Tips on Getting Your Instrument Rating Sooner and at Lower Cost

[Fred]

Have you ever carefully studied what the regulations actually REQUIRE
regarding the
various experience requirements for an instrument rating?

The XC requirement in particular, is one that oftentimes unnecessarily adds
to the cost
of an instrument rating and delays getting it.

According to the FAA, a pilot who already has a private pilot certificate
and is
RATED in the airplane, can log PIC time, even while receiving dual
instruction.

This means that an instrument training XC trip, which is NOT on an
instrument flight plan (you don't have an instrument rating yet so you can't
file IFR as PIC) but is under the hood with an instructor as safety pilot,
can be logged as PIC XC.......so you can make the same time do double duty.

Much instrument training is done this way, with the instructor acting as
ATC.
Most of your instrument training will be hood time. Do it on a XC using
instrument
navigation procedures and you can save as much as 20-30 hours or more of the
additional cost of having to do it over twice. (The rules do not say SOLO
XC
the rules say PIC XC )

This means that most of your instrument time training can also be XC PIC IF
you
arrange your flights carefully in regard to what the regulations require and
make
your training part of an XC trip.

(As a side note, this is a good way to get your training because you get to
plan all aspects of the flight from the standpoint of FLYING an instrument
trip. Take-off, climb, enroute, approach and landing are all included.
Just do them to instrument standards under the hood and for all practical
purposes you are conducting an instrument flight.....and getting
double duty out of your flight dollar.).

There are a number of other rules that require certain amounts of flight
time
under varying conditions that usually are done one at a time, rather than
meeting several requirements on one flight.

If you look at your logbook, and study the regulations, you will see many
instances
of this.

If you are just getting started flying, this might be a good time to
CAREFULLY
STUDY the rules and ask your flight instructor about how to combine as many
requirements on a flight as possible to make your learning experience more
cost effective.

If you are like most pilots, flying is expensive. Getting the most for
your dolllar
is important. KNOWING what the regulations REALLY require can save
you a lot of money and get you on your way faster, without shortchanging
your
knowledge.

Being organized and having knowledge of what the rules really say can save
you a lot of money.

Remember. If you have questions about the way the regulations are
interpreted
you can call your local FAA Flight Standards District Office and ask an
Inspector.

They are there to help you.

P.S. You might like to read
HOW TO TRAIN YOUR FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR
http://webplus.locators.estates.co.uk/hint6.html#train

[C Kingsbury]

In my experience the #1 time-delay comes from getting the written test done.
If/when I decide to go for my commercial I'm not going to even start taking
lessons until after I've done the written. Doing the same with my private &
instrument would have saved me 3 calendar months on each. And in general,
the fewer calendar months you spend training, the fewer hours you spend in
the airplane fixing things you forgot from previous lessons.

-cwk.

"Fred" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Have you ever carefully studied what the regulations actually REQUIRE
> regarding the
> various experience requirements for an instrument rating?

[gatt]

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> In my experience the #1 time-delay comes from getting the written test
done.
> If/when I decide to go for my commercial I'm not going to even start
taking
> lessons until after I've done the written. Doing the same with my private
&
> instrument would have saved me 3 calendar months on each. And in general,
> the fewer calendar months you spend training, the fewer hours you spend in
> the airplane fixing things you forgot from previous lessons.

INDEED!

-c

[Gary Drescher]

"Fred" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> This means that an instrument training XC trip, which is NOT on an
> instrument flight plan (you don't have an instrument rating yet so you
> can't
> file IFR as PIC) but is under the hood with an instructor as safety pilot,
> can be logged as PIC XC.......so you can make the same time do double
> duty.

A private pilot can log PIC XC time for an instrument training XC trip even
if the flight is IFR (or even in IMC). FAR 61.51e1i requires only that the
pilot be rated for the >aircraft< in order to log PIC time as
sole-manipulator. There is no requirement that the pilot be rated for the
conditions of flight, or that the pilot actually be PIC.

--Gary

[Teacherjh]

>>
This means that an instrument training XC trip, which is NOT on an
instrument flight plan (you don't have an instrument rating yet so you can't
file IFR as PIC) but is under the hood with an instructor as safety pilot,
can be logged as PIC XC.......so you can make the same time do double duty.
<<

Well, sort of. You need to make this arrangement beforehand, because LOGGING
PIC time and BEING PIC are two different animals, kind of like dolphin (the
kind you eat) and dolphin (as in Flipper) are two different animals.

You can =log= PIC time as a non-instrument-rated private pilot, even under an
IFR flight plan that your instructor files, even though the instructor must
=be= PIC(*). However, you can =not= use this time as the time required under
61.65(d)(1). Though it's in your logbook as PIC (sole manipulator, or "Hands On
Time"), you were not PIC (Top Dog) on that flight. I know you didn't claim
this to be true; I state it for completeness.

