Question for the CFIIs...

You mean :

Gear... down.
Undercarriage... down.
Maybe you should put the gear down?
Put the freaking gear down!

? ;)
I actually like that one. No, I'm thinking of stuff like GUMPFSS. Really. I've even come across two longer variations of even that one, CGUMPFSS and GUMPFFSS.

Gas
Undercarriage
Mixture
Prop

At least back in the day...:(
Ah! A purist.

Even with that, I always wondered how many gear ups were caused by pilots being taught that as students in a 152, learning nothing bad happens if you forget the "U".
 
Gaaa. This thread makes me even more frustrated than I was a moment ago, and I'm impressed by that, 'cause I didn't think that was possible. Apparently I'm the worse instrument student, ever, in the history of all universes and alternate timelines.

For me, the number one thing continues to be flying by reference to instruments. And apparently this isn't teachable, it's something each student has to figure out for themselves. Oh, I know.. I've read all about the "scan", and "keep your eyes moving". Primary / secondary vs the performance method. But when it comes to actually -doing- it . I got so tired of my instructor repeating "keep your eyes moving, keep the scan going".

Know what?

THATS NOT THE PROBLEM. REPEATING IT DOESNT HELP. PRACTICING THE SAME WAY DOESNT HELP. DEMONSTRATING THAT YOU CAN DO IT DOESNT HELP.

Somewhere between looking at the instrument and acting on the information, something goes wrong.

It wasn't until I spent $$ on x-plane, a yoke and some pedals did I start to sort of figure something out that might work. But when you look at the hours in the log book and the hours spent in the sim, I bet I'm 2-3x the normal number of hours, and I still don't have the rating yet.

Whatever I'm doing, don't do that.
 
Gaaa. This thread makes me even more frustrated than I was a moment ago, and I'm impressed by that, 'cause I didn't think that was possible. Apparently I'm the worse instrument student, ever, in the history of all universes and alternate timelines.

For me, the number one thing continues to be flying by reference to instruments. And apparently this isn't teachable, it's something each student has to figure out for themselves. Oh, I know.. I've read all about the "scan", and "keep your eyes moving". Primary / secondary vs the performance method. But when it comes to actually -doing- it . I got so tired of my instructor repeating "keep your eyes moving, keep the scan going".

Know what?

THATS NOT THE PROBLEM. REPEATING IT DOESNT HELP. PRACTICING THE SAME WAY DOESNT HELP. DEMONSTRATING THAT YOU CAN DO IT DOESNT HELP.

Somewhere between looking at the instrument and acting on the information, something goes wrong.

It wasn't until I spent $$ on x-plane, a yoke and some pedals did I start to sort of figure something out that might work. But when you look at the hours in the log book and the hours spent in the sim, I bet I'm 2-3x the normal number of hours, and I still don't have the rating yet.

Whatever I'm doing, don't do that.
I really hate when people put down instructors they don't know, but the reality is even the "best CFI in the business" is not the best CFI for everyone. That's not just for instrument training.

There are indeed ways to "teach" the instrument scan, at least to the extent of helping the student find one that works for him. The "normalization" of the instrument scan (my term for making the limited emergency scan of the VFR pilot into the sustainable scan of the instrument pilot) should be well on its way to completion by the time an instrument student flies the first approach. Everything else is adding procedural distractions to the basics. If you are 2-3X the normal number of hours and your scan is stil not normalized, there is most assuredly something amiss. If you haven't yet you owe it to yourself to fly with another instructor and see if a change helps.

I have a bunch of stories like that from my own training and the training of others. A scan-specific one I would pass on involves an already-rated pilot. He was planning a summer flying around the US with his son and decided he'd better get truly proficient on other than the autopilot. It was strange. His partial panel work was fantastic but he had trouble holding altitude and heading for any length of time with a full panel. Watching him, I saw his eyes fairly steady and controlled on partial panel but darting around haphazardly on the full panel, as though he really didn't know what to look at and when. There are a few things to try but all I did was turn to him and say, "You know, there was a study that said airline pilots spend 70% of their time on the attitude indicator." He looked at me for a moment and then turned back to the instruments with calmer eyes and flew great.

