Well, I passed by instrument checkride recently and thought I would
share my experiences. Started off the day with a flight from Fort
Smith, AR (FSM) where I generally fly out of down to Hot Springs (HOT)
where the examiner was. Started out as you might expect, paperwork,
going over the logs, showing recent inspections, etc. Then a discussion
of the flight I had been asked to plan from HOT to Bartlesville, OK (a
MUCH shorter flight than the one I had to plan for my private, but I
digress). Answered some questions about alternate minimums, chart
symbology, etc. A few about emergency procedures and we were good to
go. With the DE playing atc, I received my clearance to Bartlesville
and we were off. Of course, Memphis Center reported radar outage just
to make things a little more difficult. A bit north of the airport, my
AI and DG magically failed. Had to be reminded that this was a
checkride, not just training, and declare emergency to my controller in
the next seat and requested return to HOT. I was cleared direct Hot
Springs VOR (on the field) then for the VOR ZAPLE RWY 5 approach.
Things went well at first, then started getting into the partial panel
approach. It got pretty ugly for a while, finally I just said "Memphis
Center, 669RA request direct to the VOR to try the approach again." I
was cleared as I requested, and the partial panel approach went fairly
well from there. We landed and I was sure I had blown it. After
exiting, I asked where to, and he said back for departure. Since he
didn't tell me I failed at that point, my understanding of the rules
said he had accepted my partial panel and the partial panel approach, so
I tried to forget it for the moment and go on. (He told me after the
ride was over that I was about to get my pink slip when I asked for a
return to the VOR to start over). I also got to wait for a bit for
another aircraft landing to collect my nerves. I could have easily
departed in front of him, but I wanted the time to calm down (HOT is
uncontrolled). We flew the ILS with no problem, other than an extended
downwind for another aircraft (there were several practicing approaches
this day). This was actually the part we were worried about. The glide
slope was NOTAMED out of service, and we expected to have to fly :45 to
Little Rock to shoot an ILS, but it was working on the previous VOR
approach. While we both agreed it would be a dumb idea (and illegal
one) to use the glide slope in actual conditions, it was severe clear
and the examiner had no problems using it for the checkride if he was
satisfied it allowed me to show I knew what I was doing. Missed
approach, a turn to the south (ILS was to rwy 5), and he said I could
fly any non-precision approach except the VOR ZAPLE approach that we had
already done. After he remembered I need to to dew steep turns, we flew
to the VOR then did the VOR 5 approach, circle to land (rwy 1 I think,
but don't recall for sure. Landed, exited the runway
Me: "Hot Springs Traffic, 669RA clear of the active, Hot Springs"
DE: "Congratulations, you're an instrument pilot."

Not too long after that I was filing an IFR flight plan for the first
time using my name instead of my instructors for pilots name as we had
done during my training. Preflight, called up Memphis center and
received my clearance to Fort Smith as filed. I was just as proud as I
could be when my bubble burst just a little bit for a second. After
clearance, engine start, avionics master on.

Unicom "Cessna 669RA, Unicom"
Me: "Go ahead"
Unicom "9RA your chocks are still in"

DOH!!!

On the way back, there were just a couple of little puffy clouds, as I
started to think, are they above me or below me, do I have the
clearance, I suddenly reminded myself - so what. Now time to keep
learning and keep proficient.

Matt,

From what I've seen and heard your odds are always better if you (a) confess
that you know you're digging the hole deeper and (b) prove you know what to
do to try digging yourself out.

Congrats on the rating- I got mine a month ago. Doesn't it feel great to put
that behind you?

Best,
-cwk.

Matt Young > wrote
> already done. After he remembered I need to to dew steep turns, we flew

Actually, steep turns are gone from the instrument PTS as of October
1. Sounds like your DE is a bit behind.

Congratulations.

Michael

"Matt Young" > wrote in message
>
> On the way back, there were just a couple of little puffy clouds, as I
> started to think, are they above me or below me, do I have the clearance,
> I suddenly reminded myself - so what. Now time to keep learning and keep
> proficient.

