First couple hours of real CFII dual given....

[Blaine]

An enlightening experience first of all. I figured since I had just
got the second 'I' on CFII, and since I have given plenty of regular
dual to Private students, I wouldn't have too much of a problem.

The guy I flew with is working on a phase of the WINGS program and
wanted several hours of hood time shooting approaches and what not. He
flies IFR regularly in his high-performance Piper and is a very
well-rounded and proficient pilot.

I wouldn't say I did terrible, but I was not happy with my
performance. At one point he asked for radar vectors. I was thinking
"oh great" haha... I told him I didn't make a good controller yet and
he just laughed and said that was alright. The radar-vectored course
reversal went ok I suppose, but there was some ambiguity when turning
PT inbound.

Several factors played into this flight. I was with a pilot I had
never flown with before, I was in a plane I had never been in before,
and he had a new Garmin 430 that he was trying to figure out better. I
only have experience on King GPS, so I was not use to the difference.
Nice piece of equipment though. Most of my problem came with my lack
of real IFR experience. Which to say, is some what frustrating. At
what point, does all this start to come together? What helped you hone
your CFII skills? Is this just something that only getting out there
and flying will help? Of course I know the rules and the theory and
all that jazz, but staying ahead of a good IFR pilot is gonna take
some more work. I do look forward to the challenege however, and it
was great fun flying with the guy.

[Mike Rapoport]

Michael, don't you have something to say about this? :-)

Mike
MU-2


"Blaine" > wrote in message
om...
> An enlightening experience first of all. I figured since I had just
> got the second 'I' on CFII, and since I have given plenty of regular
> dual to Private students, I wouldn't have too much of a problem.
>
> The guy I flew with is working on a phase of the WINGS program and
> wanted several hours of hood time shooting approaches and what not. He
> flies IFR regularly in his high-performance Piper and is a very
> well-rounded and proficient pilot.
>
> I wouldn't say I did terrible, but I was not happy with my
> performance. At one point he asked for radar vectors. I was thinking
> "oh great" haha... I told him I didn't make a good controller yet and
> he just laughed and said that was alright. The radar-vectored course
> reversal went ok I suppose, but there was some ambiguity when turning
> PT inbound.
>
> Several factors played into this flight. I was with a pilot I had
> never flown with before, I was in a plane I had never been in before,
> and he had a new Garmin 430 that he was trying to figure out better. I
> only have experience on King GPS, so I was not use to the difference.
> Nice piece of equipment though. Most of my problem came with my lack
> of real IFR experience. Which to say, is some what frustrating. At
> what point, does all this start to come together? What helped you hone
> your CFII skills? Is this just something that only getting out there
> and flying will help? Of course I know the rules and the theory and
> all that jazz, but staying ahead of a good IFR pilot is gonna take
> some more work. I do look forward to the challenege however, and it
> was great fun flying with the guy.

[Roy Smith]

(Blaine) wrote:
> just got the second 'I' on CFII
> [...]
> Most of my problem came with my lack of real IFR experience.

Sounds like you've analysed your own problem. You can't teach what you
don't know. Go out and fly IFR as much as you can. Get as much actual
as you can. Go on trips to places outside of your usual training
grounds.

[Tom Sixkiller]

http://av-info.faa.gov/data/designeeupdate/du_jul2003.pdf

....for a bit on "technically advanced" and unfamiliar aircraft.

"Blaine" > wrote in message
om...
> An enlightening experience first of all. I figured since I had just
> got the second 'I' on CFII, and since I have given plenty of regular
> dual to Private students, I wouldn't have too much of a problem.
>
> The guy I flew with is working on a phase of the WINGS program and
> wanted several hours of hood time shooting approaches and what not. He
> flies IFR regularly in his high-performance Piper and is a very
> well-rounded and proficient pilot.
>
> I wouldn't say I did terrible, but I was not happy with my
> performance. At one point he asked for radar vectors. I was thinking
> "oh great" haha... I told him I didn't make a good controller yet and
> he just laughed and said that was alright. The radar-vectored course
> reversal went ok I suppose, but there was some ambiguity when turning
> PT inbound.
>
> Several factors played into this flight. I was with a pilot I had
> never flown with before, I was in a plane I had never been in before,
> and he had a new Garmin 430 that he was trying to figure out better. I
> only have experience on King GPS, so I was not use to the difference.
> Nice piece of equipment though. Most of my problem came with my lack
> of real IFR experience. Which to say, is some what frustrating. At
> what point, does all this start to come together? What helped you hone
> your CFII skills? Is this just something that only getting out there
> and flying will help? Of course I know the rules and the theory and
> all that jazz, but staying ahead of a good IFR pilot is gonna take
> some more work. I do look forward to the challenege however, and it
> was great fun flying with the guy.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
> http://av-info.faa.gov/data/designeeupdate/du_jul2003.pdf
>
> ...for a bit on "technically advanced" and unfamiliar aircraft.

