Instrument Training

[tonyw]

As an instrument student, and a somewhat okay one (right, dude who flew with me?) I concur thoroughly with the do the cross countries for a while first. You learn so much. You gain so much confidence.

Then I'd recommend spending a lot of time with a Jepp Instrument/Commercial textbook. It is a great learning tool. Then practice in flight sim or xplane, your choice. Put it down to mins and see just how difficult flying in hard IMC can be even when you're just "playing" and if you crash, you'll be fine.

I think that I'm at the point where an II would have to work some partial panel, help me clean up my approaches, but I've got most of it down. A lot of that came from flying cross countries, learning how to keep that VOR needle centered, and so on.

 

[jrh]

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.

Hmmm...I think you've enlightened me. I'm going to revise the way I approach teaching instrument students.

 

[bluelake]

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.

Well, I dont know how to go into it all, but I guess what is intuitive to you will not be intuitive to others in every case. I think one area that I see as a weakness often is a lack of having a standard set of power configs to use, so then the student is always fussing from an inifinite range of power and attitude choices. Then what I see is inefficient effort at making corrections that take up more time, a detriment later on when doing the cool stuff. Fast scan not important. Effective interpretation, and single methods to get what you desire WAY more important.

If you get students who can learn the attitude flying as intuitively as it is for you, then you will be lucky, and a that will be the case at least as often as it is not. Just make sure ( and I apologize I dont mean to suond preachy) that before... well, let me say it this way.. with MY students? We dont even so much as track a VOR radial until any configuration, configuration change, correction to maintain a desired configuration.. can be accomplished with the subconscous back part of the brain. I always felt like the IRA endeavor is 20% flying and 80% procedures... so I like to be REALLY sure that 20% part is dialed in. I treat it like a pre-requisite to the good stuff. Most 141 type syllabusses do also.

I cant say enough about the Peter Dogan book. Best $30 I ever spent as a CFI-I and I INSIST my students buy it. Those that resisted typically went and bought it after I loaned them mine following a frustrating lesson! He has a special section at the end of each chapter addressed directly to the CFI-I.

If I could make a career and a living out of being an instrument instructor, I would!

 

[jrh]

Fast scan not important. Effective interpretation, and single methods to get what you desire WAY more important.

Thanks for the detailed reply. As I told MidLife above, I'm going to revise the way I teach basic attitude flying.

I've always talked to students about primary/supporting instruments and had them fly some basic maneuvers under the hood, but as long as they did alright, I left it at that. I haven't seen any major problems with that method of teaching yet, but this discussion has made me analyze it a lot more.

From now on I'm going to have the student think specifically about what instruments to emphasize and when. Maybe have them verbalize where they're focusing during different phases of flight. Really make sure they understand where their priorities should be.

 

[bluelake]

Hey great. And dont discount the control/performance method. The primary/supporting style is academic and correct, but really confusing to a newbie. I guess, as CFI's, just remember the importance of solid foundations to learning, and also the good ol' Law of Primacy thing and you can see how important the first several lessons of IFR training are.

EVERY one of my instrument students, after about their third lesson or so, marvels at how much ALL of their VFR flying has improved. It's that increased mastery of the airplane that is the sign that they get it, and are ready to move on to the cool stuff

This is the last time I will push the Dogan book

 

[jrh]

And dont discount the control/performance method. The primary/supporting style is academic and correct, but really confusing to a newbie.

I guess my nerdiness is my downfall! I always thought the primary/supporting method was easier to learn.

I'm not sure why, but for me it seems that the primary/supporting method works better in lighter aircraft and the control/performance method works better for heavier, faster aircraft.

I did my instrument rating in a C-152. In that light of a plane it doesn't always make sense how you can point the nose up and keep descending or point the nose down and keep climbing, depending on updrafts and downdrafts. When I started shooting approaches in a Twin Commanche during my multi training I finally saw how the control/performance method works. If I pointed the nose down, I went down, if I pointed the nose up, I went up, no matter what.

Anybody else notice this difference?

 

[Maximilian_Jenius]

I agree it can to a point, especially with VOR and NDB intercepting, tracking, and holding.
but still agree with midlife on a lot of things.

I have MS2004 I but don't have a computer that can support it.So its still in the box. Until my new computer arrives next next month. As for the rudder petals where would I buy them?
Lastly...how does the game set up RNAV/VOR's/GPS,holds,STARS,and other IFR procedures.So that a beginner can learn how to fly them on the game. Or does it take for granted that you already know how to fly IFR procedures?