If that sounds like your "keep moving your eyes" situation - darting around without really seeing what the instruments are saying, don't worry you are not alone.
 
I"You know, there was a study that said airline pilots spend 70% of their time on the attitude indicator." He looked at me for a moment and then turned back to the instruments with calmer eyes and flew great.

If that sounds like your "keep moving your eyes" situation - darting around without really seeing what the instruments are saying, don't worry you are not alone.

BS! If you know anything about airline pilots, 70% of the time it's USA Today! Crews get it free at layover hotels. Part of being an airline pilot. o_O ;)
 
Gaaa. This thread makes me even more frustrated than I was a moment ago, and I'm impressed by that, 'cause I didn't think that was possible. Apparently I'm the worse instrument student, ever, in the history of all universes and alternate timelines.

For me, the number one thing continues to be flying by reference to instruments. And apparently this isn't teachable, it's something each student has to figure out for themselves. Oh, I know.. I've read all about the "scan", and "keep your eyes moving". Primary / secondary vs the performance method. But when it comes to actually -doing- it . I got so tired of my instructor repeating "keep your eyes moving, keep the scan going".

Know what?

THATS NOT THE PROBLEM. REPEATING IT DOESNT HELP. PRACTICING THE SAME WAY DOESNT HELP. DEMONSTRATING THAT YOU CAN DO IT DOESNT HELP.

Somewhere between looking at the instrument and acting on the information, something goes wrong.

It wasn't until I spent $$ on x-plane, a yoke and some pedals did I start to sort of figure something out that might work. But when you look at the hours in the log book and the hours spent in the sim, I bet I'm 2-3x the normal number of hours, and I still don't have the rating yet.

Whatever I'm doing, don't do that.
Who told you flight by reference to instruments isn't teachable?

What power settings are you using for 500fpm climbs, normal cruise, and a 500fpm descent? Let's start there.
 
I think I got very lucky with my CFII. On my second instrument lesson, I was doing partial panel DME arcs :)
(it does help that I'm doing it in my own plane that I fly 50+ hours per month, so the actual flying is almost like second nature).
 
It has been my experience, three things. First, settings. Too often instrument students tend to chase needles rather than establishing known settings that produce a result. The classic and continuing problem is glide slope maintenance. We can predict (through experience) what settings produce the theoretically perfect descent profile to follow a glideslope in a no-wind situation, for example. For a particular airplane, a certain power setting with a certain airspeed will produce a certain rate of descent. So simply setting up the power and speed to give a certain rate of descent gets you close to the proper gs. Then minor adjustments finish it up. Most beginners take a while to learn that. There are other settings-related tasks that they need to learn. Secondly, and related to the first, is scanning. Scanning is almost always the culprit to problems. Thirdly, is the academics. The cockpit is not the place to be conducting classroom. The easiest way to be a great pilot, great controller, or many other endeavors is study. Turn off the TV and study.

Did I mention study?

tex
 
If you watch some online videos of early instrument students where the camera view shows both the panel and the outside horizon, you can really see how they're chasing tiny instrument movements (good) that equate to much larger movements of the horizon outside. It's kinda fun watching the CFI ask a question and seeing it try to get past the student's overloaded brain, and then the answer to come back out of the brain to their mouth, too. It's really really slow at first. Especially if they were fully loaded up and the question threw them for a loop. It's like watching a computer with an I/O problem trying to slog through everything it's doing to give the result if a command.

And it feels a bit like that in the student seat, too.

My wife asked a fascinating question after watching one of these videos and me pointing out how relaxed the instructor looks waiting for answers (you just wait, you know they're overloaded) and how busy the student looked... she said...

"Why would anyone willingly do that?! I don't like that feeling of being totally overloaded!"

I had to explain that all students hit periods of that while learning until it becomes second nature, and had her think back to how hard she had to concentrate on driving the car at 16, versus today... do you even think about whether you'll hit the gas pumps, or do you just whip right up to one and stop? The student in the airplane is still at that first stage.

But it's an interesting point nonetheless. Some people might see those videos and say, "that looks way to hard for me".
 
