My approach plate briefing, especially while flying, could use some
improvement. I received my instrument rating last March and have about 75
hours of actual IMC time since then, but I honestly feel my briefing of the
chart is not as thorough as it must be for optimum situational awareness.

I am not just referring to frequencies and approach minimums, but rather
the plethora of other information, such as highest nearby obstacle, minimum
safe altitude, maximum safe distance ring, etc. Although I try to brief an
approach during the lower workload of cruise flight, I discovered that I am
still missing some pertinent information.

Perhaps I should consider designing a checklist of sorts, but in the mean
time I am curious what tips the more seasoned instrument pilots have to
offer.

Oh, worth mentioning is that I use Jeppesen's approach plates and I do fly
in an aircraft equipped with a dual axis AP.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

You are cluttering your mind with unnecessary data. If you fly at an
assigned altitude or the altitude shown on the plate for a black line, you
can forget about the MSA (which is not an operational altitude), the highest
obstacle, and maximum safe distance...whatever that is. Frequencies,
courses, altitudes, and the miss procedure are enough.

Bob Gardner

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> My approach plate briefing, especially while flying, could use some
> improvement. I received my instrument rating last March and have about 75
> hours of actual IMC time since then, but I honestly feel my briefing of
the
> chart is not as thorough as it must be for optimum situational awareness.
>
> I am not just referring to frequencies and approach minimums, but rather
> the plethora of other information, such as highest nearby obstacle,
minimum
> safe altitude, maximum safe distance ring, etc. Although I try to brief
an
> approach during the lower workload of cruise flight, I discovered that I
am
> still missing some pertinent information.
>
> Perhaps I should consider designing a checklist of sorts, but in the mean
> time I am curious what tips the more seasoned instrument pilots have to
> offer.
>
> Oh, worth mentioning is that I use Jeppesen's approach plates and I do fly
> in an aircraft equipped with a dual axis AP.
>
> --
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Doesn't hurt to look real quick at the MSA rings just to get a real rough idea
of the underlying terrain. KIPT, for instance has a mountain just to the left
of the localizer, and I think you'd want to know that is there if you can't see
it. No need to memorize the heights, jsut a rough mental sketch of the minimum
safe altitudes is enough. Why? well if something goes wrong at least you know
which way not to turn...

Bob Gardner wrote:

> You are cluttering your mind with unnecessary data. If you fly at an
> assigned altitude or the altitude shown on the plate for a black line, you
> can forget about the MSA (which is not an operational altitude), the highest
> obstacle, and maximum safe distance...whatever that is. Frequencies,
> courses, altitudes, and the miss procedure are enough.
>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
> > My approach plate briefing, especially while flying, could use some
> > improvement. I received my instrument rating last March and have about 75
> > hours of actual IMC time since then, but I honestly feel my briefing of
> the
> > chart is not as thorough as it must be for optimum situational awareness.
> >
> > I am not just referring to frequencies and approach minimums, but rather
> > the plethora of other information, such as highest nearby obstacle,
> minimum
> > safe altitude, maximum safe distance ring, etc. Although I try to brief
> an
> > approach during the lower workload of cruise flight, I discovered that I
> am
> > still missing some pertinent information.
> >
> > Perhaps I should consider designing a checklist of sorts, but in the mean
> > time I am curious what tips the more seasoned instrument pilots have to
> > offer.
> >
> > Oh, worth mentioning is that I use Jeppesen's approach plates and I do fly
> > in an aircraft equipped with a dual axis AP.
> >
> > --
> > Peter
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> > http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
> Newsgroups
> > ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
> =---

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Is that 75 hours of actual or 75 hours of IFR flying? 75 hours of actual is
a lot in a year.
Just curious.


