Starting the IR path....

[Rob Schaffer]

Morning guys. I'm soon planning to start the road down the Instrument rating and I had a really good discussion with my wife about it this weekend. As a background, I just had my first Flight review, completed the tailwheel endorsement, and had some spin training. Next on my checklist is the IR Rating, and I've been casually reading and watching DVD's. Currently, I'm in an arrangement to fly a '67 C172H (with Cont. O-300D), which has two good Nav/Com's (one with glideslope) and an ADF. No DME, no AP. She flies well and handles good.

At my airport, they also have Cessna 172SP models with a King GPS and Autopilot. All guages are standard steam gauges, no glass panels. The AP will follow the heading bug, hold altitude / climb / decent, and hold roll axis. I've flown these a little in the past two years. (+/- 15 hrs)

Recently, the prices of the Cirrus have come down and the one SR-20 is nearly the same as the C172SP, and you get the Avidine glass panel with all those goodies. Faster, more comfortable for the wife possibly, which are factors that all add up someplace.

My thoughts are to begin the training in the C172H that I regularly fly to get back in the hood time regiment and get down the basics. I could do ILS, VOR, and ADF type approaches. The ADF picks up some of our local AM radio stations just fine. I don't see myself flying with my family in IFR conditions with this plane though as currently equipped, as if KLOM goes below VFR conditions, I can't get back into Wings as we only have GPS approaches. I could go to other local airports that have an ILS though. Also, I think single pilot IFR through some light IFR conditions or through layers wouldn't be bad without an AP, but I'd rather have the AP there for trips and with the family on board.

So, cost aside (I can get them pretty close if I buy block time in advance), do you think it is advisable to switch from the older C172 to a newer Cessna SP model with GPS and AP? While the transition to the Cirrus would be more time to learn the glass panel, I'd compare it to be only slightly more than with the C172SP. I have never flown in a Cirrus, but those that I have talked to who just completed the VFR and IFR transition at the flight school have been very impressed and love the performance and abilities the plane opens up.

At what point would you recommend that the transition take place? I don't want to get to far into things and have to 'back track' to much in a new plane environment. I understand there will need to be, and it will vary depending on the platform that I choose to switch to. Once I would switch though, that would be the primary plane for training and checkride, as well as IPC's and familly trips.

Thanks everyone,... looking forward to asking you all more questions in the near future.

 

[jsstevens]

Morning guys. I'm soon planning to start the road down the Instrument rating and I had a really good discussion with my wife about it this weekend. As a background, I just had my first Flight review, completed the tailwheel endorsement, and had some spin training. Next on my checklist is the IR Rating, and I've been casually reading and watching DVD's. Currently, I'm in an arrangement to fly a '67 C172H (with Cont. O-300D), which has two good Nav/Com's (one with glideslope) and an ADF. No DME, no AP. She flies well and handles good.

At my airport, they also have Cessna 172SP models with a King GPS and Autopilot. All guages are standard steam gauges, no glass panels. The AP will follow the heading bug, hold altitude / climb / decent, and hold roll axis. I've flown these a little in the past two years. (+/- 15 hrs)

Recently, the prices of the Cirrus have come down and the one SR-20 is nearly the same as the C172SP, and you get the Avidine glass panel with all those goodies. Faster, more comfortable for the wife possibly, which are factors that all add up someplace.

My thoughts are to begin the training in the C172H that I regularly fly to get back in the hood time regiment and get down the basics. I could do ILS, VOR, and ADF type approaches. The ADF picks up some of our local AM radio stations just fine. I don't see myself flying with my family in IFR conditions with this plane though as currently equipped, as if KLOM goes below VFR conditions, I can't get back into Wings as we only have GPS approaches. I could go to other local airports that have an ILS though. Also, I think single pilot IFR through some light IFR conditions or through layers wouldn't be bad without an AP, but I'd rather have the AP there for trips and with the family on board.

So, cost aside (I can get them pretty close if I buy block time in advance), do you think it is advisable to switch from the older C172 to a newer Cessna SP model with GPS and AP? While the transition to the Cirrus would be more time to learn the glass panel, I'd compare it to be only slightly more than with the C172SP. I have never flown in a Cirrus, but those that I have talked to who just completed the VFR and IFR transition at the flight school have been very impressed and love the performance and abilities the plane opens up.

