Instrument training

[hammer]

Started my instrument training today and got a little actual time in the clouds. As most of you already know it is a whole different world flying by instruments! I did alright but, I need lots of practice on being more precise with my corrections. My instrutor had me do take-off with the foggles on and I handled that alright but my landing was terrible. He had me keep the foggles on until about 100 ft above the runway and when I pulled them up I became disoriented and made a sloppy landing. He said it happens alot and that I would get use to it. Anyway I enjoyed the hell out it and am looking forward to my next lesson.

 

[labbats]

You'll enjoy it a lot more if you dump that yahoo instructor.

 

[weekendwarrior]

100 feet? That's a little close. Heck, I flew an ILS to 300' AGL before breaking out last week, and I thought that was close. Why he thinks you should remove the foggles at 100' is insane. He's training you to go below your minimums (isn't 200' the lowest a precision will go? Got to look that one up)

 

[bobbysamd]

Breaking out

What the he11 is he doing? Having you shoot approaches on your first instrument flight lesson? There is a building-block approach to instrument training, just as there is for all other forms of flight training. The first lesson should be basic maneuvering, which you should have first worked on in the ground trainer.

In any event, DH for ILSs is 200 feet. Unless there is a ceiling, from which you break out, usually the runway environment comes up on you gradually as you shoot an approach, so pulling off the hood abruptly at 100 feet is not realistic training - and not enough time this early in the game to prepare for landing. Moreover, as opined above, you do not even want to consider any kind of mindset about going below minimums.

That's my $0.02. Keep us updated.

 

[weekendwarrior]

No doubt! I don't think I shot an approach until at least the 3rd or 4th lesson. You have to get your basic instrument control down first. Control touch, scan, etc. I say lose the CFI NOW before you get any bad habits.

 

[Matterhorn]

Every time I’ve cut down on the beginning attitude instrument flying portion of a student’s IFR training they have suffered later on. You should spend plenty of time and lessons doing boring climbs, turns descents tracking, intercepting, etc. It’s not much fun but is a critical building block for flying well later when you have to “put it all together.”

 

[Snakum]

You'll enjoy it a lot more if you dump that yahoo instructor.

I wuz kinda wonder'n 'bout dat myself. Even working with two different instructors/schools I spent alot of time working on the guages/partial panel/AIF before I did any approaches.

And I'm about to make it three instructors/schools

Minh

 

[Flying Colors]

Everyone who responed to has said it all. As a CFII myself I was not only teaching but I was also learning on being a sound instructor. The ILS approach in my opinion is the most challenging segment to teach next to entry to a holding pattern. With that said, the training syllabus does not provide enough practice for the ILS and I did introduced it early in the training but to do it on the first lesson is crazy. I agree with weekendwarrior, about the 4th lesson is a good time do it while in VMC conditions or with a ceiling high enough say 1000' AGL. I would have you fly the ILS first with the foggles off so you can see the picture. Then then have you take it off at 200 - 300' AGL. not 100', geez. I know if I did that back when I was instructing I probably would lose alot of students due to that overwhelming you.

Good Luck on your training hammer.

 

[hammer]

I was wondering if that was normal for the first lesson, because like I said it overwhelmed me being that close to the runway. I am still a new pilot so I really like to have everything set up correctly on final to make a good landing. He had me fly simulated radar vectors on final so that threw my timing off. Everyone at the flight school said he was one of the better instructors so I will see how it goes for the next couple of lessons. By the way we did alot of straight and level flight, standard rate turns and climbs and descent.

 

[JeffSKDTW]

Hammer -

First, good luck with your training and, by the way, your landings ~will~ go to pot during instrument training. It's the law of nature.

Second, now that you know that removing your hood at 100AGL is unusual, at the least, ask your instructor about it, noting that most ILS's have a DH of 200 AGL.

Third, when you say that you did a "take-off with the foggles on", I'm assuming you mean they were actually covering your eyes, rather than just up on your head. In that case, I'm also surprised he had you doing zero-zero takeoffs this early. Perhaps that's not unusual for others, but I went about 2/3 through my instrument training before I did a zero-zero takeoff--I guess I had enough other things to work on.

 

[LewisU_Pilot]

I didn't start shooting approaches until stage 3 of my instrument training. Many many hours into it!! I have nothing to add on what everyone has said however am I the only one here who has never taken off with the hood on? Never once did that during my training! Waited till we were at least air born and in climb until the hood was placed on..