It looks like an endorsement for rai. :)

>
> "Blaine" > wrote in message
> om...
> > An enlightening experience first of all. I figured since I had just
> > got the second 'I' on CFII, and since I have given plenty of regular
> > dual to Private students, I wouldn't have too much of a problem.
> >
> > The guy I flew with is working on a phase of the WINGS program and
> > wanted several hours of hood time shooting approaches and what not. He
> > flies IFR regularly in his high-performance Piper and is a very
> > well-rounded and proficient pilot.
> >
> > I wouldn't say I did terrible, but I was not happy with my
> > performance. At one point he asked for radar vectors. I was thinking
> > "oh great" haha... I told him I didn't make a good controller yet and
> > he just laughed and said that was alright. The radar-vectored course
> > reversal went ok I suppose, but there was some ambiguity when turning
> > PT inbound.
> >
> > Several factors played into this flight. I was with a pilot I had
> > never flown with before, I was in a plane I had never been in before,
> > and he had a new Garmin 430 that he was trying to figure out better. I
> > only have experience on King GPS, so I was not use to the difference.
> > Nice piece of equipment though. Most of my problem came with my lack
> > of real IFR experience. Which to say, is some what frustrating. At
> > what point, does all this start to come together? What helped you hone
> > your CFII skills? Is this just something that only getting out there
> > and flying will help? Of course I know the rules and the theory and
> > all that jazz, but staying ahead of a good IFR pilot is gonna take
> > some more work. I do look forward to the challenege however, and it
> > was great fun flying with the guy.
>
>

[Max T, CFI]

Teach an Instrument ground school sometime. The work to develop it will
really solidify your knowledge! I always take along my Garmin 195 with me
when I have an instrument student for a variety of reasons. Having a handheld in
your lap will really simplify giving the radar vectors, and it might save you
some day if everything in the plane decides to go toes up.
Max T, MCFI

>
> I wouldn't say I did terrible, but I was not happy with my
> performance. At one point he asked for radar vectors. I was thinking
> "oh great" haha... I told him I didn't make a good controller yet and
> he just laughed and said that was alright. The radar-vectored course
> reversal went ok I suppose, but there was some ambiguity when turning
> PT inbound.
>

[Andrew Sarangan]

What is even more important is that you sit down after every flight
and carefully analyze everything that happened. If you come across
something new, research it to the fullest extent. Don't assume that
it will all come together after another 100 hours of experience. My
students who spend a lot of time reviewing the details after every
flight gain experience much faster than others. It is for this reason
that I record (audio) all flights. Both the student and I benefit from
this. It is just too easy to forget the details soon after a flight.




Roy Smith > wrote in message >...
> (Blaine) wrote:
> > just got the second 'I' on CFII
> > [...]
> > Most of my problem came with my lack of real IFR experience.
>
> Sounds like you've analysed your own problem. You can't teach what you
> don't know. Go out and fly IFR as much as you can. Get as much actual
> as you can. Go on trips to places outside of your usual training
> grounds.

[Larry Fransson]

> At what point, does all this start to come together? What helped you hone
> your CFII skills? Is this just something that only getting out there
> and flying will help?

Before my CFII, I could fly a good NDB approach, but it was largely by
following rote procedures for figuring out how to make course corrections.
But after several hours of instructing pilots in NDB approaches, I finally
gained a real understanding of how to fly NDB approaches. I could look at
the indicator, determine my position relative to the desired course, and
figure the necessary correction without a lot of mental gymnastics.

--
Larry Fransson
Seattle, WA

[Michael]

(Blaine) wrote
> I wouldn't say I did terrible, but I was not happy with my
> performance.