At what point would you recommend that the transition take place? I don't want to get to far into things and have to 'back track' to much in a new plane environment. I understand there will need to be, and it will vary depending on the platform that I choose to switch to. Once I would switch though, that would be the primary plane for training and checkride, as well as IPC's and familly trips.

Thanks everyone,... looking forward to asking you all more questions in the near future.

I am not an instructor. I have complleted about 1/2 of my IR requirements and I hope to get back to training in the fall.

Based on what you wrote, you do not intend to use the older C-172 for instrument flying. You intend to use either the C-172SP or the Cirrus. On that statement alone, I'd recommend chossing the one you believe you'll really use and training in that one. Yes you need basic skills which you can get any where, however I've heard many instructors say you are the sharpest skills wise right after your checkride. So I'd want to be sharpest in what I actually intend to use for real IFR flight.

My $.02.

John

 

[HPNFlyGirl]

Be careful purchasing block time.

Go with the plane that you will be flying the most with your family on board.

When you start training make sure you have a good handle on BAI flying then work on the approaches.

 

[tonycondon]

i'd just get Bob to cough up the money for a 430W

 

[Rob Schaffer]

Be careful purchasing block time

.

Thanks Brook. I wouldn't buy block time for the whole training upfront, I can do smaller breakdowns. The FBO has always seemed to be very well run and managed, so I don't believe I would have them running away with my money, but its always a concern.

i'd just get Bob to cough up the money for a 430W

Oust the LORAN M1, and ADF, and it would be nice to have a 430W. Honestly though, I don't see them upgrading the panel anytime soon. It would be nice to arrange instruments into a Standard T panel too if work was to be done. Two engine cylinders were just done in January and only Bob and I fly it, the origonal owner hasn't flown since Jan 08.

 

[dmccormack]

Rob,

I'll put this out for whatever you may think it worth, but it worked for me:

Get Microsoft Flight Simulator X, and spring for an airplane model that most closely replicates the airplane you will be flying (you can purchase add-ons for various panels, GPS models -- the works)

Then spend time doing approaches, holds, and flying various manuevers with vis set to 1/2 mile.

Flying the sim will help with Instrument Procedures and verbiage and reduce overall costs significantly.

The pattern I used was to prep for the next lesson in the sim, fly the lesson, then re-fly the lesson when I got back (about 40% of the time I used "Real World Weather" since we were scheduling flight around the weather -- airplanes are usually available when it's 400 OVC, 2 mile vis)

(At the successful conclusion of my IR Practical I had 42.0 hours)

Dan

 

[AuntPeggy]

Rob,

I'll put this out for whatever you may think it worth, but it worked for me:

Get Microsoft Flight Simulator X, and spring for an airplane model that most closely replicates the airplane you will be flying (you can purchase add-ons for various panels, GPS models -- the works)

Then spend time doing approaches, holds, and flying various manuevers with vis set to 1/2 mile.

Flying the sim will help with Instrument Procedures and verbiage and reduce overall costs significantly.

The pattern I used was to prep for the next lesson in the sim, fly the lesson, then re-fly the lesson when I got back (about 40% of the time I used "Real World Weather" since we were scheduling flight around the weather -- airplanes are usually available when it's 400 OVC, 2 mile vis)

(At the successful conclusion of my IR Practical I had 42.0 hours)

Dan

I have wanted to do this from the first, but Hubby is so opposed that I must make sure to do it exactly right from the beginning. I haven't been able to use the mouse and keyboard with Flight Simulator. What yoke and rudder setup should I get? Please. It must work perfectly. Otherwise, all I will get is, "I told you so."

 

[cameronbm]

Rob,

Get your rating in that old, simple 172. You already know how to fly her and you already know her knobology. Don't add additional complexity to an already complex task. Save the sexy hardware for later.

+1 on practicing on a simulator

 

[CJones]

Truth is you won't probably be using any type of autopilot or really any 'hardcore' approach scenarios for the first portion of your IR training, which would make me lean toward the 'cheap' plane to learn how to fly by numbers and get your scan figured out.

BUT, when you say that cost isn't a factor, then you might as well learn in the plane that you're going to be flying the most. I don't see any harm in learning in a more 'advanced' plane as long as you don't let the extra gadgets become a crutch. Eventually you'll need to learn how to work the autopilot into your normal IFR transitions anyway and a good instructor will be able to work that training into your normal IR training without it becoming a crutch.

