IFR Training - instructor and plane options

[CMagnus]

I recently passed the IFR Written, and looking for an IFR Instructor. I have met with an instructor through a flying club, but I have some concerns... 1-not familiar with foreflight, 2-military flight background (vs GA), 3-(Biggest concern) I would be their first student.
My instinct is to find another instructor that is experienced and had success with IFR checkride passes. I would appreciate opinions/experiences on this.
Also - I have the option to train in a basic IFR plane (VORs, DME, GNC 355), or one with more advanced avionics (Aspen PFD/MFD, dual G430Ws, etc) and autopilot. What are pros/cons of each? My thought is that the basic setup would be easier to learn and pass the IFR checkride, however proficiency with the advanced avionics would be more beneficial and safer in the long run. (of course I could pass the IFR checkride with the basic plane, and then get instruction on the advanced).
Thanks in advance for the input!

 

[flyingron]

Yes, find an instructor that is well versed in the avionics that you are going to use (to include ForeFlight if that is what you think you're going to be flying with). I gave all my parameters to PIC when I was arranging my training and they sent out a very well educated instructor (who even borrowed my autopilot manual just to make sure he was up-to-speed on it).

Frankly, neither of those platforms would be my pick, so I'd go the cheapest. I'm hoping the "advanced" one has at least 430W's in it. A standard 430 is an ancient clunker. Even the 430W is at the absolute bottom of my list for IFR GPS. The 355 is a lot newer and easier to use. Again, a lot of it is what you expect to be flying in the long run. If you think you're going to fly something with an electronic PFD, then go that way. If you're going to buy your own plane and fly with steam gauges and/or an G5, you may chose the other.

 

[CMagnus]

Yes, find an instructor that is well versed in the avionics that you are going to use (to include ForeFlight if that is what you think you're going to be flying with). I gave all my parameters to PIC when I was arranging my training and they sent out a very well educated instructor (who even borrowed my autopilot manual just to make sure he was up-to-speed on it).

Frankly, neither of those platforms would be my pick, so I'd go the cheapest. I'm hoping the "advanced" one has at least 430W's in it. A standard 430 is an ancient clunker. Even the 430W is at the absolute bottom of my list for IFR GPS. The 355 is a lot newer and easier to use. Again, a lot of it is what you expect to be flying in the long run. If you think you're going to fly something with an electronic PFD, then go that way. If you're going to buy your own plane and fly with steam gauges and/or an G5, you may chose the other.

Thanks for the input. Updated my post - they are 430Ws, and also autopilot. Price is very close for the planes, so not a major factor. If I join the club, I would be flying the more "advanced" plane for the next couple of years.

 

[eman1200]

the foreflight thing wouldn't stop me, that's something you can easily figure out on your own. actually what else would you really NEED it for other than to bring up approach plates? I have an aspen/650 combo which makes a lot of the IFR stuff easy peasy. I'd think the aspen/430 combo is close, although with a whole lotta extra button pushing. but the first student thing......my first thought as I started reading the post was "just ask one of his former students"......well, shyte, can't do that..... if it were me I'd probably be talking to other II's. but if he's part of a club, maybe other members of the club would still have some feedback. based on what you wrote, I can't say I'd rule him out but you didn't specify if there are or aren't other options. so my opinion is I don't know what you should do. there ya go.

 

[CMagnus]

the foreflight thing wouldn't stop me, that's something you can easily figure out on your own. actually what else would you really NEED it for other than to bring up approach plates? I have an aspen/650 combo which makes a lot of the IFR stuff easy peasy. I'd think the aspen/430 combo is close, although with a whole lotta extra button pushing. but the first student thing......my first thought as I started reading the post was "just ask one of his former students"......well, shyte, can't do that..... if it were me I'd probably be talking to other II's. but if he's part of a club, maybe other members of the club would still have some feedback. based on what you wrote, I can't say I'd rule him out but you didn't specify if there are or aren't other options. so my opinion is I don't know what you should do. there ya go.