Yes well done, Passed mine last Monday, it seems a lifetime ago. Its a great
feeling.

Chris

On 10/5/04 11:36 PM, in article
t, "Matt Young"
> wrote:

>
> Unicom "Cessna 669RA, Unicom"
> Me: "Go ahead"
> Unicom "9RA your chocks are still in"
>
> DOH!!!
>

Congrats Matt! Add chocks to your checklist and fly safe.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

Nope, took the checkride Sept. 25

Michael wrote:

> Matt Young > wrote
>
>>already done. After he remembered I need to to dew steep turns, we flew
>
>
> Actually, steep turns are gone from the instrument PTS as of October
> 1. Sounds like your DE is a bit behind.
>
> Congratulations.
>
> Michael

Great job Matt....good story. I passed mine 32 years ago and I'm still
learning stuff. Keep in the books and in the clouds and you'll be fine.

Jim


"Matt Young" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Well, I passed by instrument checkride recently <snip>

Nice job Matt...great story!!!
Greg PP-ASEL-IA

Matt Young > wrote in message t>...
> Well, I passed by instrument checkride recently and thought I would
> share my experiences.

Wow. Seems like the IFR ride in the U.S. is a lot more complicated
than here in Canada. I just did mine about a month ago, in a
Seminole. It was a severe clear and perfectly calm day. We spent
about an hour on ground stuff, going over lost comms, the example
route he'd had me plan, and lots of other miscellaneous bits. I'd
already done the pre-flight on the plane, so his pre-flight
questioning consisted of "what are these two things on the wing?" -
referring to the stall warning vanes; and "how many prop blades are
there on this aircraft?" - um.. four?

The rest of the ride consisted of a departure with him acting as
simulated ATC, then a vector to join a radial. I made a dumb mistake
-- I was supposed to be intercepting the 215 radial but due to a total
and complete brain cramp has dialed in the 225 radial instead. About
a minute into this I hear the examiner say "Juliet Fox Fox, confirm
you're intercepting the 215 degree radial." Continuing clueless, I
say "roger, 215 radial". About a minute later, "Juliet Fox Fox,
confirm you're intercepting the 215 radial." Ok now the fog
s-l-o-w-l-y lifts and I look at the VOR. After tuning the correct
radial this time I see that I am almost exactly 10 degrees off. That
could have been a fail right there, 3 minutes into the flight. I
still can't believe he cut me two breaks on that.

After that, the ride was pretty uneventful. A hold, and ILS, and a
non-precision approach, in this case a VOR/DME, but with the added
excitement of a simulated engine fire and single engine approach.

So that's the entire ride: departure, hold, two approaches, one of
which is a precision approach. Three emergencies, one of which
includes an engine out approach if in a multi-engine aircraft. No
partial panel, no steep turns, nothing like that in Canada.

Kevin

> So that's the entire ride: departure, hold, two approaches, one of
> which is a precision approach. Three emergencies, one of which
> includes an engine out approach if in a multi-engine aircraft. No
> partial panel, no steep turns, nothing like that in Canada.

Did you already hold an instrument rating for a single?

Jose
--
for Email, make the obvious change in the address

Jose > wrote in message >...
> > So that's the entire ride: departure, hold, two approaches, one of
> > which is a precision approach. Three emergencies, one of which
> > includes an engine out approach if in a multi-engine aircraft. No
> > partial panel, no steep turns, nothing like that in Canada.
>
> Did you already hold an instrument rating for a single?
>
> Jose

No, I didn't. This was my first ever check ride for the IFR. Class 1
here in Canada. I'm not sure what the equivalent is elsewhere. Class
1 = multi engine, non center line thrust; 2 = multi, center line
thrust; 3 = single engine. Makes me wonder why you'd limit yourself
to a center line thrust aircraft only, since there really aren't many
of those. Besides the Cessna 336/337 and some weird WWII German
aircraft, I can't think of any others.

--Kevin

> No, I didn't. This was my first ever check ride for the IFR. Class 1
> here in Canada. I'm not sure what the equivalent is elsewhere. Class
> 1 = multi engine, non center line thrust; 2 = multi, center line
> thrust; 3 = single engine.