You can also log PIC time if you are flying under VFR, under the hood, with the
instructor also acting as safety pilot, irrespective of who =is= PIC. This is
the case I believe you were referring to, and yes, if you and your instructor
agree that =you= (the student) are to be Top Dog on that flight, then the time
counts towards the time required under 61.65(d)(1). It might be the case that
you need to do this (for example, if the instructor's medical has lapsed, I
believe she can still give you required instruction, she just can't be Top Dog,
though this would require another current pilot in the back to act as safety
pilot, which is a required crewmember under the circumstances, which brings us
back to the pathological case referred to earlier). On the other hand, it is
also possible that the (current) instructor elects to act as Top Dog (and =be=
PIC), in which case though you could log HOT time (PIC time) you could not use
it as the time required under 61.65(d)(1). It might even be necessary (for
example, if your own medical has lapsed, though I think that in that case you
might not be able to log the time at all; 61.23 does not list "receiving flight
instruction" as an exception)

So, yes, you can make the time do double duty, but you need to read the regs
carefully. Remember, HOT time doesn't make you Top Dog, and being Top Dog
doesn't make you HOT.

Jose
==
(*) OK, there are pathological cases where a third person sitting in the back
could BE PIC, for now let's not go there.. oh, never mind, we already did. :)

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[[email protected]]

I'm not sure I buy that argument. Of course the regulation doesn't help
because it is not precise. The logging of instrument time make the distinction very
clear for "acting" PIC and "logging" PIC. FAR 61.65d1 says:

(d) Aeronautical experience. A person who applies for an instrument rating must have
logged the following:
(1) At least 50 hours of cross-country flight time as pilot in command, of which at
least 10 hours must be in airplanes for an instrumentairplane rating; and

There is no separate column in my logbook for time I acted as PIC (assumed to
be the same as your definition of "being PIC", "top-dog", "head-honcho", "the-big
fazootti", etc), vs. time that I logged PIC. In other words, the act of acting PIC
isn't logged... I'm sure this can be argued ad-nauseum both ways, but it just ****es
me off that the regulation-perverse FAA is so flippin' vaugue about the important
stuff.

I say if you're driving the plane that you're rated for (and can thus log PIC
time), it counts. Even in the spirit of the notion of logging time.... if it's
acceptable to log PIC time under the hood in VMC solely because you're driving, you're
still driving if it's clouds out.

Here we go..... :)

-Cory

Teacherjh
> wrote:
: >>
: This means that an instrument training XC trip, which is NOT on an
: instrument flight plan (you don't have an instrument rating yet so you can't
: file IFR as PIC) but is under the hood with an instructor as safety pilot,
: can be logged as PIC XC.......so you can make the same time do double duty.
: <<

: Well, sort of. You need to make this arrangement beforehand, because LOGGING
: PIC time and BEING PIC are two different animals, kind of like dolphin (the
: kind you eat) and dolphin (as in Flipper) are two different animals.

: You can =log= PIC time as a non-instrument-rated private pilot, even under an
: IFR flight plan that your instructor files, even though the instructor must
: =be= PIC(*). However, you can =not= use this time as the time required under
: 61.65(d)(1). Though it's in your logbook as PIC (sole manipulator, or "Hands On
: Time"), you were not PIC (Top Dog) on that flight. I know you didn't claim
: this to be true; I state it for completeness.

: You can also log PIC time if you are flying under VFR, under the hood, with the
: instructor also acting as safety pilot, irrespective of who =is= PIC. This is
: the case I believe you were referring to, and yes, if you and your instructor
: agree that =you= (the student) are to be Top Dog on that flight, then the time
: counts towards the time required under 61.65(d)(1). It might be the case that
: you need to do this (for example, if the instructor's medical has lapsed, I
: believe she can still give you required instruction, she just can't be Top Dog,
: though this would require another current pilot in the back to act as safety
: pilot, which is a required crewmember under the circumstances, which brings us
: back to the pathological case referred to earlier). On the other hand, it is
: also possible that the (current) instructor elects to act as Top Dog (and =be=
: PIC), in which case though you could log HOT time (PIC time) you could not use
: it as the time required under 61.65(d)(1). It might even be necessary (for
: example, if your own medical has lapsed, though I think that in that case you
: might not be able to log the time at all; 61.23 does not list "receiving flight
: instruction" as an exception)

: So, yes, you can make the time do double duty, but you need to read the regs
: carefully. Remember, HOT time doesn't make you Top Dog, and being Top Dog
: doesn't make you HOT.

: Jose
: ==
: (*) OK, there are pathological cases where a third person sitting in the back
: could BE PIC, for now let's not go there.. oh, never mind, we already did. :)

: --
: (for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Gary Drescher]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> You can =log= PIC time as a non-instrument-rated private pilot, even under
> an
> IFR flight plan that your instructor files, even though the instructor
> must
> =be= PIC(*). However, you can =not= use this time as the time required
> under
> 61.65(d)(1). Though it's in your logbook as PIC (sole manipulator, or
> "Hands On
> Time"), you were not PIC (Top Dog) on that flight.

But you don't have to have been PIC on the flight in order to use your
properly logged PIC time to meet the flight-experience requirements for a
certificate or rating (such as the PIC-time requirement set form in
61.65d1). As the sole-manipulator rated for the aircraft, a private pilot
who is not PIC can log IFR/IMC flight time as PIC time, according to
61.51e1i. And then, according to 61.51c1, the time so logged can be used to
meet the requirements to apply for a certificate or rating. (If 61.51c
didn't let you count the logged PIC time when the regs call for PIC time,
then what would be the point of being able to log it as such?)