First off, I doubt any instrument instructor is ever really happy with
his first attempts at giving instrument dual. I know I certainly
wasn't. In my case, as in yours, I was giving dual to someone who was
already a proficient instrument pilot (I was checking him out in a new
plane) so I don't think I did much damage. I don't think you did much
damage either - sounds like the guy really only needed a safety pilot.

It's unfortunate, but getting a CFII rating really does nothing to
prepare you to teach instruments. There are all sorts of things an
instrument instructor needs to be able to do that an instrument pilot
need not bother with, and none of them are covered on the typical CFII
ride. Truly it's nothing more than a repeat of the instrument ride
from the right seat.

> At one point he asked for radar vectors. I was thinking
> "oh great" haha... I told him I didn't make a good controller yet and
> he just laughed and said that was alright.

Vectoring is an acquired skill, and one you will need to acquire.
It's also a perfect example of something a CFII needs to be able to
do, but never learns. Fortunately, after you get vectored for a few
dozen approaches, you generally get a feel for how it's done.

The instructions are all issued in the same format, and the format is
given in the AIM. Just sit down and practice issuing them. With a
little practice, you can be belting out "Piper 123, you are 4 miles
from GOFUS, turn left heading 320, maintain 3000 until established,
cleared for the VOR-D" with the best of them. Don't worry too much if
you don't get the wording exactly right - controllers often mess it up
too.

As for the actual headings and altitudes - just think about the sort
of pattern the controllers normally use, and call the headings and
altitudes. If you need to, practice with little toy airplanes and
charts. A handheld GPS is great for 'cheating' especially at night or
if the terrain is featureless. Besides, if you're going to instruct
in actual you need one anyway.

This is going to sound brutal, but if you haven't done enough
approaches under IFR to have a feel for how controllers vector you,
you really shouldn't be trying to teach anyone instruments. If you
haven't gotten to the point where the vectors on an approach are
predictable (meaning you usually know what the controller is going to
say before he says it) you need to go out there and fly IFR some more.

> I was in a plane I had never been in before,

That can be a factor - or not. It's no big deal to instruct in an
unfamiliar airplane if you have plenty of experience in that CLASS of
airplane. By class I don't mean the FAA definition. In fact I really
don't have a definition, but I know it when I see it.

My first experiences in a Beech Bonanza and a Piper Lance were
instructing in them - but I already had hundreds of hours in different
complex airplanes of that size and speed, so it was OK. I would not
hesitate to instruct in a Viking or a C-210, though I have flown
neither. I would not attempt to instruct in, say, a Malibu or a
Lancair. In fact, a good rule of thumb is this - if you would not get
into an airplane and comfortably (meaning without being nervous) fly
it without having someone check you out, you shouldn't be trying to
instruct in it. If you've never checked yourself out in an airplane,
you probably shouldn't be trying to teach in a make and model airplane
you've never flown.

> and he had a new Garmin 430 that he was trying to figure out better. I
> only have experience on King GPS, so I was not use to the difference.

What I think of the user interfaces on IFR GPS units doesn't bear
repeating, but the truth is you really shouldn't be trying to teach
someone to use avionics you can't use yourself. However, the same
principle applies here as with unfamiliar airplanes. Once you've
flown behind several different kinds of GPS, you get to where you
pretty much figure them out, at least for the basics of going to a fix
and flying an approach. But if you've only ever used one kind, well,
you're hosed.

> Most of my problem came with my lack
> of real IFR experience.

I'm glad you realize this.

> Is this just something that only getting out there
> and flying will help?

'Fraid so. If you can't do it, you can't teach it.

A prerequisite to teaching IFR is being comfortable IFR. Most of that
comfort comes from knowing what's coming next most of the time, and
that doesn't happen without experience. Once you gain experience,
much of this works itself out. With experience, vectoring is no big
deal because you've been vectored so much you know what to expect.
With experience, you can teach the pilot not how to use one particular
gadget, because you may not be familiar with it either, but how to
figure out unfamiliar gadgets, because you've done it enough times for
yourself that you know how to go about it. With experience, you can
challenge even a very experienced instrument pilot - because you will
have made your share of mistakes, and seen your share of mistakes, and
will have started to see a pattern - what kinds of mistakes pilots
will make, and under what circumstances.

Even if you can do it, you can't necessarily teach it. It will still
take time to figure out how to pass on your knowledge and experience.
It will still take practice to subtly maneuver an advanced pilot into
making mistakes so he can learn from them. But without experience -
well, you simply don't have a chance.