Haha - thanks(?) Yes, other CFIIs in the club - my instinct is to go with an experienced instructor. I feel kind of bad to pass over the new CFII, but I want to get the best training that I can.
I'm new to IFR (obviously) so would expect to use FF for flight planning outside of the plane. Right, can prob get up to speed on my own.

 

[EdFred]

So what if you're the first student? Everyone has to have a first student. If we didn't, we would only ever have 1 flight instructor for the entire country. I would also train in the more rudimentary panel. It will make you a less gadget dependent IFR pilot. There's nothing that says you MUST use Foreflight. Who sold you on that OWT? If it was the flight school, I'd bail on them simply for that. You shouldn't be using any table of any sort for the actual flying. All your training should be eyes up in the panel, not down on your lap flying the tablet - regardless of platform/software.

 

[luvflyin]

I recently passed the IFR Written, and looking for an IFR Instructor. I have met with an instructor through a flying club, but I have some concerns... 1-not familiar with foreflight, 2-military flight background (vs GA), 3-(Biggest concern) I would be their first student.
My instinct is to find another instructor that is experienced and had success with IFR checkride passes. I would appreciate opinions/experiences on this.
Also - I have the option to train in a basic IFR plane (VORs, DME, GNC 355), or one with more advanced avionics (Aspen PFD/MFD, dual G430Ws, etc) and autopilot. What are pros/cons of each? My thought is that the basic setup would be easier to learn and pass the IFR checkride, however proficiency with the advanced avionics would be more beneficial and safer in the long run. (of course I could pass the IFR checkride with the basic plane, and then get instruction on the advanced).
Thanks in advance for the input!

You ain’t gonna be doin much navigatin fer awhile. You gonna be aviatin’. Give it a start. See if you and him ‘click’ generally. If ya don’t hate him for some reason then talk to the dude about your concerns about the navigating stuff.

 

[CMagnus]

So what if you're the first student? Everyone has to have a first student. If we didn't, we would only ever have 1 flight instructor for the entire country. I would also train in the more rudimentary panel. It will make you a less gadget dependent IFR pilot. There's nothing that says you MUST use Foreflight. Who sold you on that OWT? If it was the flight school, I'd bail on them simply for that. You shouldn't be using any table of any sort for the actual flying. All your training should be eyes up in the panel, not down on your lap flying the tablet - regardless of platform/software.

True - asking for input as to whether it should be a concern, maybe it shouldn't. No prior students to speak with or pass rate, so nothing else to go by. I may just proceed and see how it goes.
As for FF, I've used it for VFR flight planning along with 1800WXBRIEF, etc. and found it useful. I assumed more useful in IFR flight planning and filing - maybe not. No plan to use in flight, and of course illegal for approaches, etc.

 

[luvflyin]

True - asking for input as to whether it should be a

Where are you? Someone here may know the guy and give you some experiences with him. May know of other II’s around there. You may even find someone to go play with doing a little extra curricular safety pilot flying. Get a little extra time for cheaper than a CFI. And you’d be surprised how educational it can be to watch someone else flying under the hood. Just beware of actually trying to ‘instruct’ one another.

 

[eman1200]

I was my PRIMARY instructor's first student. I was ok with that, but now I think I'd want someone who's sent at least a few students for a successful check ride. not a total deal breaker for me.

 

[somorris]

I assumed more useful in IFR flight planning and filing - maybe not. No plan to use in flight, and of course illegal for approaches, etc.

I believe you can use FF for the approach charts instead of paper (i.e. not necessarily illegal). FF is also great for "situational awareness," and you can get the version that has a moving map on the charts.

 

[CMagnus]

Where are you? Someone here may know the guy and give you some experiences with him. May know of other II’s around there. You may even find someone to go play with doing a little extra curricular safety pilot flying. Get a little extra time for cheaper than a CFI. And you’d be surprised how educational it can be to watch someone else flying under the hood. Just beware of actually trying to ‘instruct’ one another.