 

[JeffSKDTW]

I didn't start shooting approaches until stage 3 of my instrument training. Many many hours into it!! I have nothing to add on what everyone has said however am I the only one here who has never taken off with the hood on? Never once did that during my training! Waited till we were at least air born and in climb until the hood was placed on..

As I indicated above, I did it--once. It is to simulate a zero vis - zero ceiling takeoff that is technically permissible for Part 91 operations. However, I suspect that it will be the only one I'll ever do, since I certainly won't be doing it in "real" life.

 

[weekendwarrior]

As I indicated above, I did it--once. It is to simulate a zero vis - zero ceiling takeoff that is technically permissible for Part 91 operations. However, I suspect that it will be the only one I'll ever do, since I certainly won't be doing it in "real" life.

Yeah, my instructor did the same thing to me. Just a demo, really to show you that it's prett insane to do a zero/zero takeoff. I think that might be a common teaching technique. Needless to say, I learned from it.

If your school says he's one of the better instructors, I'd start evaluating the school. Perhaps he is a good instructor, just with a couple of off base techniques. Nevertheless, it can't hurt to bring it up to him. If any time you feel rushed, or question the way something is being taught, you need to voice it. It's your money, and if he has any concern for your training, he'll listen.

 

[dasmith]

Instrument Training Handbook

The old version has a series of introductory lessons for aircraft control. I'd recommend taking a look and doing some of those introductory exercises early on in your training to build your skills. Available online at:
www.geocities.com/cfidarren/iplesson.htm

 

[bobbysamd]

Instrument training is just like any other part of flight training. You must use the building-block concept. The first part is developing cross-check, with that progressing into vertical-S's and patterns A, B and C, full and partial-panel. Then, you teach radio navigation. Shooting approaches is basically a matter of integrating vertical S's, the patterns, and radio nav. The last thing that should be taught are ILSs. By this time, an ILS should be easy, because all it is is executing a rate descent vertical S while tracking a radial. Taking someone down to minima on the first lesson and expecting him/her to land the airplane is not good instrument instruction in any way.

 

[Jedi_Cheese]

First lesson, I wouldn't expect a student to do an approach to 100 ft. But, you do have to get down after a lesson and the way an instrument flight terminates IS an instrument approach. It costs you nothing in time to do simulated radar vectors to an ILS when the student is still new and it gives them approach practice. Add in the fact that an ILS is the easiest approach to shoot and you have the basics.

PS: What's vertical-S's and patterns A, B, C?

 

[bobbysamd]

Basic instrument training maneuvers

What's vertical-S's and patterns A, B, C?

A vertical S is a constant rate and/or airspeed climb during which you climb to a certain altitude and then commence a constant rate and/or airspeed descent to a certain altitude. Variations which are part of the series include Vertical S-1s, S-2s and S-3s.

Patterns A, B and C are difficult to describe in writing. Featured in them are straight-and-level flight for timed periods, timed turns, and course reversals such as you'd use for procedure turns. Look in the Instrument Flying Handbook. These maneuvers are part of a standardized instrument training syllabus. I believe that even the military uses them in instrument training.

The patterns should be practiced using full panel and partial panel. We even taught them to our Alitalia students at FlightSafety using the AI and clock only, because Alitalia believed in the control-performance philosophy of instrument flying and wanted to hammer home the use of the AI as the primary flight control instrument. In any event, as I wrote above, vertical-S's and the patterns should be taught and mastered fully long before approaches are even considered because approaches simply combine these maneuvers and radio navigation.

 

[garf12]

wow I'm not even PPL yet, but from all this talk getting your IFR seems complicated.

 

[bobbysamd]

wow I'm not even PPL yet, but from all this talk getting your IFR seems complicated.

You're going to get some instrument training that is intended for emergency use only as part of your Private training. You will also learn about radio navigation, including VORs and NDBs. So, instrument flying will not be altogether unfamiliar when you start your formal training for your instrument training.

Here's some $0.02 advice. Try as hard as you can and get the best instruction possible right now during your Private and build a good, solid foundation of flying. Everything that follows, including instrument training, just builds on that important foundatin.