> Of course I know the rules and the theory and
> all that jazz, but staying ahead of a good IFR pilot is gonna take
> some more work.

Just wait till you need to stay ahead of an airline captain.

Michael

[Richard Hertz]

"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> (Blaine) wrote
> > I wouldn't say I did terrible, but I was not happy with my
> > performance.
>

<snip>
>
> As for the actual headings and altitudes - just think about the sort
> of pattern the controllers normally use, and call the headings and
> altitudes. If you need to, practice with little toy airplanes and
> charts. A handheld GPS is great for 'cheating' especially at night or
> if the terrain is featureless. Besides, if you're going to instruct
> in actual you need one anyway.

Huh? care to explain that?

[karl]

I'd download the 430 simulator. It's free and fantastic. You can get
proficient with just that and your PC. You definitely need to know the
Garmin logic.They sell BY FAR the most IFR GPS units.

http://www.garmin.com/products/gns430/

Also, try to get this person into actual conditions. Your own performance
will calm down and get down to business. I got my CFII long before I ever
became a CFIA, and believe the best instruction is from one who is calm and
enthusiastic. Don't worry about the little variations from perfection, just
get your student out in actual to build confidence. After that, fine
technique comes naturally.

Karl

[Michael]

"Richard Hertz" > wrote
> > As for the actual headings and altitudes - just think about the sort
> > of pattern the controllers normally use, and call the headings and
> > altitudes. If you need to, practice with little toy airplanes and
> > charts. A handheld GPS is great for 'cheating' especially at night or
> > if the terrain is featureless. Besides, if you're going to instruct
> > in actual you need one anyway.
>
> Huh? care to explain that?

Well, if you're instructing in actual in the typical light GA
airplane, you're depending on the continued performance of a
non-redundant electrical system with a mostly unknown maintenance
history. Do you really want to risk your neck that way?

Carrying a handheld battery powered GPS means you retain the ability
to shoot most non-precision approaches in an emergency. I know people
who have had to do that.

Michael

[Ryan Ferguson]

"Richard Hertz" > wrote in message >...

> > Besides, if you're going to instruct
> > in actual you need one anyway.
>
> Huh? care to explain that?

Maybe a slightly better wording would be "you're going to want one"
rather than need one. I view it as part of my responsibility as an
instrument flight instructor. I need to be prepared to get the
airplane back to home base in the event the panel goes dark. I can
fly a fair approach on a Garmin 295. It's really nice being able to
paint the FAC, then fly the closest applicable approach (VOR,
localizer, etc.) that overlays that course. Or if the GPS is so
equipped, you can even load the approach and fly it. Power in the
palm of your hand.

(I've had a total electrical failure in cold IMC in a light twin.
Thank the lawd for handheld GPS.)

And, it's nice for providing 'vectors' to the student, as Michael has
suggested.

.... or if you're a luddite or just think the damn things are a waste
of time, be my guest and fly without - that's your prerogative.

-Ryan

[Richard Hertz]

I am not anti-technology, but an instrument pilot is supposed to be able to
fly partial panel, etc. To say that an instructor NEEDS one seems to imply
that they can't do without it.

Granted I seem to take a hard line view of a lot of "conventional wisdom".

I don't know why one would not be able to provide vectors without one. A
simple compass rose on a sectional/enroute chart is probably all the
visual/mental help one needs, though I have never instructed.

The problem with handhelds is that people come to rely on them so much they
lose all other navigation skills, procedures and situational awareness.
When the batteries die or the thing freezes, the pilot is left with
unpracticed, old skills and is in trouble.

I agree though - they can be real handy to have around when things go bad.
The trick is to ensure they are not used as a crutch...