If you watch some online videos of early instrument students where the camera view shows both the panel and the outside horizon, you can really see how they're chasing tiny instrument movements (good) that equate to much larger movements of the horizon outside.
The two most effective ways I've seen to cure the common tendency to overcorrect are, (1) watching someone else overcorrect and (2) do an approach in visual conditions without the hood.

The first can be done as a safety pilot or in the back seat when another student is taking a lesson. (My CFII put in the hold and had me correct him, but I didn't find that variation particularly effective) The latter gives good biofeedback to how very small corrections done early reall smooth things out,
 
The two most effective ways I've seen to cure the common tendency to overcorrect are, (1) watching someone else overcorrect and (2) do an approach in visual conditions without the hood.

The first can be done as a safety pilot or in the back seat when another student is taking a lesson. (My CFII put in the hold and had me correct him, but I didn't find that variation particularly effective) The latter gives good biofeedback to how very small corrections done early reall smooth things out,

Yeah, I'd have to say that watching another advanced rating candidate from the back seat of the Seminole was one (of many throughout all the flying) those ah-ha moments about how much the pilot can smooth things out on instruments, and since I'm an old school steam guy, it gave me time to watch his magenta line and map more on the Garmin and see how to integrate that better into my scan when available.

I had a tendency to simply ignore it, having learned my scan over on the "six pack" and needed to widen out the field of view to take it in a bit more, but really didn't recognize that as a "problem" or how much help it could be, until I sat back there realizing what a wonderful "cheat" that is. Ha.

Up until I sat in the back, my interaction with the Garmin was more of using it as a way to dial in stuff, like an old nav/Comm and then ignore it. Haha.

Of course, prior to that even, I've shared that my DPE allowed the georeferenced plates in Foreflight too, and I only really noticed my own dang airplane cruising along on the plate on the third approach of the checkride.

It's interesting to me how much the habits built early stick with you, even if other tools on board would make your life easier. Too much time in an old Frasca back in the day...

So I still have to consciously remember to include the moving maps. One way I can suck my eyeballs into the ForeFlight screen when doing instrument stuff is to turn on their little HSI. It uses too much screen real estate for approaches on an iPad mini, but my brain is naturally drawn to the depiction of an instrument one would see in a traditional instrument cluster. So it stops my scan on the iPad for a second longer and then I think to take in the moving map information and process it.

Ultimately nothing "wrong" with just flying the six pack, but sure is a lot easier to add in a moving map and hang out in this century once in a while! LOL.

Kids and their moving maps! Nah Humbug! Tee hee. Says the guy who wonders why all the haircuts at the barbershop seem to have more white hair on the little apron (or cape, if you're more the superhero type...haha), than brown, these days. ;)

Of course on modern simulators you can't cheat by listening for the servo motors moving the dials, either... damn LCD screen technology! You always knew you were screwing the pooch in the old ones when you heard multiple servos start to whine from the panel in front of you!
 
Just make sure that you are working with someone experienced is instrument flying and instrument instruction. If the CFII isn't current, you might want to work with someone else. Safety is enhanced when you work with a CFI that specializes rather than some that does primary training and dabbles in instrument instruction. Take a good ground school, and get a good solid ten hours of so of attitude instrument flying. Don't just go up with an IFR buddy and start playing with approaches. Use flight following to get used to working with ATC, study up on the enroute charts and terminal publications, and then go for it. On the finish-up, the more often you can fly, the faster you'll get your rating, the better instrument pilot you'll be and the less money you will spend.
 
well, i think ive made some progress.

ive gone out and flown approaches vfr using what i learned in the sim. i was NOT under the hood, so i could see the effect of small changes as suggested above. ive also temporarily abandoned my previous instructors technique of pitch to airspeed, power to rate in favor of setting approach descent config at glide slope intecept and holding glideslope with pitch. MUCH easier.

i also understand the flying partial panel easier than full panel thing, only i had to read an article about experienced pilots scans to get that the attitude indicator was central.

thanks everyone. im gonna get this. i have too many places i want to go not to.
 
Back
Top