 

[labbats]

It's too bad that as a CFII, you really get your schtick together for teaching flight in IMC, then you move on. If this guy is the best they have, you're really off to a bad start. If someone asked me how to learn instrument flying, and I wan't available, I'd suggest one of those guys that flies his own plane all over america with you, in all kinds of weather. You'll get it done right the first time, and quickly too. The initial price seems high, but when you factor in the price of standard FBO/flight school prices over time, it's a wash.

 

[hammer]

My instructor has a over 30,000 hours, he has been flying since the late fifties. From what I know he has flown in vietnam, fire patrol, freight,corporate etc, he has even helped write some approach plates for the governent in the past. My instructor for my private recommended him because he was his instuctor. I have had 4 ground lessons with him before I flew and everything was fine. People at the FBO said he would take alittle longer but I would learn alot more when I am done. Except for the landing phase everything else went fine. I fly again Monday and I'll see how it goes. I keep you posted on my progress.

 

[hammer]

I have flew twice since my last post and things are going much better. My flights have been more like what I expected, no crazy approaches and alot of climbs and descents,timed turns, and vor work. I am enjoying it all but, there sure is alot going a once. I have been in the clouds alot and I can see how easy it is to get confused. My instructor is holding me to tighter tolerances on altitude,heading, and airspeed than my last one did during the private and it is somewhat tougher but I am getting use to it. It is alot of work but I believe it will pay off in the long run, I am begining to see how much I didn't know after completing my private.

 

[nosehair]

Here we go!

OK, you guys, here's my unpopular two cents. Normally, it is not a good thing to do an approach on the first lesson. But, sometimes, now I said "Some-times", in an experienced instructors best opinion, it can be of a benefit. He did say in a later post that he did lots of straight and level and turns climbs and descents. If that went exceptionally well,...well, maybe the ILS to finish off could be a good motivator. But that is a very individual decision of the individual instructor with the individual student under those unique conditions. See how I said that? I also emphasize the word "Experienced". The main point of that is to steer away from the "One Size Fits All" approach to flight training that we suffer under.
But the main reason I had to jump in here is that I ROUTINELY teach ILS approaches TO A LANDING UNDER THE HOOD. Yes, if you have been flying long enough, you have made an approach to near touchdown with very little runway environment contact. Life does not always go as planned. Just like we plan on engine failures and such. We should also plan on being forced to the ground in less than the required visibility. Would you make a missed approach into severe turbulance and lightning and green-black clouds. Is that a funnel cloud? Anyway, I would rather take my chances on following the localizer/glideslope to a known controlled crash to a runway than to climb up into a probable airplane break-up in the upcoming thunderstorm/tornado. And besides all that theroretical justification, it just plain builds skill and confidence to touchdown smoothly on the centerline in a landing attitude without ever seeing the runway. Cool, huh?

 

[TRLpilot]

nosehair, i realize i am less experienced than you but what you said just scared the crap out of me. "touchdown with very little runway environment contact" and "following localizer/glideslope to a known controlled crash". if my instructor told me that i would run for the hills. do alternate airports mean anything to you other than a box to fill in on the flight plan? i call it terrible PIC and absolutely the last thing you want to teach/encourage to a student. see you in the papers (obituaries).

 

[weekendwarrior]

I can see his point. Maybe there is a level 5 or funnel cloud right between you and your alternate. Maybe you have an inflight emergency of some sort. Yes, we are trained that at DH you land or missed. But, you have to think in terms of the overall picture. Under any normal IFR (can't think of any other term right now) approach, I would go missed at DH if I couldn't land. Any extenuating circumstances might change my mind there. His point I don't think was meant to be shock value, but more the lesser of two evils. If I am going to crash, better to crash on a runway than the alternative.

It is a teaching technique that might be questionable, to the wrong person. If enough emphasis is placed on landing below mins is a LAST RESORT kind of thing than going missed. The wrong person could interperet that it's ok to go below mins because they've done it under the hood.