I am not sure what
"Ryan Ferguson" > wrote in message
om...
> "Richard Hertz" > wrote in message
>...
>
> > > Besides, if you're going to instruct
> > > in actual you need one anyway.
> >
> > Huh? care to explain that?
>
> Maybe a slightly better wording would be "you're going to want one"
> rather than need one. I view it as part of my responsibility as an
> instrument flight instructor. I need to be prepared to get the
> airplane back to home base in the event the panel goes dark. I can
> fly a fair approach on a Garmin 295. It's really nice being able to
> paint the FAC, then fly the closest applicable approach (VOR,
> localizer, etc.) that overlays that course. Or if the GPS is so
> equipped, you can even load the approach and fly it. Power in the
> palm of your hand.
>
> (I've had a total electrical failure in cold IMC in a light twin.
> Thank the lawd for handheld GPS.)
>
> And, it's nice for providing 'vectors' to the student, as Michael has
> suggested.
>
> ... or if you're a luddite or just think the damn things are a waste
> of time, be my guest and fly without - that's your prerogative.
>
> -Ryan

[Ryan Ferguson]

Yes, Richard. The pilot must not *require* the GPS to fly safely. Do
not fear, no pilot under my tutelage will feel unsafe without it when
they fly off into the wild grey yonder without me. That's how we
train. Here a VFR example. Just flew a 2 hour night cross-country
flight in a single-engine airplane yesterday evening over large areas
of featureless and unlit terrain. Turned off the GPS when we flipped
the avionics master on. My student did the whole darn thing using
pilotage. (Love those airport beacons!) Good 'nuff for ya?

The application for the instructor is, well, instructional. I can
provide "practice vectors" okay from non-satellite GPS sources, but
why? I don't need to prove anything. I'm not training to become an
air traffic controller. It's one more unneeded stressor in the
training environment. Puhleeeeze. :)

-Ryan

[Michael]

"Richard Hertz" > wrote
> I am not anti-technology, but an instrument pilot is supposed to be able to
> fly partial panel, etc.

Sure. But nobody can fly an approach with no navaids at all. If the
panel goes dark, that's exactly what you have unless you brought a
handheld.

> To say that an instructor NEEDS one seems to imply
> that they can't do without it.

And when the panel goes dark in IMC, that's exactly the case.

> I don't know why one would not be able to provide vectors without one. A
> simple compass rose on a sectional/enroute chart is probably all the
> visual/mental help one needs, though I have never instructed.

That's true when you can accurately determine your position by looking
out the window. When that's the case, I don't even bother turning the
GPS on. Try giving vectors at night over featureless terrain, and
it's a different ball game. To give decent vectors, you need to know
your position within a mile or two at all times. Can YOU do that at
night over featureless terrain?

I do about half my IFR instruction at night - it's more realistic that
way, and makes the student work harder. I did my own IFR training the
same way. Around here, the land is flat and all the little bedroom
communities around Houston look the same. Under those conditions, a
GPS is almost a necessity for vectoring.

> The problem with handhelds is that people come to rely on them so much they
> lose all other navigation skills, procedures and situational awareness.
> When the batteries die or the thing freezes, the pilot is left with
> unpracticed, old skills and is in trouble.

No argument. I actually know one who landed in a field because her
GPS batteries died. She flew over (or at least within a few miles of)
the airport at least half a dozen times and was never able to find it.
It was daylight, blue skies and puffy cu's.

Michael

[Blaine]

First of all, thanks for all the replies. I really would like to teach
an instrument ground school course, but there just isn't a need around
here. I do have the ability and depth of knowledge to teach one
however. I wouldn't mind it at all.

Me and that guy are gonna fly some more instruments in a few days, so
I'm looking forward to that. I've decided I'm just going to bite the
bullet and spend the money to fly IFR. It's the only way I'm going to
improve my actual IFR skills in the air. Using a sim just doesn't
always cut it.

As far as staying ahead of an airline captain...wow...there has to be
some interesting stories. Talk about an "advanced" student.... haha

[Michael]

(Blaine) wrote
> Me and that guy are gonna fly some more instruments in a few days, so
> I'm looking forward to that.

This is a good thing. You might learn a lot from him. In fact, any
time you can ride with an experienced IFR pilot, that's almost as good
as flying IFR yourself. Consider sitting down with him and asking him
what he's trying to achieve with his recurrent training. The response
might surprise you.

> I've decided I'm just going to bite the
> bullet and spend the money to fly IFR. It's the only way I'm going to
> improve my actual IFR skills in the air. Using a sim just doesn't
> always cut it.

Good call again - but don't discount the other advice given. Make it
a point to review and discuss every flight to get maximum benefit out
of it.

> As far as staying ahead of an airline captain...wow...there has to be
> some interesting stories. Talk about an "advanced" student.... haha

Let's just say I learned a lot about where the limits of performance
really are in a light twin. If anyone cares, I'll take the time to
write it up and post it.

Michael