My concern is not with the person, just being a new CFII and not taking someone through IFR Checkride yet. I will speak with him and let him know my concerns (which may or may not be valid). I do have someone that can safety pilot once I am ready. I appreciate the input!

 

[EdFred]

I believe you can use FF for the approach charts instead of paper (i.e. not necessarily illegal). FF is also great for "situational awareness," and you can get the version that has a moving map on the charts.

For training I would advocate AGAINST that, lest you become another Jerry.

 

[asicer]

I was my PRIMARY instructor's first student. I was ok with that, but now I think I'd want someone who's sent at least a few students for a successful check ride. not a total deal breaker for me.

I was too, and I am in complete agreement.

 

[EdFred]

I was too, and I am in complete agreement.

I was as well, and am in complete disagreement. He knew his stuff better than all my subsequent instructors for who(m?) I was NOT their first student. He also wasn't teaching to get hours. He had hundreds of hours flying bush in Central America and was an A&P. I think I am still the only student he ever signed off as he went back to bush flying and then corporate.

 

[Clip4]

I recently passed the IFR Written, and looking for an IFR Instructor. I have met with an instructor through a flying club, but I have some concerns... 1-not familiar with foreflight, 2-military flight background (vs GA), 3-(Biggest concern) I would be their first student.
My instinct is to find another instructor that is experienced and had success with IFR checkride passes. I would appreciate opinions/experiences on this.
Also - I have the option to train in a basic IFR plane (VORs, DME, GNC 355), or one with more advanced avionics (Aspen PFD/MFD, dual G430Ws, etc) and autopilot. What are pros/cons of each? My thought is that the basic setup would be easier to learn and pass the IFR checkride, however proficiency with the advanced avionics would be more beneficial and safer in the long run. (of course I could pass the IFR checkride with the basic plane, and then get instruction on the advanced).
Thanks in advance for the input!

Military pilots are highly trained instrument pilots and many have training experience, but the don’t have experience with aircraft with traditional 6 pack instruments.

You should at least train in a plane with WAAS capable RNAV and the CFI has to be proficient in the system in the plane.

As an CFI, you can use what ever EFB you want, but it your responsibility to be proficient with the EFB you chose to train with. There are many EFV products that are far easier for training than FF. The easiest is SkyCharts.

 

[eman1200]

I was as well, and am in complete disagreement. He knew his stuff better than all my subsequent instructors for who(m?) I was NOT their first student. He also wasn't teaching to get hours. He had hundreds of hours flying bush in Central America and was an A&P. I think I am still the only student he ever signed off as he went back to bush flying and then corporate.

so, as I see you do often, you're making your decision based on your one and only exposure to the question at hand, and not being open to other possibilities, like both asicer and I stated? I think we both said we did it, it was fine, we're not opposed to it, but would also explore other options. you are saying since you did it one time it should be the way everyone does it?

 

[Salty]

If I was his first student, I'd get a checkout by another CFI that's familiar with the DPE I planned on using before taking the check ride. Nothing against the instructor.

 

[EdFred]

so, as I see you do often, you're making your decision based on your one and only exposure to the question at hand, and not being open to other possibilities, like both asicer and I stated? I think we both said we did it, it was fine, we're not opposed to it, but would also explore other options. you are saying since you did it one time it should be the way everyone does it?

I was simply pointing out not all first time instructors are equal. I was a first time instructor at one time too.

If everyone suggests don't use a 1st time instructor, how does a 1st time instructor ever not be one?

 

[KiloBravo75]

With respect to military pilots, my regular (GA-background) CFI had something come up last minute when I was already halfway through pre-flight. There's a military pilot CFI part time at my flight school who happened to be in and had free time, so I ended up flying with him. It was a great flight and I could pick up on the huge amount of experience they have. I'm not ready to fire my regular CFI by any means, but it was a very positive experience.