Usually (in the US) one gets a pilot certificate for single engine (usually land) airplanes, then the instrument rating (in a single), and then pursues a multi rating. Nothing I know of says it can't be done backwards though.

If you get your instrument rating in a single, and then get a license for a twin, I don't know whether you need a separate instrument (add-on) checkride for the multi. I can't find it in the regs, though something in the back of my mind makes it
familiar.

> Makes me wonder why you'd limit yourself
> to a center line thrust aircraft only, since there really aren't many
> of those. Besides the Cessna 336/337 and some weird WWII German
> aircraft, I can't think of any others.

I was told that the C336/7 was created so that a person with a single engine rating could fly a twin engine airplane (since there would be no critical engine, and no adverse yaw, and no blueline). However, the FAA decided that not only did you have
to have a multi-engine rating =and= a type rating for that particular aircraft. However they made it possible to get a multi rating that would be limited to centerline thrust if you wanted. Advantages would accrue to those who wanted it just to
fly the C336/7 (owners, for example) and so didn't need all the training in adverse yaw and such (and to keep it all current)

Jose
--
for Email, make the obvious change in the address

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 04:03:53 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>Usually (in the US) one gets a pilot certificate for single engine (usually land) airplanes, then the instrument rating (in a single), and then pursues a multi rating. Nothing I know of says it can't be done backwards though.
>
It can be done backwards. I know someone who did all multi (except
private) and then single.

>If you get your instrument rating in a single, and then get a license for a twin, I don't know whether you need a separate instrument (add-on) checkride for the multi. I can't find it in the regs, though something in the back of my mind makes it
>familiar.
The PTS mandates if you are IFR rated in singles and go for a multi
add-on you are required to demonstrate IFR profficiency during the
checkride. You used to be able to forgo the IFR stuff and get a VFR
only restriction, but now the only way to do that is add a multi to a
cert that does not have Instrument privs.

HTH.
z

Jose wrote
>
> Usually (in the US) one gets a pilot certificate for single engine
> I was told that the C336/7 was created so that a person with a single
> engine rating could fly a twin engine airplane (since there would be
> no critical engine, and no adverse yaw, and no blueline). However,
> the FAA decided that not only did you have to have a multi-engine
> rating =and= a type rating for that particular aircraft.

An Aircraft Type Rating is required only if the C-336/337 weighs
over 12,500 pounds.....not very likely.
Now...the possibility exists that you have written a very poorly
composed paragraph.

Bob Moore

Kevin,

> Besides the Cessna 336/337 and some weird WWII German
> aircraft, I can't think of any others.
>

Adam 500.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

> An Aircraft Type Rating is required only if the C-336/337 weighs
> over 12,500 pounds.....not very likely.
> Now...the possibility exists that you have written a very poorly
> composed paragraph.

It is more likely that I used the wrong words. One does require an endorsement or some kind of special approval to fly the centerline thrust Cessna, even with a multi ticket. I called it a type rating; perhaps the FAA calls it something else, in
the same sense that it does not issue "licenses".

As for a poorly composed paragraph, the last sentense is the result of an imcomplete edit. Not only do you have to have a multi, you also have to have a [something] is what I meant.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose > wrote
> One does require an endorsement or some kind of special
> approval to fly the centerline thrust Cessna, even with
> a multi ticket.

Wanna Bet?

Bob Moore

zatatime > wrote in message >...

> It can be done backwards. I know someone who did all multi (except
> private) and then single.
>Snip<

Not even germain to the topic, but amusing. I fly with a guy in my
glider club who is rated for: Glider, two engines, three engines, four
engines (I think) and eight engines.

Military B-52's and Delta. Well, and gliders.

No single engine rating at all.

Odd, huh?

Jim

>>One does require an endorsement or some kind of special
>>> approval to fly the centerline thrust Cessna, even with
>>> a multi ticket.
>
>
> Wanna Bet?

No. I'll infer that I was mistaken. Since I don't fly those things I have no reason to =know=, I'm just responding with what I was taught in ground school &$ years ago. :)

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.