Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun


  • Thread starter 350DRIVER
  • Start date
  • Watchers 7

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web


I am rather curious about how other CFII's feel about giving Instrument Prof checks to pilots who are not the "sharpest" of the crop.- I really only instruct in privately owned airplanes due to my flight schedule and have found that a few of the pilots I have flown with have a lot to be desired regarding their Instrument "skills" and overall knowledge of the IFR enviroment.
I attempted to give a guy a IPC the other day and the flight went seriously wrong when he had NO clue what a no-gyro approach was and his partial panel flying was very very sloppy so needless to say I would not sign his logbook as a IPC to make him "current" again instead I signed his book as a "training" flight which did not make him very happy at all- BUT I am in no way shape or form going to be "responsible" if an incident/accident were to happen the FAA would come right after me for signing his logbook...At 23 years of age I don't want my tickets on the line if he were to go do something unsafe or stupid in an airplane- He was hot when we got back on the ground and said I "tested" more of his ability than I should have and that I was wrong for doing this....

He was extremely upset and felt that I was "unfair" by using the PTS but in my mind I will not deviate from what the FAA requires CFII's to accomplish during the IPC- I am curious if any other CFII has had similiar problems and how they handled the situation.- I suggested that he take a few flights with a CFII to get competant again to act SAFELY as an Instrument pilot but he did not want to hear any of it and said he would just use another CFII and he would get the required signature to be "legally current" again and said since he had over 2000TT and he was more than twice my age that I was in no position to "judge" his skills.....Sad thing is he is an attorney who can and probably will get another CFII to get him "current" again but I don't think this is safe.- I could not believe his lack of flying ability while under the hood and I didn't feel that it was in anyone's best interest to call our flight the IPC....-

I am curious what other CFII's would have done and if I was "incorrect" by not giving him the go ahead to be "current" again??

Well 350, I doubt anyone here is going to think you did the wrong thing by being cautious. I'm not a cfii, but no way would I let some arrogant dude bully me into signing his logbook if I didn't feel comfortable with him.

People have their own comfort levels. My cfii had a policy of never flying in actual with a student she hadn't previously flown with before. I needed some IFR practice for currency a few months ago, and flew a night IFR cross country in a twin with an instructor that had never flown with me. He didn't seem to have a problem launching into IMC at night without first knowing my skills (or lack thereof!), and he has about half the experience that my cfii does. To each his own, I guess. It'll be interesting to see where I set MY limits when I begin instructing.
You do what you feel is best, no if's, and's, or but's. Use your judgement.

You asked what others do. Often instructors sign people off as ready to go, and often they do it in error. There are instructors and there are teachers. Instructors pass on a syllabus, teachers enter the student's mind and open it to understanding. They help the student teach themself. A teacher is not satisfied with mediocraty. A teacher trains to proficiency, and looks beyond the end of the flight. A teacher considers the nature of the student, rather than the nature of the paycheck.

I've given proficiency checks and flight reviews that took five hours or more. I let the individual know up front that I will fly with them as long as it takes. Sometimes it goes quickly, sometimes not. I'm not so much looking for a student to meet a standard per se, as I am for judgement and basic competence. Awareness.

You are correct that a pilot should at a minimum level be able to perform to the standards set forth in the PTS for their certification. Thus, a private pilot must be able to perform to private pilot standards. This isn't clearly spelled out in the FAR, but it's a reasonable minimum standard to expect.

The pilot to whom the flight review is being administered should be made to understand that the flight review is not a test, but a training program. It's a review. It isn't pass or fail. You will train to proficiency, and the period of time it requires really depends on the student. Ample time should be allowed for briefing and debriefing to ensure that you're on the same page with the student, and that the student doesn't feel that he or she has been taken advantage of.

You indicated that the student was unable to perform certain tasks. The student should understand that failure to perform a task indicates a deficiency, and should be shown the danger of flying when not fully proficient. Ideally, the student should be lead to draw the conclusion himself or herself that more training is warranted; allow the student to see the need, rather than being told of the need. The student must realize that his or her actions are not up to par, and that good judgement on their part will be receiving additional training.

