" "Not that I can think of." "What are the requirements for SVFR during the day?" "1 mile, Clear of Clouds.", "How about at night?" "Oh, durrr, IR there too." Random stuff like that. It worked well for my associative memory and it satisfied him that I would remember it when presented with a scenario instead of the artificial oral exam environment.

Any scenario based questions were limted to the navigation equipment as the aircraft was using was equiped. He would actually cut me off if I started to explain the full rule that included equipment I didn't have. The aircraft had a 1 axis autopilot, 430W, an additional NAV/COM, no DME, no ADF.

Questions of note:

What are the aircraft requirements for IFR? What are the inspection/log requirements for the aircraft? You have a 430W, what else is required to be in the aircraft. (GPS log and Flight manual supplement) What are the pilot currency requirements for IFR? What can you do if you go out of currency? What if you can't come into currency? Where is an IPC defined? (in the PTS).

Draw the pitot static system. How does each instrument work. What is IAS, CAS, TAS, EAS? What are IA, TA, AA, DA, PA?

Explain how the AI works. Explain how the DG works. Explain how the Turn Coordinator works.

What are the preflight planning items you have to do? (Flightplan, weather, fuel requirements, landing/takeoff distance required, NOTAMS, etc...) I failed to mention one more thing, and since it was a pre-flight item, I pulled out the FAR/AIM. "ATC flow control" What are the fuel requirements? If your alternate (or primary) doesn't have a TAF, where do you get the forecast? (from the FA). If you decide to fly a GPS approach what do you have to do pre-flight? (RAIM prediction)

What are the requirements for listing an alternate? What are the alternate minimums? If they're non-standard, how do you know? Where do you find them if they exist? What if you go missed at primary, and have to shoot the alternate, what are the mins?

Something just hit me, I was NOT asked about lost-comm procedures.

Lets look at the homework I gave you, a flight plan to KMRY (from KEMT). I chose a route along the coast that took me to a STAR for MRY. What altitude did you choose? Why? Could you have filed a different altitude? (yes, the plan is just an initial altitude). Show me your nav log, what does each column mean? How did you figure magnetic heading and groundspeed. (demonstrated on the wind side of the E6B ). How did you determine leg time? (I pull out my $2 calculator) No, do it on the E6B (oookay... I do so). How did you determine fuel flow (From the POH for the airspeed and altitude I chose) Do we have enough fuel? (yes, by nearly 2 hours reserve). Show me the W&B.

Ok, let's "Fly" the route. Pull out your chart. What does this symbol mean, and this one? and this one? What's the difference between brown, green, and blue airports? Looked up the legend on that one. I actually said "Brown is no IAP, blue is IAP, and I'm actually stalling while I look up the legend to figure out what green means. Oh, military can use vs not between blue and green." There was a bit of confusion when he pointed between a VOR which didn't have a compass rose, and a VORTAC that did. I thought he was pointing at the compass rose and I'm looking at the legend and mumbling something about clutter and he says "Come on! It's right in front of you in the legend" and he points at the symbols again. "Oh, you're pointing at the symbols themselves. That's a VOR and that's a VORTAC." What's this triangle. "It's a fix, and it's hollow, so it's a non-mandatory reporting fix." "What's a mandatory reporting fix look like?" "Solid triangle." "What do you do when you cross it?" "In a non-radar environment...(list of reports)" I wasn't asked the other mandatory FAR/AIM reporting items.

Edit to add: At this point, we also did a review of my weather brief and duats briefing. Pulled out the AIRMET/SIGMET charts, prog charts, and the NOAA Lifted Index charts and answered questions on those. "Where do the prog charts apply?" "Low level" "What does that mean?" "Ummm... (I look at the legend) Below 400mb." "Where's that?" "Well, 500mb is 18000 feet, so I guess 22,000 feet or so." "No, actually it's 24,000, but you knew that 500mb was at 18000, and smaller went higher."