As far as starting in glass and going to steam or vice-versa, for *ME* it would be easier to start with steam and transition to glass. I started out in steam and now we have glass in the RV-10 - there is so much information thrown at you with the glass, that I could see it being overwhelming during initial training. Especially if you are going to be transitioning back and forth between glass/steam during your normal flying, for *me* it would seem easier to learn the basics on steam and 'expand' them to glass than to have learned on glass and have to learn how to 'slum' it on steam. I'm sure there are thousands of opinions on this scenario, though.

Good luck and have fun! It's a lot of work, but man is it worth it!

 

[dmccormack]

I have wanted to do this from the first, but Hubby is so opposed that I must make sure to do it exactly right from the beginning. I haven't been able to use the mouse and keyboard with Flight Simulator. What yoke and rudder setup should I get? Please. It must work perfectly. Otherwise, all I will get is, "I told you so."

I used the cheapo CH Products Flight Sim Yoke.

Using a yoke and pedals helps burn in muscle memory somewhat, but also teaches some bad habits, so do not LAND or do other ground reference type manuevers.

Again, I think the combination of sim PLUS actual flight will help scrape off whatever few bad habits may be picked up.

 

[chucky]

I have wanted to do this from the first, but Hubby is so opposed that I must make sure to do it exactly right from the beginning. I haven't been able to use the mouse and keyboard with Flight Simulator. What yoke and rudder setup should I get? Please. It must work perfectly. Otherwise, all I will get is, "I told you so."

I can also recommend the CH Product yoke and pedals, but don't expect them to accurately reproduce the feel of flying a real airplane. They're spring centered, and have a much shorter throw than an aircraft yoke. You'll probably find that the aircraft in FSX are harder to control - a lot twitchier - than the real aircraft you're used to.

That said, I've found FSX to be a great platform for practicing certain aspects of flying, especially instrument procedures.

 

[mantakos]

I replaced my CH yoke with a Saitek yoke. Way better, in my experience.

My CH rudder worked fine, but I don't think it brings much to the table for IR simulation. Probably an unnecessary expense.
-harry

 

[poadeleted20]

I am not an instructor...

I am, and one who specializes in instrument training.

I'd recommend chossing the one you believe you'll really use and training in that one.

Exactly what I was going to say except he said it first.

In addtion, again speaking as an instructor who specializes in instrument training, don't start trying to teach yourself instrument flying on a flight game program like FlightSim or even in a real airplane. That's more likely to build bad habits, bad techniques, and bad procedures than anything positive. There's nothing wrong with using flight simulation tools to support your training, but do so only under the supervision of your instructor, and never try anything your instructor hasn't already taught you.

 

[Ghery]

I replaced my CH yoke with a Saitek yoke. Way better, in my experience.

My CH rudder worked fine, but I don't think it brings much to the table for IR simulation. Probably an unnecessary expense.
-harry

I've got the Saitek yoke as well. My only complaint is the mechanical dead zone in the middle. I don't experience that in the real airplanes.

And to a previous comment - you're absolutely correct. Forget landing and ground reference maneuvers with these simulators (I use OnTop). Not at all like the real thing.

 

[chucky]

I am, and one who specializes in instrument training.
Exactly what I was going to say except he said it first.

In addtion, again speaking as an instructor who specializes in instrument training, don't start trying to teach yourself instrument flying on a flight game program like FlightSim or even in a real airplane. That's more likely to build bad habits, bad techniques, and bad procedures than anything positive. There's nothing wrong with using flight simulation tools to support your training, but do so only under the supervision of your instructor, and never try anything your instructor hasn't already taught you.

I hear you about building bad habits, but even without the sim, I do practice things I've been taught without the presence of an instructor - that 40 hours of required instrument time isn't all going to get spent with a CFII. But I have found that FSX can help me get my head around certain problems that I was having in the real plane. If you have any specific pointers for things not to do, though, or bad habits one can get in to, I'd appreciate hearing them.

 

[dmccormack]

In addtion, again speaking as an instructor who specializes in instrument training, don't start trying to teach yourself instrument flying on a flight game program like FlightSim or even in a real airplane. That's more likely to build bad habits, bad techniques, and bad procedures than anything positive. There's nothing wrong with using flight simulation tools to support your training, but do so only under the supervision of your instructor, and never try anything your instructor hasn't already taught you.

There's a difference between "teaching yoursalf" and requiring the "supervision of an instructor" while flying MSFS or x-Plane.

