rickyrhodesii
Well-Known Member
I'm looking at starting my instrument training in a few months. Do ya'll have any pointers on things i can do better prepare myself?
Instrument Training
- Thread starter rickyrhodesii
- Start date
jrh
Well-Known Member
I was going to make some suggestions about getting comfortable on the radio and learning how "the system" works...but I see that you work ATC, so I don't think that will be much of an issue.
Assuming you have the "mental" side of it down, you could work on the "physical" side some. If you can, get a safety pilot and fly around under the hood for a few hours before you start training with an instructor. There's only so much a CFI can teach you about basic attitude flying. It's more of a skill that naturally develops with time. If you get proficient at the basic skills (straight and level flight, turns, climbing/descending turns, timed turns, constant airspeed descents, etc.) it will save you money and make the CFI's job easier at the start of your training. You'll be able to jump into the meat of IFR flying sooner--holds, approaches, that sort of thing.
Assuming you have the "mental" side of it down, you could work on the "physical" side some. If you can, get a safety pilot and fly around under the hood for a few hours before you start training with an instructor. There's only so much a CFI can teach you about basic attitude flying. It's more of a skill that naturally develops with time. If you get proficient at the basic skills (straight and level flight, turns, climbing/descending turns, timed turns, constant airspeed descents, etc.) it will save you money and make the CFI's job easier at the start of your training. You'll be able to jump into the meat of IFR flying sooner--holds, approaches, that sort of thing.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
I'm going to disagree with that. There are exceptions, but the hood work that was done at the private level tends to be of a slightly different breed that the "real" IFR version. There are a whole lot of bad habits that one can get into without guidance, even on basic scans. I like to think of work with a safety pilot as the instrument version of solo - to practice things that were taught during dual.jrh said:
From a learning standpoint, the getting started on the ground portion makes sense, especially if you are a self-studier anyway.
Also, unless you are on a career track where there are different considerations (and under {art 141, different requirements), I think the best thing that you can do is to work on those cross countries. Cross countries to airports that you have never been to before in directions you haven't flow before is probably the best developer of skill and judgment there is.
jrh
Well-Known Member
MidlifeFlyer said:
What sort of bad habits are you thinking of?
And I'm not challenging you by asking that. I'm asking because I want to know what to watch for when I'm instructing.
In my experience, I don't see any big differences between private level basic attitude flying and the start of instrument training. I think basic attitude flying can be pretty easily covered in the three hours for the private license. When somebody starts instrument training I make sure to stress primary/supporting instruments a little more heavily, as well as partial panel flying, but otherwise there isn't much more to say. It seems like there are a few hours wasted at the start of training while the student needs to just fly around and practice, with or without an instructor.
Something my instrument instructor told me towards the start of my instrument training was that I would reach a point where I no longer "scanned", but rather I would just "see it" all at once. I never understood what he was talking about until I got deeper into training and it happened. No amount of him telling me to focus on this instrument or that instrument made a difference. It just took time to develop the skill so it was natural and fluid, not a mechanical effort on my part. That's why I'm of the opinion that time will help a beginning student more than a lot of instruction.
MidlifeFlyer said:
I definitely agree with you here. People underestimate how much flying cross countries can improve their judgement/decision making/confidence. I had to tell one of my instrument students recently that we need to cut back on the frequency of his instrument lessons (go from 3 lessons/week to 1 or 2/week) because he is getting deep into training, but has almost no XC experience aside from his private license requirements. He just needs to mature as a pilot a bit more before the advanced instrument training will do him any good.
My original advice was given assuming rickyrhodes has already met his 50 hours XC requirement.
rickyrhodesii
Well-Known Member
jrh said:
Hey thanks jrh...that's the same boat i'm in. I got my PPL about two years ago, but due to a lack of money and time, i haven't been able to fly as much as i'd like to.
So, from your experience as a CFI, would you recommend that i do some more cross-country flying before i get started? Right now, i only have 10 "cross-country hours."