Then we pull out an approach chart for the MRY ILS 10R and we do a chart interpretation exercise. Tell me what you fly and what altitude you're at. There was a bit of confusion, and my memory is a bit hazy on what what I actually said, but apparently he understood that I said the wrong altitude for the outbound portion of the PT. I got flustered at that, and just made it worse and after a few rounds, he backed off, and told me to start from the beginning. "From PEBB, I fly xxx heading, cross the LOM, then fly xxx heading, descend XXXX altitude, fly outbound turn xxx heading, descend xxxx, fly xxx heading, intercept the LOC, fly xxx heading, descend xxxx, capture glideslope, go missed at xxxx." That seemed to satisfy him. Maybe I flubbed a word on my initial response. I thought I busted before he asked me to start again. Then "what does this number mean? (a unbolded altitude in the profile view in the LOM. (an altitude cross check) How far do you fly outbound. "Far enough to make all my turns and hit my altitudes within 10 miles." "Noooo, try again." "A couple of minutes." "What determines how long that time is?" "well it depends on how much altitude I have to lose and what my groundspeed is doing." "Good. You need to go into it with a plan ahead of time. Is there a limitation on the PT?" "Yes, remain within 10 miles of MUNSO and turn this way on the PT." "Where is that listed?" "Here and here."

So you break out, what do you need to land? (Pavement, paint, or lights, and required visibility) What else? (Huh?) Looked in the FAR/AIM. (Oh, in a position to land using normal maneuvers) What does that mean. (No diving or yanking and banking). What does the /24 mean? That's an RVR. What's RVR and what does it signify? What happens if the tower reports less than 2400 RVR. (You can try it, but you can't land). Yes, if the transmissometers are broken, you can land if you have the required visibility converted to SM. RVR is the only case where flight visibility doesn't trump reported visibility.

What are the requirements for Random RNAV? "Current database, IFR certified GPS, and Radar Environment." "Radar environment is correct, but where did you get that? It's not in the FAR/AIM." "I dunno? It's a memory thing from my random readings. I'll get you the reference later." I did later that night. 7110.65 5-5-1(a).

What's the difference between DME distances and GPS distances? (slant range vs along-track) Explain slant-range. Do you as a pilot have to worry about that when you're reading a chart? (no, database designers took care of that)

Oral portion over.

Flight portion.

I learned on my private checkride with this examiner to oralize what my plan was or what I was doing, so he could understand my thought process. It's even more important to do that on an instrument ride I think. I wanted to demonstrate that I was at least on top of things and not catching up. There was one segment where we were vectored below one segment's altitude and when we crossed from one segment to the other, the altitude dropped to 100 feet below where we were. "Crossing FLYIN, altitude is 2900 or above, we're at 3000, I know we can drop 100 feet, but it's not worth it." Stuff like that. I would verbalize identing navaids, verbalize the altitudes and headings, and verbalize the missed procedure. It was actually somewhat amusing as I could see the DE in my peripheral vision nodding whenever I did or verbalized one of his internal checklist items.

After a pre-flight and fueling, he briefed that I was to handle all the radios unless he had to negotiate a full procedure. SoCal is very busy in the afternoons, and is loathe to give out full procedures especially around Ontario and he knew the magic incantations to get what we needed for the checkride. He actually had to do that once. If there was a traffic call, he would spot it and either thumb up or thumb down in my field of view.

Summary: Statring at KEMT, TEC to CNO, vectored to ILS 26R, missed and hold as published. Enough turns in the hold that he was satisfied I knew how to deal with the wind, then airwork over Lake Matthews, back to CNO LOC 26R full procedure to a full stop. Then TEC to EMT, full flight plan in the GPS, partial panel, circle to land.

The initial part was easy enough, having done it tons of times with my instructor. Flew the first two approaches VLOC only. Was vectored around a bit and intercepted the final course and flew the ILS to within 2 dots. Later he mentioned that while I was well within standards and within 10 degrees heading the entire time, he didn't think I had a handle on the winds, and he didn't like how much I was jockeying the throttle. I was taught pitch for airspeed and throttle for glideslope, and the examiner didn't think that was the smoothest way and to try pitch for glideslope and throttle for airspeed the next time.