While I agree that "teaching yourself" instrument flight is likely counter-productive, requiring an instructor's supervision is a over-the-top.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's used a desktop flight sim to supplement flight training and thereby reduce the overall cost.

 

[poadeleted20]

There's a difference between "teaching yoursalf" and requiring the "supervision of an instructor" while flying MSFS or x-Plane.

While I agree that "teaching yourself" instrument flight is likely counter-productive, requiring an instructor's supervision is a over-the-top.

Well, my experience is based on over 1000 hours of instrument flight training given, and based on that, I don't want my trainees doodling around with FlightSim or any other computer game without me knowing what they're doing and directing them as to what to do and how to do it. I'm not saying direct supervision (like over the shoulder physical presence) is necessary, but want to be in the loop on what they'll be practicing and assured that they won't try to practice what they haven't yet been taught. No rule against it, just my experience which says it will likely make their training longer and harder.

 

[spiderweb]

Congratulations on deciding to get the IR. This is going to be a very rewarding experience. You will feel as accomplished, if not more, than when you got your PPL. From my humble perspective, I would say that instrument skills are a mind game. Understand the concepts, understand the weather, and understand how to execute. Approved sim time is -great- because you get this stuff down.

Agree with Ron that even if you're fooling around on a game, guidance is good--at least to know what is best to concentrate on.

Know this: which airplane you fly has VERY LITTLE to do with the instrument skills. KNOW YOUR AIRPLANE FIRST--whatever it is--and get comfortable with it. Flying the plane is the absolute baseline. After that, everything is procedure, weather, and judgment.

 

[dmccormack]

Well, my experience is based on over 1000 hours of instrument flight training given, and based on that, I don't want my trainees doodling around with FlightSim or any other computer game without me knowing what they're doing and directing them as to what to do and how to do it. I'm not saying direct supervision (like over the shoulder physical presence) is necessary, but want to be in the loop on what they'll be practicing and assured that they won't try to practice what they haven't yet been taught. No rule against it, just my experience which says it will likely make their training longer and harder.

OK... that makes more sense.

I agree that some IR students will need this. Not all, though.

 

[ruthsindelar]

I am, and one who specializes in instrument training.
Exactly what I was going to say except he said it first.

In addtion, again speaking as an instructor who specializes in instrument training, don't start trying to teach yourself instrument flying on a flight game program like FlightSim or even in a real airplane. That's more likely to build bad habits, bad techniques, and bad procedures than anything positive. There's nothing wrong with using flight simulation tools to support your training, but do so only under the supervision of your instructor, and never try anything your instructor hasn't already taught you.

Great advice, as always, Ron.

DO NOT practice IFR procedures on the flight simulator without the help of your CFII. Instrument flying is not "natural". There is only one "right" way to do many of the skills (scan technique, nav usage, etc). Learn it right the first time rather than pay to undo poorly developed skills.

Ron's other advice on flying the aircraft you are most likely to use after the rating is also valuable. Using a glass cockpit is not necessarily "easier" and it is best to learn it during training.

Last piece of advices.....getting your ifr rating is a blast EXCEPT for your last 6-8 hours of training when you have to polish your skills to the IFR practical test standards. Plan on the last 10 hours being a bit frustrating, pace yourself and enjoy the journey. The instrument rating gives you an incredible amount of skills and power. Use them slowly and wisely.

 

[Doggtyred]

All the hands on stuff aside, my recommendation is to get Kershners Instrument Flight Manual as well as the FAA's online version, and immerse yourself in it. The cockpit is the absolute worst place to learn and master theory. And understanding theory will make you a better rounded student.

I personally had passed my instrument written before I took any instrument instruction (beyond what was required for PPL)

 

[AdamZ]

Rob, I have a bit more knowlege about the aircraft and options you have given my location near you.

First my experience is that I got my IR in a PA28-161. The warrior had two KX170 nav/coms and OBS's a DME and Marker Beacons thats about it. When I started to actually fly in the system it was always in a Plane with a 430. Those planes are a bit out of my reach financially now. You know the plane I currently fly and while I practice approaches in it I would not fly in actual in the plane. Could I? Yes. But I'd would choose not to. Its a great inexpensive platform to practice and I think that should a plane that is more " technologically equipped" become available I don't think I'd have an issue transitioning back.

So I guess what I am saying is if you can't afford MCA's Cessna or the Cirrus then do the IR in Bob's plane. I think if you get the IR in Bob's plane it will be easier for you to move up to MCA's 172s. If you can afford to train in MCA's 172 for your IR then I think that is the best way to go again thats if you can afford it.