 

[nosehair]

Teaching Humans - not monkeys

Didn't mean to scare the crap out of anybody. But I have had the crap scared out of me in over 40 years of flying. If you fly most every day for 40 years and you do it for a living, you will eventually wind up - through no fault of your own - on a final approach for the final time - with no options left, but to land now. Maybe you won't. Maybe your life will be so gifted that you live in a vacuum and no harm will befall you. You may disregard this post. But for those of you who acknowledge being a human being and subject to your own faults as well as those of nature - prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
Besides, it is rare that you "break out" in a nice, clean level overcast at two hundred feet. More often than not, on a real, solid IMC approach to minimums, having the runway in sight is "iffy". FAR 91.175(c) lists the things you can see and call it legal. "If you can see...."
So the training for a real continued approach to touchdown is to look up at DH, but continue to maintain localizer and glideslope until the flare. The transition from IMC to VMC comes in flashes and bits. A good way to practice is to fly the glideslope/localizer to the flare. It costs no more to do a few attempts at touching down under the hood. Just my two cents at being a better pilot.
I do not subscribe to the theory that teaching pilots how to deal with unplanned events, such as an ILS to touchdown, will give them ideas about doing it illegally. That will come from their own minds. It's already there.
Do you think that not showing someone how to spin an airplane will keep them from trying it solo? Do you think that keeping a student a little bit afraid of the airplane will keep him safe? Naaa - it doesn't work that way.

 

[labbats]

I teach my students to divide their attention between the localizer and the centerline after DH. I make sure to let them know that some glideslopes are good below DH and some aren't, but all localizers are. Then I discuss doing GUMPSF and holding a controlled descent on down in case of such an emergency.

I can't see any reason to do it for real during training though. Foggles or not.

 

[Lead Sled]

Nosehair...
I like your style. My CFII had a few "tricks" that he made his students do a few during the course of their instrument training. One of his favorite ones was to put the hood on you as soon as you started the engine and you didn't remove it until you were back at the blocks at the completion of the lesson. It was "vectors" out of the ramp and to the runway, followed by an ITO. After the landing it was "vectors" back to the ramp. (I can remember one flight where he had given me a series of very precise heading, altitude, and airspeed changes. He told me to lift the hood out and look outside. We were flying "formation" 100' above the middle of a long freight train out in the Utah desert. After that, I took him very seriously when he told me to hold airspeed, altitude and heading VERY precisely!)

I've made it a point to make sure that all of my instrument student had a few ILS approaches to touchdown prior to their checkride. It's a real confidence booster. Back in my "Air Ambulance" days, our company instructor insisted that we shot a couple of ILS approaches to touchdown under the hood during our 6-month recurrent training. We were flying Mitsubishi MU2s, so it wasn't like you could tell the difference in the smoothness of the landings either.

Now, during our 6 month recurrent sim training we will occassionally do one or two for fun. There are certain emergency scenarios where you're going to put it on the ground regardless of the weather. It's good to have done a time or two before.

Personally, the guys that I really admire are the airline pilots that flew the old "range" approaches down to 200 and 1/2 back in the '30s and 40's. I've seen copies of the old approach plates that those guys used. Now those guys had gonads.
Lead Sled

 

[Znobrdr]

Just have to jump in here.

A couple of thoughts for you. The basics are CRITICAL to your success. I have put through 21 Instrument students and inherited a few of those students from other instructors. Those that were doing approaches before basics were solid have spent somewhere between 10 to 15 more hours to get the rating. That's expensive!

The other thing I consistently see is that those with solid basic skills can fly an approach like an autopilot all the way to the bottom at the end of the program. The difference is incredible! Get the basics, and get them solid! The first couple approaches that I do with students is WITHOUT the hood. Why? So you can better visualize what an approach looks like. So your situational awarness is greater. So you get a sense of the wind effects. What's happening and why.

On average my students end up with 7 to 10 hours of actual before the check ride. Benefits of East coast training I guess. No actual until the basics are ready though. I help alot the first time or two in actual because its a handfull for most.

I have always said instrument training can really test your landing skills. I have said this for awhile now and usually get some strange looks but it makes a lot of sense if you think about it. Typical 172 newbie private pilot final approach speed is 65 knots. Instrument approach speed 90 kts. Ok, foggles off and WHOAAAAA!!!!!!! Freak out time! IT NEVER LOOKED LIKE THIS BEFORE, right?

Just remember don't rush the landing. The approach is a little different than you are used too. Bring the power back, bring in the flaps, keep the approach angle to the runway, let the speed come off and be a bit patient. Getting the power out (smoothly I might add) is the key.

Enjoy your training! Glean all you can from it. Never be afraid to change instructors if needed. Remember its your money! Your training! Most of all your safety and that of your potential passengers.