"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> My approach plate briefing, especially while flying, could use some
> improvement. I received my instrument rating last March and have about 75
> hours of actual IMC time since then, but I honestly feel my briefing of
the
> chart is not as thorough as it must be for optimum situational awareness.
>
> I am not just referring to frequencies and approach minimums, but rather
> the plethora of other information, such as highest nearby obstacle,
minimum
> safe altitude, maximum safe distance ring, etc. Although I try to brief
an
> approach during the lower workload of cruise flight, I discovered that I
am
> still missing some pertinent information.
>
> Perhaps I should consider designing a checklist of sorts, but in the mean
> time I am curious what tips the more seasoned instrument pilots have to
> offer.
>
> Oh, worth mentioning is that I use Jeppesen's approach plates and I do fly
> in an aircraft equipped with a dual axis AP.
>
> --
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Peter MacPherson ) wrote:

> Is that 75 hours of actual or 75 hours of IFR flying? 75 hours of actual is
> a lot in a year.
> Just curious.

75 actual. About 20 of those I received during instrument training last
winter. I fly mainly in the Northeast US and am based at an airport
downwind of Lake Ontario. LO throws off a lot of moisture. In the summer
we have many days of low clouds and rain and in the winter we have many
days of low clouds and lake effect snow events. :(

Most of the remaining IMC hours I accumulated by flying missions for Angel
Flight Northeast. IMO, flying for AF is an excellent way to develop and
retain proficiency, as it offers mission-oriented flying that must be given
a lot of thought before canceling flights, unlike a typical $100 hamburger
run.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Peter, out of curiosity, what percentage of your total time since you got your rating
are in actual IMC? I'm based in the Northeast as well (KPVD), also fly for Angel
Flight when I can get away from work. Without looking at my logbook, I'd guess that
about 10% of my time is in actual. More often than not I only in get a couple of
tenths of actual in a flight. If the weather is low, the tops are usually also low
and at 6000' you often wind up on top or between layers. If you are flying 750 hours
a year or so, I am truely envious. Could be a difference in what you log as actual.
I only log actual for the time when I am in IMC, not on top or between layers with
good visibility.

"Peter R." wrote:

> Peter MacPherson ) wrote:
>
> > Is that 75 hours of actual or 75 hours of IFR flying? 75 hours of actual is
> > a lot in a year.
> > Just curious.
>
> 75 actual. About 20 of those I received during instrument training last
> winter. I fly mainly in the Northeast US and am based at an airport
> downwind of Lake Ontario. LO throws off a lot of moisture. In the summer
> we have many days of low clouds and rain and in the winter we have many
> days of low clouds and lake effect snow events. :(
>
> Most of the remaining IMC hours I accumulated by flying missions for Angel
> Flight Northeast. IMO, flying for AF is an excellent way to develop and
> retain proficiency, as it offers mission-oriented flying that must be given
> a lot of thought before canceling flights, unlike a typical $100 hamburger
> run.
>
> --
> Peter
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

This is not a matter of regulation, of course, and it is not covered in the
AIM...more of a personal preference thing, unless there is a company SOP
requiring it. I won't pretend that I have thousands of hours flying jets,
but I do have hundreds, and I was never taught to brief those items nor were
they included in company SOPs...and we were moving fast enough to make
mistakes very costly.