The Cirrus is an entire different animal. I'd think that if your going to train in that and keep current and proficient your going to have to prepare to continue to fly that plane in addition to the 172H.

You may also want to chat with Tom and see if he intends to keep the 172s on the line as he is continues to fill the line with new cirrus and I'm not sure if he wants to keep the Cessnas. Give me a call and we can chat about it some more.

 

[gismo]

IMO, your IR training will go much smoother in a plane you're intimately familiar with and once you've gotten the checkride out of the way, you can transition to whatever you intend to fly on trips. Separating the new plane issues from the pre-checkride IR training should provide you with better mastery of each in the least amount of time. In addition, since any such transition will undoubtedly include significant attention to flying the new to you steed on instruments, that can provide a nice top-off to the pre-checkride work.

Ditto on what Ron said about PC sims. They're great for working on procedures as well as developing a good scan. Unlike a stable airplane, you can't fly a sim on instruments worth a darn without a good scan, they're always heading off in some new direction/altitude as soon as you fixate on anything or divert your attention from the flight instruments. But it's important to restrict and coordinate such activity with your instructor's plan so as to avoid learning bad habits. And don't be afraid to work with your CFII on the PC even though the time generally isn't logable, time spent in this manner can be extremely cost effective and you're likely to have plenty of opportunity to meet or exceed the minimum aircraft flight time requirements.

 

[Ted]

I would get your IR in the 172. You're already familiar with the plane, and the extra challenge from it being /U will ultimately benefit you in my opinion. Plus you have an ADF so you can learn NDB approaches, which are the coolest things ever. Seriously, I've been almost disappointed that I've not had an opportunity to do an NDB approach in Canada, but I will gladly take the clear weather I've been getting in the middle of nowhere that I'm not familiar with.

If you ultimately decide you don't want to use the 172 for IFR flight (which is a personal choice), you can decide to transition at a later time. Truthfully, being /G I find is an immense help in my IFR flight and makes it much easier. However, I'm glad to have been forced to do my training and even my initial flying in the Aztec as /A and /U, respectively. If Bob decides to put in a 430, then even better. You won't be using the autopilot much in training (at least, I don't think you should), the /G is a crutch that's easy to learn and that you don't need for basic learning. No reason to spend the extra money.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

I had a 430 in the plane when I got my IR. My CFII's "graduation " present to me was finally allowing me to use the moving map. It was needles, needles, needles for the whole training program. Why? To help me develop a 3 dimensional mental picture of situational awareness that the mm just makes too easy. Looking back, it was absolutely the right thing to do.

Ditto on the sim advise. Use it to practice the procedures after your instructor cover the material. I found in FS 2004, the "review flight" tab was terrific for reviewing how well I understood holding procedures.

Have fun. Getting the IR will be one of your most personally satisfying achievements.

 

[GMascelli]

I also vote to get the rating in the 172 you fly. The transition to the IFR certified GPS is learning the unit. Save the $, hook up with an excellent instructor and together have a plan and work it.

 

[Rob Schaffer]

Thanks everyone for the thoughts, just what I was looking for.

I think I've decided to go and at least start the training in the C172H. While the non-standard panel arrangement is there, it isn't to troublesome from a scan perspective. I'm familiar with the plane's power settings for different decent rates and know where all the items are. I'll have to review the logs and discuss items necessary for checks on IFR currency for the equipment, but I'm pretty sure we had the IFR Pitot-Static check done last September before Windwood, as well as Transponder. I need to recheck the VOR's at PNE one of these mornings and record that in the log book in the plane. (AdamZ,...you up for a ride sometime?)

I can transistion then to the 172SP's and add on the information to get comfortable with the GPS and AP. I don't know what I'll be flying once I get the rating, whether the C172H opportunity will still be there or whether I'll move on to something else.

The C172H at about $85 hr/wet will help save some money towards that transition and learning time too, rather than +/-$110/wet for the C172SP's. (both without instructor)

-------

You know the plane I currently fly and while I practice approaches in it I would not fly in actual in the plane. Could I? Yes. But I'd would choose not to.