Thanks!
rickyrhodesii
Well-Known Member
DE727UPS said:
Hey DE727UPS,
Right now i'm at Vance RAPCON (Radar Approach Control), Vance AFB, OK. It the same as a FAA TRACON, but for whatever reason, the Air Force has to be different!
jrh
Well-Known Member
rickyrhodesii said:
Yes, definitely. You don't have to do all 50 hours before you start training, but I'm sure another 20 or 25 would be really helpful. It will expand your perspective on what being a pilot is all about. It's like your whole world will grow ten times over when you see what flying is like outside of the local training environment.
It's hard to quantify the benefits of flying cross countries, but they make a noticeable difference. When I fly with pilots straight off their PPL training that haven't gotten out much, they don't seem quite as confident, or willing to take charge, or something. It seems like they look to me as the final authority over the flight a lot more than they look to themselves, even though they're rated, competent, and legal to be alone and do what they want.
When I fly with somebody who has gone all over the place on cross countries, their mindset is different. Even though they still look to me for leadership with instrument training (I guess they should...I am the CFII, after all!), it's much more of a peer to peer relationship with other aspects of flying. It's in the little details. They don't look to me for approval of their choice of a runway, or how to answer a question from a controller, or whatever, they just do it. It's sort of an attitude like, "I'm the pilot, I'm the one running the show, your job is to teach me instrument stuff...everything else is my job." I like that attitude. That's the way it should be.
As an additional note, I'd encourage you to fly a lot of solo cross countries. I know when money is tight it's easy to take along another pilot to split costs with, but I guarantee you, the benefits of making decisions on your own will outweigh the extra money you might spend. There's something really satisfying about being able to look back on a flight through super busy airspace, or diverting because of bad weather, or dealing with a mechanical problem in the air, and be able to say, "Yeah, I handled that on my own." It'll give you a lot of confidence. At least that's what happened to me, and I did the first 30 hours of XC time solo after getting my PPL.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
That can be a big difference. Private pilot instrument training is focussed on the scan as an emergency maneuver. It assumes that the instruments, especially the AI and DG are working. There's only a minimal cross-check. It's the "178 seconds to live" scan.jrh said:
Whether your instrument teaching philosophy is primary/secondary or control/performance, you teach a rigorous cross-check for real instrument flying. Understanding the instruments well enough to know how to tell if, for example, a vacuum failure has started, by comparing it with the other instruments, is a necessary skill for instrument pilots that really doesn't exist before then (there are =always exceptions - CFIs who go much further).
10 hours "practicing" a scan that doesn't have that continuous cross-reference component will be a hard habit to fix later and I think adds an extra level of workload that would be better taught before the practice.
Just an opinion.
jrh
Well-Known Member
MidlifeFlyer said:
Fair enough. I see what you're saying. But here's my take on that issue...
A scan is just that--a scan, a continous movement. It has a natural cross-check element to it, even if the pilot doesn't know it. The pilot shouldn't fixate on any single instrument at the beginning or advanced phases of instrument flying. Assuming the pilot doesn't fixate on a single instrument, which they should be in the habit of even from their private training, then they are inherently resistant to instrument failures.
When I fly IFR, I'm not constantly thinking, "This crosschecks this, that crosschecks that, these two instruments back each other up..." Instead, I scan and think, "Everything lines up like I expect."
Then, if something doesn't line up, it sticks out like a sore thumb. In that case, I revert to a more conscious, analytical method of looking at each instrument to determine what happened. In other words, I don't fly with the expectation of a failure, but a failure will be noticed as soon as it happens.
So my point is that even though a pilot might not know why they are crosschecking without an instructor teaching it too them, they will at least have their eyes moving faster and faster and be able to manage more and more. They can figure out on their own things like how the heading indicator is the primary bank indicator in straight flight. It just makes sense. Most tasks of instrument flying are based on holding a heading. Through practice, they'll get used to seeing the attitude indicator and turn coordinator backing up the heading indicator, just because their eyes are always moving. Then, when they get into formal instrument training, they can be taught the relationship between those instruments and how to deal with failures.
Will such a pilot lack a full understanding of what they're doing in the scan? Maybe. Will they actually form bad habits? I don't think so.
Just another opinion.
jrh said:
No.
No... no ... no.. no....
If you self-teach basic attitude flying, or god forbid a safety pilot teaches you, I gaurentee you will spend more hours and time on the 'cool' stuff..... refered to as the 'meat' above. about the time you think you are "jumping into the meat" of your training, your good CFI-I will be saying, "Boy, I got to go further into the basics than I thought"!!