--Gary

[Teacherjh]

>>
But you don't have to have been PIC on the flight [...]
As the sole-manipulator [...] a private pilot [...] can log IFR/IMC flight time
as PIC time, [...]. And then, according to 61.51c1, the time so logged
can be used to meet the requirements
<<

Hmmm... looking further back, 61.65(d) starts out "must have logged the
following: (1) at least 50 hours...

So, maybe you're right. In fact, I now think you are right. I learn something
new every day. I guess I'm done for today. :)

>> (a different post)
I'm sure this can be argued ad-nauseum both ways, but it just ****es
me off that the regulation-perverse FAA is so flippin' vaugue about the
important
stuff.
<<

I'm with you there!

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Richard Hertz]

"Fred" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Have you ever carefully studied what the regulations actually REQUIRE
> regarding the
> various experience requirements for an instrument rating?
>
> The XC requirement in particular, is one that oftentimes unnecessarily
adds
> to the cost
> of an instrument rating and delays getting it.
>
> According to the FAA, a pilot who already has a private pilot certificate
> and is
> RATED in the airplane, can log PIC time, even while receiving dual
> instruction.
>
> This means that an instrument training XC trip, which is NOT on an
> instrument flight plan (you don't have an instrument rating yet so you
can't
> file IFR as PIC) but is under the hood with an instructor as safety pilot,
> can be logged as PIC XC.......so you can make the same time do double
duty.
>
> Much instrument training is done this way, with the instructor acting as
> ATC.
> Most of your instrument training will be hood time. Do it on a XC using
> instrument
> navigation procedures and you can save as much as 20-30 hours or more of
the
> additional cost of having to do it over twice. (The rules do not say
SOLO
> XC
> the rules say PIC XC )



How do you come up with 20 to 30 hours?

Doing cross countries is no place to start learning IFR procedures. You
should spend time in a sim beforehand, then make your way to a plane. Your
proposal I think is something that most people are aware of. Thanks for the
"help."



>
> This means that most of your instrument time training can also be XC PIC
IF
> you
> arrange your flights carefully in regard to what the regulations require
and
> make
> your training part of an XC trip.
>
> (As a side note, this is a good way to get your training because you get
to
> plan all aspects of the flight from the standpoint of FLYING an instrument
> trip. Take-off, climb, enroute, approach and landing are all included.
> Just do them to instrument standards under the hood and for all practical
> purposes you are conducting an instrument flight.....and getting
> double duty out of your flight dollar.).
>
> There are a number of other rules that require certain amounts of flight
> time
> under varying conditions that usually are done one at a time, rather than
> meeting several requirements on one flight.
>
> If you look at your logbook, and study the regulations, you will see many
> instances
> of this.
>
> If you are just getting started flying, this might be a good time to
> CAREFULLY
> STUDY the rules and ask your flight instructor about how to combine as
many
> requirements on a flight as possible to make your learning experience more
> cost effective.
>
> If you are like most pilots, flying is expensive. Getting the most for
> your dolllar
> is important. KNOWING what the regulations REALLY require can save
> you a lot of money and get you on your way faster, without shortchanging
> your
> knowledge.
>
> Being organized and having knowledge of what the rules really say can save
> you a lot of money.
>
> Remember. If you have questions about the way the regulations are
> interpreted
> you can call your local FAA Flight Standards District Office and ask an
> Inspector.
>
> They are there to help you.
>
> P.S. You might like to read
> HOW TO TRAIN YOUR FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR
> http://webplus.locators.estates.co.uk/hint6.html#train
>
>
>
>

[Chris]

> wrote in message
...
> I'm not sure I buy that argument. Of course the regulation doesn't
> help
> because it is not precise. The logging of instrument time make the
> distinction very
> clear for "acting" PIC and "logging" PIC. FAR 61.65d1 says:
>
> (d) Aeronautical experience. A person who applies for an instrument rating
> must have
> logged the following:
> (1) At least 50 hours of cross-country flight time as pilot in command, of
> which at
> least 10 hours must be in airplanes for an instrumentairplane rating; and
>
> There is no separate column in my logbook for time I acted as PIC
> (assumed to
> be the same as your definition of "being PIC", "top-dog", "head-honcho",
> "the-big
> fazootti", etc), vs. time that I logged PIC. In other words, the act of
> acting PIC
> isn't logged... I'm sure this can be argued ad-nauseum both ways, but it
> just ****es
> me off that the regulation-perverse FAA is so flippin' vaugue about the
> important
> stuff.

In my logbook, there are columns for Captain, logbook holders operating
capacity and for PIC time.

Head honcho instructor goes down as captain, me goes in operating capacity
as P1/s ie supervised PIC and the time goes in PIC. It is an English logbook
and neatly sets out the various responsibilities.