But Adam, that's precisely why I asked my question in the first place. Why wouldn't you fly in actual in the cherokee? Are there limitations of the plane you wouldn't want to be single pilot IFR in? If away in Maine with your wife, and you encounter IMC on the route back, would you divert and wait it out or pick up a clearance and get home, providing no icing and an available approach above minimums? I think in the Cessna 172H, I'd be fine with occasional IMC conditions or layers, but not comfortable taking my wife on a long trip with. Hence my thoughts of going to the 172SP model to be able to take Becky or my daughter on a longer flight with IMC.

 

[dmccormack]

But Adam, that's precisely why I asked my question in the first place. Why wouldn't you fly in actual in the cherokee? Are there limitations of the plane you wouldn't want to be single pilot IFR in? If away in Maine with your wife, and you encounter IMC on the route back, would you divert and wait it out or pick up a clearance and get home, providing no icing and an available approach above minimums? I think in the Cessna 172H, I'd be fine with occasional IMC conditions or layers, but not comfortable taking my wife on a long trip with. Hence my thoughts of going to the 172SP model to be able to take Becky or my daughter on a longer flight with IMC.

I'm not Adam but...

It's one thing to fly an airplane through some IMC to get somewhere (such as the scenario you just mentioned).

But once you have the IR rating *and* a capable airplane, your envelope of "it's OK to go" expands.

Single Pilot IFR is not easy and it's higher risk. You can help reduce the workload and risk by flying a more capable airplane (autopilot, XM, IFR-GPS, dual-pumps, etc).

 

[Ted]

I think I've decided to go and at least start the training in the C172H. While the non-standard panel arrangement is there, it isn't to troublesome from a scan perspective. I'm familiar with the plane's power settings for different decent rates and know where all the items are. I'll have to review the logs and discuss items necessary for checks on IFR currency for the equipment, but I'm pretty sure we had the IFR Pitot-Static check done last September before Windwood, as well as Transponder. I need to recheck the VOR's at PNE one of these mornings and record that in the log book in the plane. (AdamZ,...you up for a ride sometime?)

All good points, but keep in mind that there are many planes out there with a "non-standard panel." As you do more instrument flying, it won't become a big deal at all.

I can transistion then to the 172SP's and add on the information to get comfortable with the GPS and AP. I don't know what I'll be flying once I get the rating, whether the C172H opportunity will still be there or whether I'll move on to something else.

I'd figure that out at the appropriate time.

But Adam, that's precisely why I asked my question in the first place. Why wouldn't you fly in actual in the cherokee? Are there limitations of the plane you wouldn't want to be single pilot IFR in? If away in Maine with your wife, and you encounter IMC on the route back, would you divert and wait it out or pick up a clearance and get home, providing no icing and an available approach above minimums? I think in the Cessna 172H, I'd be fine with occasional IMC conditions or layers, but not comfortable taking my wife on a long trip with. Hence my thoughts of going to the 172SP model to be able to take Becky or my daughter on a longer flight with IMC.

Everyone has their own comfort level. There is a difference between a plane you can go out and do training or practice in for your IFR rating and a plane that you're comfortable flying in actual IMC for, doubly so for hard IMC. In the 172H you've got a plane that's slow, underpowered, doesn't have great climb rate. That can be annoying for IFR situations where a good rate of climb is helpful, as is speed that allows you to get around weather. The biggest one for me is a question of trust of reliability of the plane. Anytime is a bad time for an engine failure, but IMC is a worse time. Electrical failures are very bad, too. Once again, personal preference.

 

[AdamZ]

But Adam, that's precisely why I asked my question in the first place. Why wouldn't you fly in actual in the cherokee? Are there limitations of the plane you wouldn't want to be single pilot IFR in? If away in Maine with your wife, and you encounter IMC on the route back, would you divert and wait it out or pick up a clearance and get home, providing no icing and an available approach above minimums? I think in the Cessna 172H, I'd be fine with occasional IMC conditions or layers, but not comfortable taking my wife on a long trip with. Hence my thoughts of going to the 172SP model to be able to take Becky or my daughter on a longer flight with IMC.

Well as per our telephone call today. I have total faith in the plane and I know that the Mx is up to date and top notch at that. The planes equipment included a Kx125 and a Kx170b with a obs with GS. And my issues are as follows:

1) Approach- The field where the plane is based and my field LOM are limited to GPS approaches. There may be an NDB approach in to the field where its based but its moot as the plane does not have an ADF. there is another field with a Localizer approach but in order to get to the lower MDA I'd need DME which I don't have. There is also a VOR Alpha but I would not personally comfortable with that approach in hard IMC for reasons set forth in the next two sections. That leaves PNE, ABE or PHL for ILS approaches

2) Enroute-5 yes 5 of the local VORs have so many radials out at different altituds ( most 8000 and below) that I would need to bring a flight engineer to help me keep track of them. Perhaps they have fixed some but it sure seems like they have been unuseable for too long to remember, this has very often in the past ( not sure about today) included the radials needed for the VOR-A approach.