On your own end, however, never forget that the review is NOT a test. It's not pass or fail, either. It's intended to be training toward improvement. Don't necessarily expect the level of sharpeness that someone who is in the system every day or week will have; look at the bare minimum of six approaches every six months permitted by the FAR, and then determine how the student's ability fits into the grand scheme of things. Certainly push for proficiency, but if a student can't shoot a no-gyro inverted ILS to minimums with nothing but a wiskey jug and a pet monkey (long story, with no point), don't hold it against the student. Instead, show the student that it's wise to avoid situations that might call for that event, and move on.

The bottom line is that is IS your certificate, and it IS your judgement. Let no one tell you otherwise. You do what you feel is best, and you are committing no crime by requiring an acceptable level of performance from a student. Instructors who give a **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** are hard to find, so don't lose that. Good luck!

You know, I am not a profane person, but **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** that sensor, anyway...
I think you probably made the correct decision to not sign off his IPC and to recommend further instruction in the deficient areas. The purpose of an IPC is to make sure a pilot is proficient, not to get him current. When I used to do these or BFRs, insurance checks, etc. I would always explain the objective, goals, and skill level that I was looking for in order to complete the IPC, or whatever it was. I would also explain that the FAA has certain minimums that were required to complete the IPC or BFR, but that these were ONLY MINIMUMS and that it may take more than an hour of ground or one flight to satisfactorily complete all areas. This way they knew what to expect going into the lesson and they knew what I was looking for. I didn't have many complaints on unsatisfactory performances because they knew that they didn't perform to the standards I had already told them about.

Also, remember that for an IPC you don't have to use the PTS in the same manner that you would for an instrument check ride. I try to make the IPC as practical as possible, which means that I won't "fail" the guy if he is 15 knots fast on an approach, or 150 feet high on altitude once in a while, or forgets to time an ILS approach. An IPC is not like a check ride, it's a learning experience - you can give the guy dual and instruct him while you are doing the IPC. In most cases, a pilot getting an IPC has not recieved instruction from an instructor in quite a while and may have forgotten quite a bit of stuff. A good majority of the people that I have given an IPC to didn't know what to do in case of comm failure, ie. routes and altitudes to fly. I didn't fail them because of this, but we did spend a good 20 minutes talking about it until he understood. Now if he is unable to maintain altitude, and can't fly partial panel to save his life, then it is your responsibility as an instructor to either continue to work with him until you feel comfortable that he is safe, or to recommend he recieve further training elsewhere before going for the IPC again.

A big part of keeping the student from getting angry because you didn't sign them off is the way you explain it. Don't just tell them that they $uck and send them on their way. Explain to them that there are areas that they could use a little more practice with and the reason that these areas are very important and must not be overlooked. Basically, be gentle on their ego. I have had doctors, lawyers, company presidents, etc for students in the past. These type of people are not used to being told what to do, especially from a young instructor. Be respectful and try to establish at least a professional relationship from the very beginning. I usually took 5-10 minutes to just chat before getting started so we could get to know each other a little bit first.

Most of the time this will work, but unfortunately there are times that no matter what you do, they will b!tch and moan like a little baby. I guess that's when you just have to tell yourself that you did the right thing and hope the next instructor doesn't fall for this guys childish anticts.

I'm glad you did the right thing, and weren't pressured into signing this person off just because they threw a fit. Good job!
Thanks Av for the post-
kind of backed up my mindset but just wanted to get more "experienced" aviators opinions like yours since he used the "age" issue as a determining factor that I was "incorrect" in my technique since in his opinion I was not from the "old school" of aviation's hard knocks...- was kind of dissaponited he turned it into many personal attacks towards me but took it for what it was worth-

Okay avbug - you can't spit out phrases like "whiskey jug" and "pet monkey" without people like me being curious. I mean, any time booze and monkeys are involved - hyjinx are bound to ensue! :D
With all due respect to John Deakin, I preach and practice timing the ILS, along with all other approaches. I'm more inclined to be lazy about it compared to any other type of approach, but I believe that timing the approach is good standardization. I've also used it to transition to a localizer only approach before, despite the reservations of others on that subject.

In many cases, I pre-brief the loc proceedure along with the full ILS. In many cases, I'll go missed if there are any problems with the approach. However, in some cases, especially in cases where vectored to intercept the localizer quite a way out, transition to the localizer-only is a very simple affair if one is prepared to do so.

One must remember to start the time over the appropriate fix, rather than at glide slope intercept altitude as published (or later, if vectored in at a lesser altitutde), and one must remember that the FAF for the loc-only and the full glide slope proceedures differ.