[Fred]

"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
et...
>
> "Fred" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > Have you ever carefully studied what the regulations actually REQUIRE
> > regarding the
> > various experience requirements for an instrument rating?
> >
> > The XC requirement in particular, is one that oftentimes unnecessarily
> adds
> > to the cost
> > of an instrument rating and delays getting it.
> >
> > According to the FAA, a pilot who already has a private pilot
certificate
> > and is
> > RATED in the airplane, can log PIC time, even while receiving dual
> > instruction.
> >
> > This means that an instrument training XC trip, which is NOT on an
> > instrument flight plan (you don't have an instrument rating yet so you
> can't
> > file IFR as PIC) but is under the hood with an instructor as safety
pilot,
> > can be logged as PIC XC.......so you can make the same time do double
> duty.
> >
> > Much instrument training is done this way, with the instructor acting as
> > ATC.
> > Most of your instrument training will be hood time. Do it on a XC
using
> > instrument
> > navigation procedures and you can save as much as 20-30 hours or more of
> the
> > additional cost of having to do it over twice. (The rules do not say
> SOLO
> > XC
> > the rules say PIC XC )
>
>
>
> How do you come up with 20 to 30 hours?

The rules require 10 hours with an instructor. The rest can be PIC with
an instructor as safety pilot. 40-10 = 30. That adds up to 40 hours.

>
> Doing cross countries is no place to start learning IFR procedures. You
> should spend time in a sim beforehand, then make your way to a plane.
Your
> proposal I think is something that most people are aware of. Thanks for
the
> "help.">

Actually, I find a lot of pilots under the mis-impression that they have to
have
the 50 hours BEFORE they start the IFR or that the 50 hours has to be
separate
from the IFR training or in addition to it.

I would respectfully disagree that doing cross countries is no place to
start
learning IFR procedures.

I would suggest that cross countries are a very good place to start
learning them, to practice them, and to master them because this is what IFR
flying is all about, namely
using the plane for XC under acceptable weather conditions that are not VFR.

Flying IFR is not much different from flying VFR except that you are using
the gauges
instead of getting confused by looking at all the clutter on the maps and
looking
outside all the time.

IFR charts are easier to read, easier to interpret, and easier to navigate
with.

You learned how to navigate by pilotage for your private and you learned how
to
dead reckon, deal with lost procedures etc so you already know how to do
this.

The next step is to learn to control the plane more precisely and doing it
with the slight
additional workload of keeping up with your times, etas, etc is not much
more, IF you
have learned to PLAN properly in the first place.......

There is nothing wrong with practicing VFR XC when you feel like it, but if
you are interested in getting on with getting your skills up to the highest
level, as soon as possible, the sooner you learn the IFR procedures the
sooner you can use them and, within limits,
I would assert that you will be a safer pilot because of it.

An Instrument rating certainly brings your skills to a much higher precision
level
and the training makes you much more aware of weather, the limitations it
imposes,
and gives you more latitude in dealing with the problems that weather
presents
and certainly makes you a more precise pilot.

As you gain experience, hopefully your judgment gets better and better.

The reason that I like to teach IFR things on an XC is that

1. You have to plan the trip, in advance, very well. This means that you
have to
think about the trip more, BEFORE you leave the ground, so you can have a
low
stress, enjoyable flight. This is what you should be doing VFR, but the
IFR
routine enforces it more.

You have to consider the weather, terrain, winds, altitudes, etc a lot more,
which
you should on a VFR XC also.......but doing it IFR (or IFR under the hood in
training) gives you more practice, sooner, rather than later, so you learn
these
important skills earlier in the game.

That translates into thinking about setting up your frequencies ahead of
time, setting up your radios ahead of time, and setting up your COURSES
ahead of time, so mostly what you have to deal with is waiting for things to
happen. i.e. to get to an intersection and change the direction, fly your
new heading while maintaining your altitude and wait for the next heading or
altitude change.

Otherwise, all you have to do is keep the plane right side up, on heading
and on
altitude, and talk with ATC or your instructor and adhere to your
"clearance".

2. The basics of navigation remain the same, except that it is a lot easier
to navigate
with radios than it is to navigate by DR and pilotage, especially at night,
as well as,
being generally safer, because, you can get a positive fix from your radios,
whereas you
often cannot when flying VFR at every second of the flight.

When you learn this way, you reduce the overall problem to one of aircraft
systems
management and because you take things in the order that they happen and
learn to
expect them, you reduce a complex problem to something that comes in natural
stages
with a purpose.

This all reduces the problem to controlling the airplane within IFR
tolerances
+/- 100 feet and +/- 10 degrees of heading and you have almost the entire
flight
to practice this skill, so you get a lot of practice tracking the VOR,
intercepting
courses, and when you get to the other end, you get to make an approach,
which
for the most part, is just flying headings and maintaining altitude.

You need practice to get your skill level to stay within the altitude and
heading
tolerances. This is a good place to do it, because you don't have a lot of
distractions
and it has a purpose....ie.to get you to your destination.

Mastering the ability to stay ahead of the airplane means PLANNING.....which
means setting up your radios so you stay ahead of the airplane and wait for
them
to indicate you have reached a checkpoint, so you can do the next thing
required.

PLANNING is the essence of a stress free IFR flight and I have found that it
is most easily learned by doing......which is what IFR flying is all about.