3) My ability- Given the above two issues and the frequency which I fly Actual I just am not comfortable flying that plane in solid IMC. ( I'm not talking about climbing or decending through layers or light IMC.

So I suppose I'd say the plane is limited by the infrastructure.

I'm not Adam but...

It's one thing to fly an airplane through some IMC to get somewhere (such as the scenario you just mentioned).

But once you have the IR rating *and* a capable airplane, your envelope of "it's OK to go" expands.

Single Pilot IFR is not easy and it's higher risk. You can help reduce the workload and risk by flying a more capable airplane (autopilot, XM, IFR-GPS, dual-pumps, etc).

Agreed and this will vary depending upon proficency.

All good points, but keep in mind that there are many planes out there with a "non-standard panel." As you do more instrument flying, it won't become a big deal at all....


Everyone has their own comfort level. There is a difference between a plane you can go out and do training or practice in for your IFR rating and a plane that you're comfortable flying in actual IMC for, doubly so for hard IMC.

Well said on both issues.

 

[Rob Schaffer]

You know what's cool about the POA,.. not only do I get some good written thoughts here, but in the past 36 hrs, I've spoken with three POA members about this topic on the phone and it has been a real enlightening discussion. Thanks everyone for the insight!

 

[Ted]

Well as per our telephone call today. I have total faith in the plane and I know that the Mx is up to date and top notch at that. The planes equipment included a Kx125 and a Kx170b with a obs with GS. And my issues are as follows:

1) Approach- The field where the plane is based and my field LOM are limited to GPS approaches. There may be an NDB approach in to the field where its based but its moot as the plane does not have an ADF. there is another field with a Localizer approach but in order to get to the lower MDA I'd need DME which I don't have. There is also a VOR Alpha but I would not personally comfortable with that approach in hard IMC for reasons set forth in the next two sections. That leaves PNE, ABE or PHL for ILS approaches

2) Enroute-5 yes 5 of the local VORs have so many radials out at different altituds ( most 8000 and below) that I would need to bring a flight engineer to help me keep track of them. Perhaps they have fixed some but it sure seems like they have been unuseable for too long to remember, this has very often in the past ( not sure about today) included the radials needed for the VOR-A approach.

3) My ability- Given the above two issues and the frequency which I fly Actual I just am not comfortable flying that plane in solid IMC. ( I'm not talking about climbing or decending through layers or light IMC.

Radials out is a problem. Plus remember that sometimes your MEAs can be higher than vectoring altitudes due to strange things the terrain does to the signals from the VOR. V106 off of SEG VOR to the west has an MEA of 14000, with 4000G listed. Why? Terrain. However the point is that being /A or /U without a GPS can limit your options, especially since your backup is a second radio which doesn't account for various problems with the navaids themselves.

This gets even worse in Canada. Between Montreal and Chisasibi there are maybe 5 NDBs, and that's on roughly a 600 nm flight. By the way, there's no NDB (or any other navigational aid) at Chisasibi, and only GPS approaches. When you're trying to deal with a lot of relatively complicated airspace, especially quickly, a GPS is a nice crutch for most of us (myself included) to lean on. Need it? No. But it is a nice to have.

I fully believe in learning on the needles the old fashioned way. Then, once you're ready to do some more serious flying, make the /G upgrade. It's another tool in the box, which can only be a good thing provided it's used properly (don't use an oxy-acetylene torch to change a tire).

 

[Rob Schaffer]

Sat down today with a CFII at lunchbreak and talked to another on the phone and asked some questions. Found out some good answers and how they outline their training, what they start with, and if they would train/teach in actual conditions.

One emphasized really hitting the books hard and after the first few flights of Basic Attitude Review and Unusual Attitudes, to review with them on the ground after each lesson, take practice tests at home, etc,.. and then take the written test early. 75% or more of the IR is the knowledge of the procedures, and then how to impliment them. So, getting the knowledge understood first was an emphasis.

The other said to take it when I felt ready during the training, not a big deal when. But, this one also didn't seem to have any standard preparation of the training. Kind of worked off what was done last lesson and introduce a new item type of approach to teaching. Not sure I like this approach to the IR.