I aint the worlds best pilot or CFI, but I really work hard as a CFI-I and spent a hard ass winter as a freight dog also, and I can say (not meant arrogantly) that of all the IFR folks I have trained, the best ones were the ones who had a very specific and focused first lessons on attitude flying.
As far as cross-check, I was a contorl/performance type CFI. Also, after a stint of freight (read: a job where you dont cancel your student cuz the weather is bad) I really believe a lot of IFR training needs to emphasize POWER configurations also.
IF YOU MUST free lance your own IFR training til yo uget a double-I to do the meat AKA the cool stuff.. please just spend $30 and buy the Peter Dogan "Instrument FLight Training Manual"
supercell86
New Member
viper548 said:
As funny as it sounds...I agree. I am about to start my inst. training...and I found that flying basic intrument flight, and basic scanning on MSFS 2004 helps. I have the rudder pedals and yoke. I also have practiced many NDB/VOR/GPS/ILS/RNAV approaches. It helps out alot and saves you lots of money.:rawk:
jrh
Well-Known Member
bluelake said:
Ok, I really want to understand this and make sure I'm not screwing up my students.
What specific problems have you seen associated with instrument students who had a weak emphasis on basic attitude flying compared to those with a strong emphasis from the start? Also, what habits have you needed to break in students, and how did you go about breaking them?
For me, instrument flying seemed pretty intuitive when I started. If I wanted to hold a heading, my eyes kept referencing the heading indicator for bank information. If I wanted a constant airspeed climb, I'd keep referencing the airspeed indicator for pitch. It made sense from day one, even at the private level.
The problems I ran into at the start of training were almost strictly because I would fixate on instruments. I had no problem figuring out where to look, it's just that my scan wasn't fast enough yet. And nothing an instructor says can make somebody's scan faster. It just develops with time.
I'm open to changing my opinion about problems stemming from self-teaching, but I don't understand exactly what problems you're talking about. Please explain further.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
Of course. But that's because you learned it properly so it becomes second nature. Some pilots learn this during their 3 hours of "solely by reference to the instruments" with an instructor who may not be a CFI-I. From what I've seen during flight reviews, most don't. If you've done IFR recurrent training, you've probably seen ineffective scans even on rated pilots.jrh said:
The bad habits are the ones you'd expect. Fixation, over-reliance on one instrument, a complete loss of scan when workload gets tougher, and not really understanding what the pilot is looking at. Breaking them is the same as you already know. It's just easier to break them at the beginning.
Question: if you have a student who is fixating, is it easier to correct at the beginning or after the student has spent 10 hours "practicing" fixating?
There are, of course, folks like you for whom it comes naturally. I don't think you represent the general rule. People tend to develop their own scans. But I think most need guidance.
We may have a philosophical difference here. I don't think the good scan is =faster=. There is, of course, a minimum amount of movement that takes place, but I think the good scan is just better, not faster. Knowing "why they are cross-checking" is really what it's all about and allows the pilot to look at the instruments giving the best information when the workload gets heaviest rather than just darting around without rhyme or reason. Bringing that in at the beginning is going to result in a better scan later.
rickyrhodesii
Well-Known Member
viper548 said:
That's what i've been doing...but from reading the above posts, i'm afraid i might have taught myself some bad habits. This will probably only cause me more heartache and money in the long run!
mavmb said:
I'll have to go pick that up...thanks mavmb
Thanks for everyone else and your adivse!
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
I'll add my vote for the book. On the scan, Machado recommends a interesting cross-check technique that I have seen mentioned by others.rickyrhodesii said:
Our discussion about "bad habits" aside. keep in mind three things:
1. you will see a variety of techniques discussed in the instrument literature and an even wider variety among CFIs.
2. You can play with some techniques that you read about on your simulator. You may even find one that works well, but IMO you're still better off taking even a lesson or two with a CFII before committing to one.
3. You don't have to jump into instrument training with both feet (assuming you're not on a 141 time line). There's nothing wrong with calling up a CFII, telling him or her that you want to do some advance work, and ask for a few of the first basic attitude flying lessons so you can practice your scan.