When I was working on my instrument rating, I found that instructors usually
would
go out to teach a subject, such as intercepting a course, maintaining an
altitude,
flying an ADF course, or just holding heading and altitude, without having
another
purpose

Sure, I knew we were "going to practice IFR under the hood", but it didn't
have
the same purpose of actually going somewhere and it made it much more
difficult
for me to understand why each thing was important...so we didn't go through
the
PLANNING stage which is essential to building IFR skills quickly.

When I finally got to the XC stage, I had an additional burden of putting it
all together
and would continually forget to do things that needed to be done, well ahead
of time,
because in the incremental way I was taught, the crucial PLANNING OF THE
FLIGHT was neglected, because we were really not going anywhere......just
out to
the VOR across to the ILS and down for an approach.

This PLANNING is crucial when learning to fly IFR because you have to learn
to
stay ahead of the airplane. Going through the steps on an IFR XC gives
you a
lot more practice, it doesn't hit you so fast, so you have a little more
time to get
your flight stabilized, and is an overall better way to learn.

Also, if you need a break, just tell your instructor and let him fly for a
while.

(Remember. If you are RATED in the plane and you have agreed that you are
PIC in advance, you can still log the time. That's a privilege of being
Captain
and letting your instructor be your co-pilot, even if he is an instructor.
He still can
log the time also because he is an instructor. That is one of his
privileges.)

Another important part of the XC hood work is that you build up some
endurance
on a 2-3 hour flight.

In the beginning, IFR can be tiresome, so you need to build up the
endurance. When
you do it for real, and are really in the soup, you are in it until you
break out. You
can't just take the hood off. So you need to build up your endurance. The
more
practice you get the better you can tolerate it.

Last, this actually builds your overall skills very quickly.

You might like to read how one pilot did it at
http://10day.cjb.net
(When the page comes up, wait a moment for the popup which is the story
of David Sears, a candidate for the US Air Force Academy who wanted
an instrument rating on his resume for his Congressional interview. David
did it in 7 days of flying with 3 days when the weather was too bad to
fly.).

[Philip Sondericker]

in article et, Fred at
wrote on 10/6/04 9:17 AM:

> Have you ever carefully studied what the regulations actually REQUIRE
> regarding the
> various experience requirements for an instrument rating?
>
> The XC requirement in particular, is one that oftentimes unnecessarily adds
> to the cost
> of an instrument rating and delays getting it.

That's why I decided to do my instrument rating Part 141, thus eliminating
the XC requirement.

[Thomas Borchert]

Teacherjh,

> However, you can =not= use this time as the time required under
> 61.65(d)(1).
>

Huh? That's contrary to any other comment on this I have ever heard.
Logged PIC time is exactly what 61.65(d) (1) requires.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Dave]

What would you say is the best way to prepared for this with out going to
the flight schools classes.
( I live far enough away from there that if I make the trip I might as well
go flying, cuz I don't want to do it that often)
Apparently AOPA gave my name to Kings Schools and they had a salesman call
to see if they could sell me the DVD course.

I have been plodding through all the Gliems manuals. Any other ways? The
Kings school DVD's are another 1.5 hours of dual, they way I look at it, but
if they are super fantastic I guess I'll have to see about getting them.

--
Dave A
Aging Student Pilot
KFRG

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > In my experience the #1 time-delay comes from getting the written test
> done.
> > If/when I decide to go for my commercial I'm not going to even start
> taking
> > lessons until after I've done the written. Doing the same with my
private
> &
> > instrument would have saved me 3 calendar months on each. And in
general,
> > the fewer calendar months you spend training, the fewer hours you spend
in
> > the airplane fixing things you forgot from previous lessons.
>
> INDEED!
>
> -c
>
>

[Teacherjh]

>> Logged PIC time is exactly what 61.65(d) (1) requires.

Yup, you're right. I was reading the regs with half a brain. It usually
works, but this time.I used the wrong half.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[C Kingsbury]

It depends on what you need. I'm an information sponge and being 28 still
have the psychology of test-taking pretty fresh in my mind. All I needed was
practice and polishing to get the details right, so I used the Gleim
software for both my private and my instrument. It has a "learning" mode
where you go through the questions and it gives you an immediate explanation
of why your answer was right or wrong. Plus it keeps track of scores, so you
can see how you're doing. When you feel ready, it can do a full simulated
test session exactly like what you'll see in the test center.

I got most of my book learnin' from the Dogan book, and I was overall
pleased with it. Anything that the Gleim description or the book didn't make
clear I talked over with my instructor, and that took care of it. In the
end I got an 82, but by that point I simply wanted to pass and get the damn
thing over with as it was holding up my taking the checkride. I've taken
enough standardized tests to know what they do and do not measure
effectively.

Best,
-cwk.

"Dave" > wrote in message
news:KWa9d.741$Ua.470@trndny03...
> What would you say is the best way to prepared for this with out going to
> the flight schools classes.