I'd probably consider military pilot a benefit over a downside. Unless you expect they are going to just yell. That's more of a personality thing though.

 

[CMagnus]

Thanks for the comments - really appreciate the input...
I'm going to continue on with current CFII. There are other CFIIs in the club that I can fly with as well, so can get different points of view, teaching styles, etc. I don't foresee issues, but wanted some input by those who have more experience than I do.
As for the aircraft - still not sure, but I will get recommendations from the other CFIIs in the club (that know both aircraft and avionics, etc) and feel that out.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

I was my PRIMARY instructor's first student. I was ok with that, but now I think I'd want someone who's sent at least a few students for a successful check ride. not a total deal breaker for me.

Weird. I was my primary's first as well. I didn't know it until after the fact but I had a hunch.
In hindsight, There are a few things that were not covered as well as they should have been.

 

[eman1200]

I was simply pointing out not all first time instructors are equal. I was a first time instructor at one time too.

If everyone suggests don't use a 1st time instructor, how does a 1st time instructor ever not be one?

we didn't suggest not to use one. we stated it was fine in our cases and that he shouldn't rule that out but also to look at other options as well.

Weird. I was my primary's first as well. I didn't know it until after the fact but I had a hunch.
In hindsight, There are a few things that were not covered as well as they should have been.

mine did a great job. there was one thing on the oral I recall that we never went over but luckily I had studied it on my own. otherwise, he was real thorough. almost too thorough lol. he was great, always punctual, lots of communication, etc...

 

[AggieMike88]

Weird. I was my primary's first as well. I didn't know it until after the fact but I had a hunch.
In hindsight, There are a few things that were not covered as well as they should have been.

Was this before or after he was on Airplane Repo?

 

[chemgeek]

I would recommend training with the equipment you plan to fly IFR with after getting the rating. While there is value in doing some training with basic equipment (VOR/LOC/ILS) the reality is that IFR is increasingly GPS-centric, especially if you want maximum utility to fly to non-metro destinations. I trained with VOR/LOC/ILS/ADF, analog gauges, paper plates and maps, and no AP. Flew that way for about a decade. Now I fly WAAS-GPS, dual G5s, and an AP with inflight weather via ADS-B and XM, as well as an EFB for maps and procedures. No way I'd go back to the old way. My rural airport has LPV approaches with MDAs of 350 AGL or less. Can't beat that with a stick. Our VOR approach had MDAs of around 1100 AGL, and is now decommissioned. So it's GPS or bust for many airports like ours. TBH, I haven't navigated by VOR in real life for the last 20 years. For some trips, I've been pressed to find enough VORs in service to fly an Victor airway route legally with VOR alone. I've flown quite a few ILSes, though, and that's probably the most use I've gotten out of the VLOC setting of the GNS-430. Think about how you are going to use your rating later, and train for that.

 

[asicer]

Weird. I was my primary's first as well. I didn't know it until after the fact but I had a hunch.
In hindsight, There are a few things that were not covered as well as they should have been.

While I previously said that I wouldn't be opposed to being the 1st one, I'd definitely want to know that fact ahead of time and I'd be suspicious if the CFI was actively trying to hide it.

 

[4RNB]

I did a lot of my private with a military (and commercial) guy that seemed to have not worked with many students. It was some of the most fun I'd had in my life! The things that he knew and understood about planes and aviation were way beyond anything anyone else spoke about or demonstrated. For example, and forgive me if I get this a little bit wrong, I recall one day he took off without paying much attention to rotate speed. He described that a given plane will fly when it is ready, just pull back on the yoke and wait for it to fly. If one made note of speed then, that is about Vs1 then also. He knew this from flying so many types of planes. I got a sense it was not so much rules based learning as common sense based learning. It helped that I had an idea of exactly what I wanted to accomplish, we went and did those things.