-Matthew

 

[Bigey]

I have MS2004 I but don't have a computer that can support it.So its still in the box. Until my new computer arrives next next month. As for the rudder petals where would I buy them?
Lastly...how does the game set up RNAV/VOR's/GPS,holds,STARS,and other IFR procedures.So that a beginner can learn how to fly them on the game. Or does it take for granted that you already know how to fly IFR procedures?

-Matthew

Thank you! Been trying to find out the same!!!

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

I guess my nerdiness is my downfall! I always thought the primary/supporting method was easier to learn.

I'm not sure why, but for me it seems that the primary/supporting method works better in lighter aircraft and the control/performance method works better for heavier, faster aircraft.

I did my instrument rating in a C-152. In that light of a plane it doesn't always make sense how you can point the nose up and keep descending or point the nose down and keep climbing, depending on updrafts and downdrafts. When I started shooting approaches in a Twin Commanche during my multi training I finally saw how the control/performance method works. If I pointed the nose down, I went down, if I pointed the nose up, I went up, no matter what.

Anybody else notice this difference?

Not really. P/S and C/P are really just two different teaching techniques with the same goal. FWIW, this is from my personal FAQ file:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Although, like pitch vs power, crab & kick vs slip, etc, each method tends to have its own adherents, in some cases religious zealots. But they're really just two approaches to teaching instrument flight.

Primary/Secondary, which was the only approved FAA method for years, focuses on which instrument provides the most pertinent information for a given flight condition. So, for example, in straight and level flight

o the DG is primary for bank because if the DG isn't moving, you aren't turning
the altimeter is primary for pitch because if the ALT isn't changing, you are level

o the AI isn't primary for, say, pitch because, while it may be a direct indication of attitude, level on the AI doesn't necessarily mean level in reality (low power and level AI usually means a descent)

o the other instruments that indicate bank (AI, TC) and pitch (AI, VSI, ASI) are secondary - they back up the primary instruments.

Control/Performance, which has been used just about forever in military flight training, focuses on how we actually control the airplane (=both= VFR and IFR) - by selecting an attitude (control) and then confirming that the airplane is behaving as we expect it to (performance). So, in almost all flight conditions, the AI is the control instrument for our position (level, climb, descent, turn....). The other instruments tell us if what we're reading on the AI is correct. (Of course, those "other instruments" tend to be the "primary instruments" of P/S)

IMO, P/S's strength is a focus no understanding of how the each instrument works and how they work together. P/S's primary weakness (in addition to being harder for most to understand) is that is's a bit more theoretical and doesn't really reflect how we actually fly the airplane. C/P's strength is that it reflects how we actually fly the airplane. It molds theory to fit practice rather than the other way around. It's primary weakness is that it's not very specific about how to control the airplane when the control instrument is gone (partial panel).

But, as simply two ways of approaching the subject, the quality is more in the instruction than the choice of technique
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Lastly...how does the game set up RNAV/VOR's/GPS,holds,STARS,and other IFR procedures.So that a beginner can learn how to fly them on the game. Or does it take for granted that you already know how to fly IFR procedures?

I think there are some instruction modules. But, for the most part, the game doesn't set them up. You fly the procedures like you would in "real life" or in a certified simulator. Grab the charts, put the airplane where you want in relation to the beginning of the procedure, and fly the procedure on the charts.

BTW, unless you have flown MSFS before, be aware that there is a learning curve to using it to begin with. For some folks, the learning curve can bee steep.

 

[tonyw]

I have MS2004 I but don't have a computer that can support it.So its still in the box. Until my new computer arrives next next month. As for the rudder petals where would I buy them?
Lastly...how does the game set up RNAV/VOR's/GPS,holds,STARS,and other IFR procedures.So that a beginner can learn how to fly them on the game. Or does it take for granted that you already know how to fly IFR procedures?

I wouldn't bother with the rudder pedals, honestly. I have a joystick that I use, and it does the trick. By the time you're working on instrument flying, hopefully, you've got the ability to coordinate your turns and don't need to practice that.

The way I use flight sim is to set up an IMC flight, put myself at a certain location, fly the approach, go missed, and then do it again. I pull down the approach charts from airnav or AOPA and just practice them.