[Richard Hertz]

"Fred" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
> et...
> >
> > "Fred" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > Have you ever carefully studied what the regulations actually REQUIRE
> > > regarding the
> > > various experience requirements for an instrument rating?
> > >
> > > The XC requirement in particular, is one that oftentimes unnecessarily
> > adds
> > > to the cost
> > > of an instrument rating and delays getting it.
> > >
> > > According to the FAA, a pilot who already has a private pilot
> certificate
> > > and is
> > > RATED in the airplane, can log PIC time, even while receiving dual
> > > instruction.
> > >
> > > This means that an instrument training XC trip, which is NOT on an
> > > instrument flight plan (you don't have an instrument rating yet so you
> > can't
> > > file IFR as PIC) but is under the hood with an instructor as safety
> pilot,
> > > can be logged as PIC XC.......so you can make the same time do double
> > duty.
> > >
> > > Much instrument training is done this way, with the instructor acting
as
> > > ATC.
> > > Most of your instrument training will be hood time. Do it on a XC
> using
> > > instrument
> > > navigation procedures and you can save as much as 20-30 hours or more
of
> > the
> > > additional cost of having to do it over twice. (The rules do not say
> > SOLO
> > > XC
> > > the rules say PIC XC )
> >
> >
> >
> > How do you come up with 20 to 30 hours?
>
> The rules require 10 hours with an instructor. The rest can be PIC with
> an instructor as safety pilot. 40-10 = 30. That adds up to 40 hours.

So you are saying that you can teach:

procedures, holds, approaches, procedures, performance instruments, control
instruments, timing, procedures, VOR tracking and interception, procedures,
unusual attitudes, partial panel, ILS approaches, procedures, etc all while
doing the cross countries?

How many students have you taught and how many have taken their checkrides?

You find that a small airplane cockpit is an appropriate classroom for
teaching IFR flying and procedures (while at the same time the student has
to fly and navigate)? I would respectfully suggest that a VFR pilot who is
flying cross country and learning how to fly by instruments is a little busy
and has little extra processing power to add the additional tasks of
learning what IFR flying is about.

I certainly agree that the pilot can do cross countries while training, but
it is not a good way to introcude concepts and learn.