Own your own training, know what has to be practiced and what will be tested upon. Then learn from the gray hairs with wisdom. Passing the IFR practical is only a short term goal, there is so much more to flying that a CFII can teach. It might be priceless or confidence building that some young buck 250 hour flight school CFII can't teach.

 

[flyingron]

Of course, much as I like my autopilot, having a good moving map is probably the biggest plus in IFR technology that's come down the pike in the over four decades I've been flying.

 

[tspear]

Train in what you will fly.
If you get a new CFII or new to the area CFII always do a couple check points with locals that know your plane and the local DPE.
After that it is all about how you click with the CFII. Everything else is noise.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk

 

[MBDiagMan]

There’s nothing at all wrong with flying a non WAAS GPS for your training as long as there is a Nav with glideslope so you can shoot an ILS. My bought and installed on the cheap non WAAS 420 in my 140 serves me very well. It makes a great trainer and feels familiar to the 430 W in the Mooney. There is something to be said for keeping it simple in your check ride plane. The more gadgetry there is in it is that much more for (s)he to drill you on

A six pack, a 420 even non WAAS and a NAV with LOC/GS and the other fundamentals is all you need. I think most DPE’s today are good with FF as a source for plates and such.

 

[Pugs]

I believe you can use FF for the approach charts instead of paper (i.e. not necessarily illegal). FF is also great for "situational awareness," and you can get the version that has a moving map on the charts.

It is quite legal and I would encourage it. Train like you're going to fly. All your early flying is going to be air work and building your scan with both full and partial panel. As you move onto holding and approaches, you're going to begin to start to integrate both the plane nav system as well as FF. If your instructor thinks you're too dependent on it they may ask you to shut it off and make sure you're working it from the panel (or a partial panel!)

While your end goal is the rating, the training will get you there and the day after you get it is not the time to start to figure out how FF works into your flow. My DPE was very specific about that on the check ride and a fan of making sure you trained and were evaluated like you're going to fly.

I haven't used a paper approach plate in my GA flying career.

 

[tspear]

There’s nothing at all wrong with flying a non WAAS GPS for your training as long as there is a Nav with glideslope so you can shoot an ILS. My bought and installed on the cheap non WAAS 420 in my 140 serves me very well. It makes a great trainer and feels familiar to the 430 W in the Mooney. There is something to be said for keeping it simple in your check ride plane. The more gadgetry there is in it is that much more for (s)he to drill you on

A six pack, a 420 even non WAAS and a NAV with LOC/GS and the other fundamentals is all you need. I think most DPE’s today are good with FF as a source for plates and such.

On the flip side. Flying with a PFD, and limited backup (preferably a second re-visionary mode PFD) there is not much to "fail" and cross check.
As a result, your check ride can be a lot easier...

Tim

 

[MBDiagMan]

Well, if you are sure that all you will ever fly is equipped that way then fine.

I taught my kids to drive in a stick shift vehicle. Once they can do that, an automatic is a walk in the park. I learned to fly in a taildragger. After that a nose wheel plane was cake. Six pack and basic avionics, even though a non WAS 420 is more than basic avionics, will teach you situational awareness making the glass an easy step.

We all have our own way of thinking and mine is not to make it the easiest I can make it, rather, learn as much as I can and be as prepared as I can.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Weird. I was my primary's first as well. I didn't know it until after the fact but I had a hunch.
In hindsight, There are a few things that were not covered as well as they should have been.

But did they give rise to humorous incidents?

 

[TommyG]

The Foreflight thing, not an issue. All you need for your IFR training is knowing how to get the approach plates, on top of that it doesn’t take a genius to figure out how to work Foreflight. Most of the cool factor items, most pilots don’t even use. You may be his first instrument student but he might be of the best instrument pilots out there, just hasn’t taught instrument. The GPS thing I wouldn’t worry about. The the main functions of the GPS for instrument flying are very basic. You learn the fundamentals and I can have you using a 750 to shoot approaches in 15 minutes, and in an hour you will know how to use all the features.

so unless you can hand pick and older CFII that isn’t looking to build hours on your dime, you can get a guy that has a military flight background or some kid that has no life experience outside of college looking for the airline job.