Certain proceedures do not identify the MAP except by altitude. Starting time enables an aircraft flying the missed proceedure after a glide slope failure to locate the missed approach point. As a turn may not be commenced until reaching this point, anything which may enhance the ability to locate this point is a plus. While we can certainly accomplish this using other equipment in many cases (such as GPS, FMS, etc), why not use every resource available? When flying with GPS, I tune and identify using VHF, and when flying VHF, I back it up with the box. And so on. Including the clock only makes sense.

As far as monkeys and wiskey bottles, the time honored use of the wiskey bottle involves duct taping it to the panel as an ad hoc attitude indicator. The actual attitude is determined by one's ability to keep the airplane coordinated, tempered by the amount relieved from the bottle in order to produce a readable indication. Technically, one must drink half the bottle in order to get an accurate horizon line. At that point, reading the bottle may be difficult, even using the traditional lipstick demarcation to represent the horizon.

Here, the monkey comes into play. I mean no disrespect for the stinky little primates; I'm perhaps more closely aligned with them by nature and upbringing than those on this side of the jungle fence. However, the inherent clinginess of monkeys in general can be useful. The monkey will tend to hang from things, and this serves for properly coordinating the aircraft by keeping the mokey dangling on a line tangential to the point of attachment to the airframe.

In the event of heavy precip or ice, (monkey fur being non electrostatic by nature) the monkey may be used alternately to wipe the window externally (in aircraft having a Vne of less than 180 knots), or to simply beat the ice accumulation free using the monkey via it's tail.

In the event of failure of auxilliary alerting systems such as the radar altimeter, the PNF may give firm yanks to the monkey's tail to cause a high pitched screetch to ensue, thus marking the transition in hundreds of feet during the final phase of the approach. If the monkey suddenly begins to screetch of it's own volition, it's probably scared to death, or is sensing death. In either case, one should execute a missed approach without delay.

Given time and enough wire, one can use two monkeys to fashion a rudimentary approach device, by wiring voltage through the localizer sensor individual monkeys on each side of the cockpit. When passing left of course, the left monkey receives voltage (locate desired vocal range by attaching wire to various appendages experimentally; do this in VFR conditions if possible before actually shooting an approach), and begins to screech. This effectively provides a "fly right" indication, which is further enhanced by the monkey attempting to remove your face with the wiskey bottle if you don't make a sincere effort to get back on course. The monkey on the right side of the cockpit works the same, but in reverse.

The added advantage of the two-monkey system (referred to as DualMonk in Advisory Circular AC-945-53A) is that during a back course approach, one need only swap the monkeys from right to left to maintain proper orientation. The same is true while flying an inverted front course approach, although every effort to physically tack or bolt the monkeys in their respective position using either velcro or roofing nails should be made, to preclude changes during the approach.

Assuming the approach is successful, monkeys can be trained to gather tips from passengers, or phone numbers from female passengers. The only drawback to monkey backup systems are security screeners, who may not subject the monkey to adequate pat-downs due to nepotism issues. You may also find yourself, along with being asked to drink water and sew on a button while passing security, asked to pet your monkey, in order to demonstrate that it is indeed a genuine monkey. Refusal can be bad news.

You can bet you'll never be asked to drink from the wiskey bottle to prove that it's really wiskey. You're much safer to say it's full of piss-colored hydrochloric acid, or pureed salmon eggs. Anything but something truly drinkable. But I digress. It's late. In fact, it's time to put the monkey to bed (it's been modeling for a slot in the next Microsoft Flight Simulator). Good night.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D


Thanks Avbug :D


Don't trust what you read on Avweb. They are very organized and look very professional, but they'll publish an article from anyone that sends in their opinion. The article you referenced was more of an editorial than a technical publication. It was opinion not fact.

The best reason I know of to time an ILS approach is for executing a missed approach. Our airline requires you go missed if you loose the glide slope inside the FAF. The procedure for going missed in this case is to level off, fly to the MAP then follow the missed approach procedure. So how do you identify the MAP if you haven't timed the approach? Granted many ILS plates don't have times listed, but they do have the distance, and you should have a reasonable estimate of your ground speed. From that you can come up with an estimated time and go from there. Sure you can kind of come up with a reasonably close MAP just by flying until the LOC needle is too sensitive to maintain, but that really is poor technique. Time the approach.

Latest resources