>
> >
> > Doing cross countries is no place to start learning IFR procedures. You
> > should spend time in a sim beforehand, then make your way to a plane.
> Your
> > proposal I think is something that most people are aware of. Thanks for
> the
> > "help.">
>
> Actually, I find a lot of pilots under the mis-impression that they have
to
> have
> the 50 hours BEFORE they start the IFR or that the 50 hours has to be
> separate
> from the IFR training or in addition to it.
>
> I would respectfully disagree that doing cross countries is no place to
> start
> learning IFR procedures.
>
> I would suggest that cross countries are a very good place to start
> learning them, to practice them, and to master them because this is what
IFR
> flying is all about, namely
> using the plane for XC under acceptable weather conditions that are not
VFR.
>
> Flying IFR is not much different from flying VFR except that you are using
> the gauges
> instead of getting confused by looking at all the clutter on the maps and
> looking
> outside all the time.
>
> IFR charts are easier to read, easier to interpret, and easier to navigate
> with.
>
> You learned how to navigate by pilotage for your private and you learned
how
> to
> dead reckon, deal with lost procedures etc so you already know how to do
> this.
>
> The next step is to learn to control the plane more precisely and doing it
> with the slight
> additional workload of keeping up with your times, etas, etc is not much
> more, IF you
> have learned to PLAN properly in the first place.......
>
> There is nothing wrong with practicing VFR XC when you feel like it, but
if
> you are interested in getting on with getting your skills up to the
highest
> level, as soon as possible, the sooner you learn the IFR procedures the
> sooner you can use them and, within limits,
> I would assert that you will be a safer pilot because of it.
>
> An Instrument rating certainly brings your skills to a much higher
precision
> level
> and the training makes you much more aware of weather, the limitations it
> imposes,
> and gives you more latitude in dealing with the problems that weather
> presents
> and certainly makes you a more precise pilot.
>
> As you gain experience, hopefully your judgment gets better and better.
>
> The reason that I like to teach IFR things on an XC is that
>
> 1. You have to plan the trip, in advance, very well. This means that you
> have to
> think about the trip more, BEFORE you leave the ground, so you can have a
> low
> stress, enjoyable flight. This is what you should be doing VFR, but the
> IFR
> routine enforces it more.
>
> You have to consider the weather, terrain, winds, altitudes, etc a lot
more,
> which
> you should on a VFR XC also.......but doing it IFR (or IFR under the hood
in
> training) gives you more practice, sooner, rather than later, so you learn
> these
> important skills earlier in the game.
>
> That translates into thinking about setting up your frequencies ahead of
> time, setting up your radios ahead of time, and setting up your COURSES
> ahead of time, so mostly what you have to deal with is waiting for things
to
> happen. i.e. to get to an intersection and change the direction, fly your
> new heading while maintaining your altitude and wait for the next heading
or
> altitude change.
>
> Otherwise, all you have to do is keep the plane right side up, on heading
> and on
> altitude, and talk with ATC or your instructor and adhere to your
> "clearance".
>
> 2. The basics of navigation remain the same, except that it is a lot
easier
> to navigate
> with radios than it is to navigate by DR and pilotage, especially at
night,
> as well as,
> being generally safer, because, you can get a positive fix from your
radios,
> whereas you
> often cannot when flying VFR at every second of the flight.
>
> When you learn this way, you reduce the overall problem to one of aircraft
> systems
> management and because you take things in the order that they happen and
> learn to
> expect them, you reduce a complex problem to something that comes in
natural
> stages
> with a purpose.
>
> This all reduces the problem to controlling the airplane within IFR
> tolerances
> +/- 100 feet and +/- 10 degrees of heading and you have almost the entire
> flight
> to practice this skill, so you get a lot of practice tracking the VOR,
> intercepting
> courses, and when you get to the other end, you get to make an approach,
> which
> for the most part, is just flying headings and maintaining altitude.
>
> You need practice to get your skill level to stay within the altitude and
> heading
> tolerances. This is a good place to do it, because you don't have a lot
of
> distractions
> and it has a purpose....ie.to get you to your destination.
>
> Mastering the ability to stay ahead of the airplane means
PLANNING.....which
> means setting up your radios so you stay ahead of the airplane and wait
for
> them
> to indicate you have reached a checkpoint, so you can do the next thing
> required.
>
> PLANNING is the essence of a stress free IFR flight and I have found that
it
> is most easily learned by doing......which is what IFR flying is all
about.
>
> When I was working on my instrument rating, I found that instructors
usually
> would
> go out to teach a subject, such as intercepting a course, maintaining an
> altitude,
> flying an ADF course, or just holding heading and altitude, without having
> another
> purpose
>
> Sure, I knew we were "going to practice IFR under the hood", but it didn't
> have
> the same purpose of actually going somewhere and it made it much more
> difficult
> for me to understand why each thing was important...so we didn't go
through
> the
> PLANNING stage which is essential to building IFR skills quickly.
>
> When I finally got to the XC stage, I had an additional burden of putting
it
> all together
> and would continually forget to do things that needed to be done, well
ahead
> of time,
> because in the incremental way I was taught, the crucial PLANNING OF THE
> FLIGHT was neglected, because we were really not going anywhere......just
> out to
> the VOR across to the ILS and down for an approach.
>
> This PLANNING is crucial when learning to fly IFR because you have to
learn
> to
> stay ahead of the airplane. Going through the steps on an IFR XC gives
> you a
> lot more practice, it doesn't hit you so fast, so you have a little more
> time to get
> your flight stabilized, and is an overall better way to learn.
>
> Also, if you need a break, just tell your instructor and let him fly for a
> while.
>
> (Remember. If you are RATED in the plane and you have agreed that you
are
> PIC in advance, you can still log the time. That's a privilege of being
> Captain
> and letting your instructor be your co-pilot, even if he is an instructor.
> He still can
> log the time also because he is an instructor. That is one of his
> privileges.)
>
> Another important part of the XC hood work is that you build up some
> endurance
> on a 2-3 hour flight.
>
> In the beginning, IFR can be tiresome, so you need to build up the
> endurance. When
> you do it for real, and are really in the soup, you are in it until you
> break out. You
> can't just take the hood off. So you need to build up your endurance.
The
> more
> practice you get the better you can tolerate it.
>
> Last, this actually builds your overall skills very quickly.
>
> You might like to read how one pilot did it at
> http://10day.cjb.net
> (When the page comes up, wait a moment for the popup which is the story
> of David Sears, a candidate for the US Air Force Academy who wanted
> an instrument rating on his resume for his Congressional interview.
David
> did it in 7 days of flying with 3 days when the weather was too bad to
> fly.).
>
>

[Richard Hertz]

Buy an IFR prep course/dvd thing (new or on ebay) then sell it on ebay when
you are done. The King one seems to be pretty good about prepping you for
the knowledge test if you can make it through their cheesy antics.

Re-selling them makes the cost easier to manage.


"Dave" > wrote in message
news:KWa9d.741$Ua.470@trndny03...
> What would you say is the best way to prepared for this with out going to
> the flight schools classes.
> ( I live far enough away from there that if I make the trip I might as
well
> go flying, cuz I don't want to do it that often)
> Apparently AOPA gave my name to Kings Schools and they had a salesman call
> to see if they could sell me the DVD course.
>
> I have been plodding through all the Gliems manuals. Any other ways? The
> Kings school DVD's are another 1.5 hours of dual, they way I look at it,
but
> if they are super fantastic I guess I'll have to see about getting them.
>
> --
> Dave A
> Aging Student Pilot
> KFRG
>
> "gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > In my experience the #1 time-delay comes from getting the written test
> > done.
> > > If/when I decide to go for my commercial I'm not going to even start
> > taking
> > > lessons until after I've done the written. Doing the same with my
> private
> > &
> > > instrument would have saved me 3 calendar months on each. And in
> general,
> > > the fewer calendar months you spend training, the fewer hours you
spend
> in
> > > the airplane fixing things you forgot from previous lessons.
> >
> > INDEED!
> >
> > -c
> >
> >
>
>

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.ifr Richard Hertz <no one@no one.com> wrote:
: So you are saying that you can teach:

: procedures, holds, approaches, procedures, performance instruments, control
: instruments, timing, procedures, VOR tracking and interception, procedures,
: unusual attitudes, partial panel, ILS approaches, procedures, etc all while
: doing the cross countries?