Bob Gardner

"Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
...
> Doesn't hurt to look real quick at the MSA rings just to get a real rough
idea
> of the underlying terrain. KIPT, for instance has a mountain just to the
left
> of the localizer, and I think you'd want to know that is there if you
can't see
> it. No need to memorize the heights, jsut a rough mental sketch of the
minimum
> safe altitudes is enough. Why? well if something goes wrong at least you
know
> which way not to turn...
>
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>
> > You are cluttering your mind with unnecessary data. If you fly at an
> > assigned altitude or the altitude shown on the plate for a black line,
you
> > can forget about the MSA (which is not an operational altitude), the
highest
> > obstacle, and maximum safe distance...whatever that is. Frequencies,
> > courses, altitudes, and the miss procedure are enough.
> >
> > Bob Gardner
> >
> > "Peter R." > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > My approach plate briefing, especially while flying, could use some
> > > improvement. I received my instrument rating last March and have
about 75
> > > hours of actual IMC time since then, but I honestly feel my briefing
of
> > the
> > > chart is not as thorough as it must be for optimum situational
awareness.
> > >
> > > I am not just referring to frequencies and approach minimums, but
rather
> > > the plethora of other information, such as highest nearby obstacle,
> > minimum
> > > safe altitude, maximum safe distance ring, etc. Although I try to
brief
> > an
> > > approach during the lower workload of cruise flight, I discovered that
I
> > am
> > > still missing some pertinent information.
> > >
> > > Perhaps I should consider designing a checklist of sorts, but in the
mean
> > > time I am curious what tips the more seasoned instrument pilots have
to
> > > offer.
> > >
> > > Oh, worth mentioning is that I use Jeppesen's approach plates and I do
fly
> > > in an aircraft equipped with a dual axis AP.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Peter
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
> > News==----
> > > http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>100,000
> > Newsgroups
> > > ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via
Encryption
> > =---
>
> --
> --Ray Andraka, P.E.
> President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
> 401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
> email
> http://www.andraka.com
>
> "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
> temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> -Benjamin Franklin, 1759
>
>

Peter R. > wrote
> Most of the remaining IMC hours I accumulated by flying missions for Angel
> Flight Northeast. IMO, flying for AF is an excellent way to develop and
> retain proficiency, as it offers mission-oriented flying that must be given
> a lot of thought before canceling flights, unlike a typical $100 hamburger
> run.

I absolutely agree. In fact, most of my IMC time was accumulated
flying for Angel Flight South Central. But I still can't understand
how you managed to rack up so much IMC time. It took me about 3 years
to rack up 75 hours of actual IMC, and I've been known to actively
seek it out.

In any case - to answer your original question, I think you're
briefing too much stuff. When I brief an approach, I brief only the
FAC, MDA/DH, the MAP, the first segment of the miss, and anything
really special about the approach. I will also brief the circling
procedure/runway alignment if applicable.

IMO the only really critical part of the approach is the bottom 1000
ft or so. That's where you have to make a snap decision about having
the necessary visual cues, and then quite possibly fly to the runway
using a blend of visual and instrument references. There's a big
difference between remaining in the protected airspace and actually
being able to land, so precise flying is at a premium.

In a light airplane, almost any mistake can be fixed if you are at or
above 1000 ft AGL. Unless you've actually pegged the needle(s), you
can sort it out. Therefore, I only brief the stuff prior to the FAF
and after the first segment of the miss in a general way, for
familiarity. I don't think it's any big deal to glance at the plate
if I forget a heading or an altitude.

After the FAF is crossed, I don't look at the plate anymore. I'm
dividing attention between keeping needles centered and looking
outside.

If I've decided to miss, I've briefed the first segment (what heading
do I fly) and I start my climb (and turn if applicable) - then I look
at the plate. After all, precision isn't as important anymore, and as
long as I stay in the protected airspace I'm OK.

The bottom line is that you only need a very few memory items, and
trying to retain too many will only hurt you. Don't try to remember
anything unless you are going to need it between crossing the FAF and
starting the climb on the miss.

Michael

Many charts say ADF required or DME required. This is sometimes
overlooked until the last minute.

This may sound obvious, but make sure that you are briefing the
correct chart. Around here we have many ILS Rwy 24, and I have had
students confuse one with another.