I go missed, and head for PDZ for the hold. I do a halfway decent job of remaining within a couple of dots of the LOC on the climbout before CNO tower clears me to turn to avoid traffic. I did something unwise, I think. For the ILS 26R, PDZ is the hold and PDZ also defines stepdown fixes. I didn't want to futz with the radios since I had them idented already since I knew I was going to fly essentially the same approach again, so I flew the hold on NAV2. I hadn't done that before. To fly to the VOR, I would twist until I got a centered TO, turn to that heading, and during the turn keep twisting for a centered needle until my heading and the OBS matched, then fly the needle. He seemed to be satisfied with that. Did a parallel entry for the hold, and after crossing the hold fix, waited for a free second to report the hold. Unfortunately, there wasn't a free second on the airwaves. After about 30 seconds, I held up my right hand and made the "gab gab gab" motion with my hand. The DE noticed this, and knowing what I wanted to say to ATC asked. "Are you making that hand gesture because you want to talk to ATC but can't" "Yup" "What would you say if you could" "Cherokee 97V is in the hold." "Good! Consider it reported. They're too busy anyway." Did two turns but was 2 dots into the unprotected side each time on the turn inbound I kept guessing the outbound WCA because I was never on the inbound leg centered long enough to get a handle on the inbound WCA. The saving grace was that the needle DID center and I DID pass over the station (I think). I got the leg times nailed after the second turn. On the inbound leg about to turn a 3rd time, "You keep overflying it a couple of dots. If we were to fly the outbound leg again, what heading would you choose." "XXX degrees." "Good answer. Let's go do airwork."

Did a couple of unusual attitudes over Lake Matthews. The nose low one was REALLY nose low. Since we wanted to do airwork, SoCal dropped us, and when we were done, we had to call them up again. We did a couple of 360s while we waited and were about to give up and fly just the plan view of the procedure above all the airspaces. We started to fly back to PDZ when SoCal finally got some free time. The examiner did his incantations and we got the full procedure LOC 26R CNO. We were cleared 4500 until established inbound, report inbound, cleared practice approach." Did a teardrop for the HILOPT reported, and when the LOC started to come in, turned to intercept the LOC and started to descend to 3000. Examiner: "Wait, can we decend now, we were told 4500 until advised." "No, we were cleared 4500 until established, cleared for the approach." "Why don't you double-check." "Ok. SoCal, 97V, was our restriction 4500 until established, or 4500 until advised?" ATC (annoyed) "4500 until established." "97V thank you." DE: "Ok, I was wrong, better safe than sorry." "Good for me too."

Hood up when the timer ran out, and the examiner asked me to identify what I needed to land. Landed and taxiied back for takeoff with a TEC to EMT. Clearance was heading 260 intercept V363, POM, EMT. 430W doesn't do airways, so I pulled the chart, found the segment that I would intercept if I flew 260, and defined that leg. So my flight plan was CNO, PRADO, POM, EMT. Activated the leg from PRADO to POM and planned to turn to intercept when the needle came in. Did the RAIM check at EMT and selected the VOR/GPS-A. On the climbout my vaccuum pump "failed" with a pair of stickies over the DG and AI. Flew 260 until the needle came alive and did a compass turn to intercept V363. As soon as I intercepted, SoCal began vectors to final. Figured out that SoCal was putting me on the POM->FLYIN leg and activated that leg (I don't do VTF on the Garmins). While I was flying the approach as a GPS, it was an overlay approach, so I still setup the underlying NAVs and IDed them, and twisted when appropriate, and started the timer when appropriate. I mentioned to the DE that while I was actually navigating via the GPS for course and the MAP, I was backing it up and cross-checking with traditional navs. Circle to land and back to the hangar.

One major deficiency I had during the ride was that my altitude was a series of vertical S turns +/- 100 feet in turbulence, and I got a lecture about it from the DE. During my 3 hour Primary hood time, I was taught (by a different instructor) a simplified primary-secondary scan. Although Poor Joe did hammer into me control-performance early on, and while I was still using control-performance for gross changes, I realized after the lecture that for steady state, I had reverted back to primary-secondary and was using the altimeter for my pitch info. "Even the altimeter is too slow." At one point, the DE pointed to the AI and said strongly. "USE THIS!" Basically, "The Law of Primacy" bit me and I didn't realize it until the checkride.

All in all, 35 instrument lesson flights, 3 ground sessions, a 6 week instrument ground school (taught by the DE who gave me the check ride.) And about 48ish hours under the hood. 44ish if you don't count primary and flight reviews.

My instructor called the DE later for an instructor de-brief, and the highlights I got from that was that the DE was more than satisfied with my oral results, and save the ILS pitch/power and the control-performance / primary-secondary issue, didn't have a problem with my flying. (or so Joe tells me *grin*)

--Carlos V.
 