And as for the debate between primary and supporting, and control and performance, I personally like the latter. Need to do a 500 foot a minute climb or descent? Okay, put the AI on the right pitch for that, confirm it with the VSI, and make adjustments as needed. But I think it is necessary to know how to do both, because if you lose the AI, it's going to be really hard to do the C&P!

 

[jrh]

P/S and C/P are really just two different teaching techniques with the same goal.

I've always thought of P/S and C/P as two different ways of actually controlling the plane. In P/S the attitude indicator is never the primary instrument for anything. You could cover the attitude indicator up and it doesn't make much, if any, difference in how you fly.

With C/P the attitude indicator is the most critical part of the system. It's what you keep coming back to. That's why I say flying a really lightweight, weakly powered aircraft using the C/P method can be confusing. You can be getting bounced all over the place and be setting pitch attitudes that you think are correct, only to get unexpected results.

Oh well. I don't want to start another debate that requires us to write book-length posts on our ideas. These are just some thoughts I've had.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Oh well. I don't want to start another debate that requires us to write book-length posts on our ideas. These are just some thoughts I've had.

Like the other one, it's all about learning.

Think about our discussion about the scan. All I'm suggesting is that scan techniques generally aren't different based on whether you learned one or the other.

Take one of the "standard" scans - spoke and wheel. The one that starts with the AI and moves to each of the other 6-Pack instruments one at a time, returning to the AI before going to the next instrument.

Is that P/S or C/P? Sounds like C/P doesn't it? But go look at the FAA's instrument flying handbook, the "bible" of P/S and you'll find the scan technique there.

Take any of the other scan techniques that aviation writers write about. The apply to either methodology.

 

[B767Driver]

Microsoft Flight Simulator. My comments. I think it is absolutely a fantastic training device for $29.

1. For instrument scan purposes...it's not bad. Pitch attitudes and power settings seem to be very accurate as compared to the airplanes I have flown before.

2. The worst part of it is the trim. The trim is 100% unrealistic.

3. For procedures training...it is 100% fabulous. Especially instrument procedures. I can take any airport in North America out of my Jepps...fly the approach...and it is dead on.

4. I spent two tours as an FE in my career...each about 1 year in length...where I didn't fly anything at all. I used MSFM to attempt to keep my skills and procedures sharp. During each of my first officer upgrades...one in a 727 and one in a 737...I felt like I didn't miss a beat. Honestly...I think MSFM did a great job of helping to keep my scan and procedures sharp during each of those periods.

 

[supercell86]

As I said, I am an avid MSFS user...I have every version of it begining at 1993. I have the rudder pedals and yoke...a few comments....

-the rudder pedals are great for practicing x-wind landings, and maybe taxiing, but they are not very useful for anything else....maybe turing if you have the realism setting on "Realisitc"

-the yoke is a must...I have a joystick also, and unless you plan on flying the katana for the rest of your life....get a yoke.

-in terms of approaches....the flying lessons can be good, if you have the time to do them....you actually have to read up on alot of stuff, and kinda do some light work to understand 'the lesson'....especially the intrument stuff. I would rather just print out a chart and fly the ILS approach myself.

-If your using MSFS for Private pilot training...its not the best tool....for intrument training I find to be very helpful.....atleast with basic understand of approaches, and alittle experience with scanning your intruments.

-Play around with the weather. One time I made the winds like 80 mph, took off in a baron....haha that was funny. Also making the vi like 1/16 of a mile....thats always fun. :nana2:

 

[husky16]

I'm just about to finish my instrument rating. Hopefully tomm. or the next day.

I don't think cross countries are the answer here. $$$. You are going to be in cruise for most of the time so your pretty much hands off and figuring out other stuff (eta's, navaids, radios, etc.). Changing altitudes, headings, speeds in a shorter time span developed the scan quicker for me. It comes different to different people.

The scan definitely comes with time and i completely agree with person that said you just "see it" after awhile. In the beginning you're 'racetracking' it but with time you just see it and correct accordingly.

Flight Sim can save you alot of time and money with inst. The flying isn't that real but in IMC it gives you extra practice on holds, approaches and even the scan. I found it very useful for NDB's.

Best of luck. You become a much better pilot in instrument

 

[Philip]

Microsoft Flight Simulator. My comments. I think it is absolutely a fantastic training device for $29.


3. For procedures training...it is 100% fabulous. Especially instrument procedures. I can take any airport in North America out of my Jepps...fly the approach...and it is dead on.

for about $30 you can buy "simcharts" from jepp that displays them within MSFS, it's not a bad product.