Both prefer to introduce actual conditions after the student is good with approaches under the foggles and to start flying XC's, but they both agree to get actual time during training is very highly recommended. I thought this was good.

Any specific things you look for in choosing a CFII? Both of these I have flown with in the past for stage check flights or for a checkout, and personality wise they both work well with me.

 

[dmccormack]

Any specific things you look for in choosing a CFII? Both of these I have flown with in the past for stage check flights or for a checkout, and personality wise they both work well with me.

If either is acceptable, you're down to simple differentiators such as schedule (how available?) and chemistry (will you get along?).

I had a "What are we doing today?" new CFII (I was his first IR student).

At first it was frustrating, until I took charge of the training, bought a syllabus, and insisted we follow some sequence. I'm sure it helped us both.

We did lots of actual.

I passed, then a month later flew a rental Archer through some towering cumulus and knocked me an my ready-to-jump-out of the airplane wife around. I avoided clouds for a couple of months.

I finally went back up with a veteran Single Pilot IFR multi-thousand 210 CFII and got some remedial and rebuilt my confidence in the soup. Then did the Comm with him.

 

[Ted]

I'd look for a CFII who flies a lot of actual. Someone with no experience flying in actual will not be able to teach you much about flying in it.

 

[ArrowFlyer]

I'd look for a CFII who flies a lot of actual. Someone with no experience flying in actual will not be able to teach you much about flying in it.

+1 I had a choice of 2 instructors and I am glad that I chose the one that I did. I ended up getting 5.8 hours of actual and had hoped for more, but the weather didn't cooperate. Come to find out that the other CFII was canceling training sessions because the weather wasn't cooperating. I flew with ceilings at 800', flew the ILS approach at an airport 10 miles from GCAC and flew SVFR back to GCAC to land. Worked out quite well and gave me a ton of confidence.

John

 

[Ted]

+1 I had a choice of 2 instructors and I am glad that I chose the one that I did. I ended up getting 5.8 hours of actual and had hoped for more, but the weather didn't cooperate. Come to find out that the other CFII was canceling training sessions because the weather wasn't cooperating. I flew with ceilings at 800', flew the ILS approach at an airport 10 miles from GCAC and flew SVFR back to GCAC to land. Worked out quite well and gave me a ton of confidence.

That's what you want from your instructor, someone who's comfortable in instrument flight and teaches you to be comfortable in it. I think in training 800' was about as low as it went for me for real ILSs, simply because that's what the weather offered. An ILS down to 800' (assuming 200' mins) is just another day at the office. Down to 200' isn't any worse, but the only reason I don't like shooting an ILS down to 200' is that, well, that's minimums (for most ILSs), and I don't like going missed. If it's that close to minimums, I might have to go missed.

Sounds like you made the right choice for a CFII.

 

[DutchessFlier]

I was totally amazed how different actual was compared to the foggles! Mind you, not that I wasn't told how different it would be, but to experience it, and how damned fast your inner ear starts to play games, sheesh was a real eye opener!

My best IMC experience came in the right seat, of all places, in my plane, with my instructor flying PIC in the left seat, in heavy IMC rain and wind, late afternoon, early evening from KALB to KPOU, with mid course changes 3 times, and learning how to handle vectors and a circle to land approach, sheesh, I was sweating, but damn if I didn't learn alot on that flight!

 

[spiderweb]

Nothing can substitute for IMC. And there are so many types, too.

 

[gprellwitz]

That's what you want from your instructor, someone who's comfortable in instrument flight and teaches you to be comfortable in it. I think in training 800' was about as low as it went for me for real ILSs, simply because that's what the weather offered. An ILS down to 800' (assuming 200' mins) is just another day at the office. Down to 200' isn't any worse, but the only reason I don't like shooting an ILS down to 200' is that, well, that's minimums (for most ILSs), and I don't like going missed. If it's that close to minimums, I might have to go missed.

Sounds like you made the right choice for a CFII.

Yeah, you might not like going missed, but you should know what it's like for real, and realize that sometimes you really have to go missed, and be prepared for it. I think it's too easy to get complacent during training and to think that the only time we go missed is when we (or the instructor) choose to do so.

OTOH, it can mess up an instructor's schedule horribly if they have another student booked after you and the airport to which you needed to go missed was your true destination! Can you say "get-there-itis?"