Ray Andraka > wrote in message >...
> Doesn't hurt to look real quick at the MSA rings just to get a real rough idea
> of the underlying terrain. KIPT, for instance has a mountain just to the left
> of the localizer, and I think you'd want to know that is there if you can't see
> it. No need to memorize the heights, jsut a rough mental sketch of the minimum
> safe altitudes is enough. Why? well if something goes wrong at least you know
> which way not to turn...
>
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>
> > You are cluttering your mind with unnecessary data. If you fly at an
> > assigned altitude or the altitude shown on the plate for a black line, you
> > can forget about the MSA (which is not an operational altitude), the highest
> > obstacle, and maximum safe distance...whatever that is. Frequencies,
> > courses, altitudes, and the miss procedure are enough.
> >
> > Bob Gardner
> >
> > "Peter R." > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > My approach plate briefing, especially while flying, could use some
> > > improvement. I received my instrument rating last March and have about 75
> > > hours of actual IMC time since then, but I honestly feel my briefing of
> the
> > > chart is not as thorough as it must be for optimum situational awareness.
> > >
> > > I am not just referring to frequencies and approach minimums, but rather
> > > the plethora of other information, such as highest nearby obstacle,
> minimum
> > > safe altitude, maximum safe distance ring, etc. Although I try to brief
> an
> > > approach during the lower workload of cruise flight, I discovered that I
> am
> > > still missing some pertinent information.
> > >
> > > Perhaps I should consider designing a checklist of sorts, but in the mean
> > > time I am curious what tips the more seasoned instrument pilots have to
> > > offer.
> > >
> > > Oh, worth mentioning is that I use Jeppesen's approach plates and I do fly
> > > in an aircraft equipped with a dual axis AP.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Peter
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> > > http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
> Newsgroups
> > > ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
> > =---
>
> --
> --Ray Andraka, P.E.
> President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
> 401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
> email
> http://www.andraka.com
>
> "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
> temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> -Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Ray Andraka wrote:

> Peter, out of curiosity, what percentage of your total time since
> you got your rating are in actual IMC?

First of all, my sincerest apologies for making any kind of claim, as
Usenet claims are almost always laughed off by the reader. I certainly
did not expect to have this thread drift off topic into how many actual
instrument hours we all have, nor for it to become a "mine is bigger
than yours" contest.

Looking back at my logbook (which I recently converted to Logbook Pro),
it appears that I am running around 15% actual IMC to total time.
Since starting my instrument rating in October 2002, I have since logged
about 470 total hours.

> I'm based in the Northeast as well (KPVD), also fly for Angel
> Flight when I can get away from work.

How do Providence's winters compare to Syracuse, NYs? I sincerely do
not know, other than to say that if your winters are a lot like
Hartford, CT's (where I lived one year several years ago), then you must
have more sunshine. :)

According to my logbook, I flew 25 Angel Flights (around 140 hours)
since starting with them last May. BTW, this was for both AF Northeast
out of Lawrence, Mass, and AF East out of Philadelphia.

> Without looking at my logbook, I'd guess that about 10% of my time
> is in actual.

Then you and I are pretty close.

> More often than not I only in get a couple of tenths of actual in a
> flight. If the weather is low, the tops are usually also low and
> at 6000' you often wind up on top or between layers.

What do you fly? I suspect that this may explain the difference between
us. I flew all of those hours in a C172. Low, slow, and slow to
climb.

This week I received my complex, high performance endorsement for a V35
Bonanza so I now understand the difference climbing at 1,100 feet per
minute makes at blasting through the layers. I also realize that I will
not log nearly as many hours in this aircraft in the upcoming year, due
to the performance differences between this aircraft and the C172.

> If you are flying 750 hours a year or so, I am truely envious. Could
> be a difference in what you log as actual. I only log actual for the time
> when I am in IMC, not on top or between layers with good visibility.

Please. After reading these groups for the last three years, I am very
comfortable with what constitutes actual time. I only log actual hours
in terms of when I need instruments to fly. I do not log VMC while on
an IFR flight plan as actual instrument time.

--
Peter







----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

(Andrew Sarangan) wrote:
> Many charts say ADF required or DME required. This is sometimes
> overlooked until the last minute.