Cross-countries are mostly straight-and-level (obviously). Very little
precision airwork is required. Most of the other stuff can be just as relevant for
VFR cross countries if one choses to do so (thorough weather briefings, V-airways, VFR
flight following, etc)

: You find that a small airplane cockpit is an appropriate classroom for
: teaching IFR flying and procedures (while at the same time the student has
: to fly and navigate)? I would respectfully suggest that a VFR pilot who is
: flying cross country and learning how to fly by instruments is a little busy
: and has little extra processing power to add the additional tasks of
: learning what IFR flying is about.

Absolutely. I would say that a fairly minimal amount of time is necessary to
get a VFR pilot's airplane handling up to IFR snuff (~5 hours or so). Just about
everything after that is reducing the 98% CPU utilization to do so down to about 5% so
that you've got some left over to do everything else that might come up. Knowledge
doesn't stick when you're saturated.

: I certainly agree that the pilot can do cross countries while training, but
: it is not a good way to introcude concepts and learn.

Useful to observe, but marginally useful if having them deal with everything
required during said cross-country saturates them.

-Cory


************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Mitty]

Club Cherokee (http://www.clubcherokee.com) at Minneapolis Crystal (KMIC) is
having an open house and pig roast for current and prospective members this
Saturday, October 16. We are a nonprofit corporation with 80+ members and seven
airplanes.

Open house starts at 2PM, free food at 4PM. If you or a friend are interested
in checking out the flying club option, we'd like to have you attend.

Check our web site for more information on the club and a map. Email
george(at)willowlane(dot)net with any questions. To make sure we have enough
free food, rsvp to weavertrading(at)att(dot)net.

[Scott]

I used the Gleim Audio CD's, Test Prep Software and Manual. I wasn't that
thrilled with the Audio CD's but the test prep software w/manual were
superb. After taking one section at a time and using the "Study Session"
feature, I was able breeze throught it fairly quickly. The software will
even emulate several test center formats so you can practice taking the test
as many times as you like until you feel comfortable.

PS I did try the King Tapes and while they do tranfer some knowledge I can't
stomach them for long at a time. Good luck.


"Dave" > wrote in message
news:KWa9d.741$Ua.470@trndny03...
> What would you say is the best way to prepared for this with out going to
> the flight schools classes.
> ( I live far enough away from there that if I make the trip I might as
well
> go flying, cuz I don't want to do it that often)
> Apparently AOPA gave my name to Kings Schools and they had a salesman call
> to see if they could sell me the DVD course.
>
> I have been plodding through all the Gliems manuals. Any other ways? The
> Kings school DVD's are another 1.5 hours of dual, they way I look at it,
but
> if they are super fantastic I guess I'll have to see about getting them.
>
> --
> Dave A
> Aging Student Pilot
> KFRG
>
> "gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > In my experience the #1 time-delay comes from getting the written test
> > done.
> > > If/when I decide to go for my commercial I'm not going to even start
> > taking
> > > lessons until after I've done the written. Doing the same with my
> private
> > &
> > > instrument would have saved me 3 calendar months on each. And in
> general,
> > > the fewer calendar months you spend training, the fewer hours you
spend
> in
> > > the airplane fixing things you forgot from previous lessons.
> >
> > INDEED!
> >
> > -c
> >
> >
>
>

[Scott]

I used the Gleim Audio CD's, Test Prep Software and Manual. I wasn't that
thrilled with the Audio CD's but the test prep software w/manual were
superb. After taking one section at a time and using the "Study Session"
feature, I was able breeze throught it fairly quickly. The software will
even emulate several test center formats so you can practice taking the test
as many times as you like until you feel comfortable.

PS I did try the King Tapes and while they do tranfer some knowledge I can't
stomach them for long at a time. Good luck.


"Dave" > wrote in message
news:KWa9d.741$Ua.470@trndny03...
> What would you say is the best way to prepared for this with out going to
> the flight schools classes.
> ( I live far enough away from there that if I make the trip I might as
well
> go flying, cuz I don't want to do it that often)
> Apparently AOPA gave my name to Kings Schools and they had a salesman call
> to see if they could sell me the DVD course.
>
> I have been plodding through all the Gliems manuals. Any other ways? The
> Kings school DVD's are another 1.5 hours of dual, they way I look at it,
but
> if they are super fantastic I guess I'll have to see about getting them.
>
> --
> Dave A
> Aging Student Pilot
> KFRG
>
> "gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > In my experience the #1 time-delay comes from getting the written test
> > done.
> > > If/when I decide to go for my commercial I'm not going to even start
> > taking
> > > lessons until after I've done the written. Doing the same with my
> private
> > &
> > > instrument would have saved me 3 calendar months on each. And in
> general,
> > > the fewer calendar months you spend training, the fewer hours you
spend
> in
> > > the airplane fixing things you forgot from previous lessons.
> >
> > INDEED!
> >
> > -c
> >
> >
>
>