 

[sarangan]

I recently passed the IFR Written, and looking for an IFR Instructor. I have met with an instructor through a flying club, but I have some concerns... 1-not familiar with foreflight, 2-military flight background (vs GA), 3-(Biggest concern) I would be their first student.
My instinct is to find another instructor that is experienced and had success with IFR checkride passes. I would appreciate opinions/experiences on this.
Also - I have the option to train in a basic IFR plane (VORs, DME, GNC 355), or one with more advanced avionics (Aspen PFD/MFD, dual G430Ws, etc) and autopilot. What are pros/cons of each? My thought is that the basic setup would be easier to learn and pass the IFR checkride, however proficiency with the advanced avionics would be more beneficial and safer in the long run. (of course I could pass the IFR checkride with the basic plane, and then get instruction on the advanced).
Thanks in advance for the input!

You are focusing far too much on the avionics. Its like a new student pilot asking if he should learn to fly in an old piper cub, or a new 172SP with G1000.
I would advocate against the the use of moving map tablets (forefright or others) during early IFR training. It tends to be a distraction than a help.

 

[CMagnus]

You are focusing far too much on the avionics. Its like a new student pilot asking if he should learn to fly in an old piper cub, or a new 172SP with G1000.
I would advocate against the the use of moving map tablets (forefright or others) during early IFR training. It tends to be a distraction than a help.

My concern with avionics is whether it would be too much to learn the more advanced/complicated setup than the more basic. I have heard that on the checkride you can be drilled on any and all equipment in the aircraft, and need to know it all thoroughly. It seems a lot to take in with the IFR training, but maybe it's not so bad. I do plan on using the more advanced plane post-checkride - either I learn it now or later...
Foreflight would be for flight planning and filing.

 

[sarangan]

My concern with avionics is whether it would be too much to learn the more advanced/complicated setup than the more basic. I have heard that on the checkride you can be drilled on any and all equipment in the aircraft, and need to know it all thoroughly. It seems a lot to take in with the IFR training, but maybe it's not so bad. I do plan on using the more advanced plane post-checkride - either I learn it now or later...
Foreflight would be for flight planning and filing.

My comment was more specifically about tablet software such as foreflight. What I have noticed with students is that they rely too much on their tablet for information that is already on the panel (for example, on the Garmin 430). Frequencies, runway lengths, elevations etc.. can be looked up much quicker on the 430. Instead they struggle with the tablet taking their eyes off the panel, and end up falling behind the airplane. In addition, I have seen some tablets that are so large that they block half of the panel and could become a hazard in case of an emergency off field landing.

As for avionics, they will continue to evolve. What you learn today will be outdated in a few years. But the good news is that you don't have to be spending upwards of $150/hr to become proficient in avionics. There are simulators you can use for this purpose.

 

[Trogdor]

I'm not sure I agree a 430 is *faster* than GP/FF. It depends. And not everything is in the 430 nor are all 430 databases updated (yeah, yeah, I know, but then there is reality and rentals). So knowing your EFB is really important too (and being able to manage both in the cockpit I would argue is a very advantageous skill to have).

But I do agree that being proficient in your avionics is definitely key to staying ahead of the plane.

 

[noahfong]

... (of course I could pass the IFR checkride with the basic plane, and then get instruction on the advanced)....

This is what you should do. As you have surmised, having an advanced cockpit requires you to be proficient in all that button pushing and knob twisting. If you train with it, you will learn it at your instructor's terms. I suggest getting your IR with the "basic" plane, the more basic, the better, then get some instruction on advanced avionics on YOUR terms. It will be cheaper and more stress-free and you will learn it better.