You should have noticed that in your pre-flight planning. Mistakes like
that are common in training, where you're doing approach after approach,
but on a real flight, you really should look at the aproaches into your
destination (and alternate) before you even get in the airplane. It's
really embarrassing to get where you're going only to discover you can't
land because you can't fly any of the approaches.

> This may sound obvious, but make sure that you are briefing the
> correct chart. Around here we have many ILS Rwy 24, and I have had
> students confuse one with another.

Yup. I watched a student do that last week (Hi, Evan!). POU has a
VOR-DME 6 and a VOR-DME 24. We were near the IAF for the 24 approach
when he called up NY Approach and asked for the "vectors to the VOR-DME
approach". He had the 6 plate out, and didn't realize there was also a
24 approach.

The controller gave us vectors to final (for 24), and while my student
did pick up on the fact that the vector we got didn't seem to make
sense, he didn't figure out what was going on. I think the controller
added to the confusion by saying something like "cleared VOR-DME
approach" without mentioning *which* VOR-DME approach it was.

I think the take-home lesson is that if something doesn't make sense
while flying an approach, don't just keep going hoping it'll fall into
place later. If you get a vector that seems wrong, ask the controller
what's going on.

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 18:39:52 GMT, "Bob Gardner" >
wrote:

>Frequencies,
>courses, altitudes, and the miss procedure are enough.

Yes, but FCAM doesn't make for a good mnemonic. ;]

Hmm... come to think of it, it's better than most.

Michael ) wrote:

> In fact, most of my IMC time was accumulated
> flying for Angel Flight South Central. But I still can't understand
> how you managed to rack up so much IMC time. It took me about 3 years
> to rack up 75 hours of actual IMC, and I've been known to actively
> seek it out.

South Central would be Texas, no? Aren't most of your clouds the type that
make nasty thunderstorms?

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Peter R. > wrote in
:

> South Central would be Texas, no? Aren't most of your
> clouds the type that make nasty thunderstorms?
>
Some, especially in spring and summer, but not necessarily most.
In the winter we get lots of relatively benign clouds. Texas
does cover a rather large area, though, and it varies somewhat
by region.

--
Regards,

Stan

Peter R. > wrote
> South Central would be Texas, no? Aren't most of your clouds the type that
> make nasty thunderstorms?

That's certainly true much of the year, but with a Stormscope it's
quite manageable. I can't recall the last time I scrubbed a flight
for T-storms.

I suspect, though, that much of the difference may be vertical
development. In my neck of the woods, a summer IFR flight of 2-3
hours might only involve 20 minutes in the soup, mostly in small
chunks.

Michael

Peter,

I didn't mean at all to be inflammatory. I was just curious how you had amassed so
much actual in such a short time. I fly a '65 Cherokee Six. Solo in the winter I can
see climbs better than 1500 fpm, but in IMC I try to keep the climbs tame. Fully
loaded on a hot summer day, I often struggle to get 500 fpm. My flights tend to be
cross country, about 3 hours is typical, and more often than not it is only IMC on one
end. If I were to go up on an IFR day and fly approaches to the local airports, that
could easily boost my actual time considerably. PVD is about like HFD for weather,
although ours goes down before HFD often because of the proximity to the water. I
don't get much IMC in the winter because of the icing potential. I am envious of the
amount of flying you get to do. I've been averaging a bit over 100 hrs/yr. There
just aren't enough hours in the day or dollars in the bank to get much more than that.



--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Ray Andraka ) wrote:

> I've been averaging a bit over 100 hrs/yr. There just aren't enough hours
> in the day
<Snip>
> President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.

I see why there aren't enough hours in your day, Mr. President! :)
Running a small business eats most of those hours up, I'd suspect.

--
Peter












----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Not to mention having 5 kids too!

"Peter R." wrote:

>
> I see why there aren't enough hours in your day, Mr. President! :)
> Running a small business eats most of those hours up, I'd suspect.

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759