Last edited:
Re: Checkride writeup (long)

Unbeliever said:
One major deficiency I had during the ride was that my altitude was a series of vertical S turns +/- 100 feet in turbulence, and I got a lecture about it from the DE. During my 3 hour Primary hood time, I was taught (by a different instructor) a simplified primary-secondary scan. Although Poor Joe did hammer into me control-performance early on, and while I was still using control-performance for gross changes, I realized after the lecture that for steady state, I had reverted back to primary-secondary and was using the altimeter for my pitch info. "Even the altimeter is too slow." At one point, the DE pointed to the AI and said strongly. "USE THIS!" Basically, "The Law of Primacy" bit me and I didn't realize it until the checkride.

My instructor called the DE later for an instructor de-brief, and the highlights I got from that was that the DE was more than satisfied with my oral results, and save the ILS pitch/power and the control-performance / primary-secondary issue, didn't have a problem with my flying. (or so Joe tells me *grin*)

--Carlos V.
Click to expand...
...and if you want my opinion, you were using "primary-secondary" wrong anyway ;) ...altimeter is primary for what your altitude is, and what direction it's going. For pitch changes, the AI is primary. In a full-panel situation, there's no operational difference between the two systems.

Congrats, though!

Fly safe!

David
 
Areeda said:
I sure hope I didn't write that into your log book.
Click to expand...


Ooops, you're right. For some odd reason, I thought we did one in VLOC mode. I guess that was impossible. I haven't looked at my logbook since the checkride. This is from memory.

--Carlos V.
 
Last edited:
Re: Checkride writeup (long)

MauleSkinner said:
...and if you want my opinion, you were using "primary-secondary" wrong anyway ;)
Click to expand...


Like I said. It wasn't full primary-secondary, but a simplified primary-secondary. Enough to pass the private checkride.

--Carlos V.
 
Added another paragraph between enroute chart read and approach chart read.

--Carlos V.
 
Congrats!

A couple of thoughts:

1) I thought I screwed the pooch on my IFR, I was asked about one of the written up departures in the book (not a plate), and flew us into a mountain the first time I briefed it, but then I found my mistake and re-briefed it right (the DPE was ****ED though). I have casually observed that a LOT of people think that they came closest to busting their IFR on the oral.

2) The ILS 10R at KMRY specifically prohibits an autopilot coupled approach. Does anyone know when/why they would prohibit an A/P (http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0802/00271IL10R.PDF). Is it due to the ILS unusable inside the MM? What difference would this make, the KAP 140s I've used were placarded not for use inside MM in any case.

~ Christopher
 
Added another 3 paragraphs:

Explain how the AI works. Explain how the DG works. Explain how the Turn Coordinator works.

What's the difference between DME distances and GPS distances? (slant range vs along-track) Explain slant-range. Do you as a pilot have to worry about that when you're reading a chart? (no, database designers took care of that)

So you break out, what do you need to land? (Pavement, paint, or lights, and required visibility) What else? (Huh?) Looked in the FAR/AIM. (Oh, in a position to land using normal maneuvers) What does that mean. (No diving or yanking and banking). What does the /24 mean? That's an RVR. What's RVR and what does it signify? What happens if the tower reports less than 2400 RVR. (You can try it, but you can't land). Yes, if the transmissometers are broken, you can land if you have the required visibility converted to SM. RVR is the only case where flight visibility doesn't trump reported visibility.

Also, Joe, all my "Full procedure" approaches have been HILOPTs. Not a single honest PT in the bunch. Maybe consider an approach with a real PT:

List of what I found within the basin, within the distance of CMA.

VOR/DME or GPS-B AVX (overwater stint, but potential for a buffalo burger!)
VOR or GPS-B CNO NOTAM'ed NA due to RAL being OTS, maybe as GPS in VFR.
VOR-A FUL
VOR-A POC full procedure
NDB or GPS RWY 22L SLI (But a military base)
ILS RWY 8L ONT (haha! Not likely)
VOR or GPS 9 RAL (probably as a GPS only VFR because of RAL OTS)
NDB or GPS RWY 6 SBD
LDA 19R SNA (haha!)
VOR/DME or GPS-B VNY

--Carlos V.
 
Last edited:
jwriteclub said:
2) The ILS 10R at KMRY specifically prohibits an autopilot coupled approach. Does anyone know when/why they would prohibit an A/P (http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0802/00271IL10R.PDF).
Click to expand...
I seem to remember that it is because the signal is not within certain tolerances, and while it would not be noticeable to a pilot hand-flying it could cause the autopilot to do something unexpected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top