Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I use ?

Roy,

Now comes my question, what will I be allowed to use on my instrument
checkride ?

The FAA has recently changed its attitude on this. The key point is that you
will have to be able to use everything that's there. So you need to be
proficient in autopilot and Garmin use. OTOH, the examiner can declare broken
whichever equipment he wants to. That depends a lot on the mindset of the
examiner, and your CFII should be familiar with the quirks of the examiners in
the area.

I am assuming that the examiner will want the 530 switched off at some stage
for at least one ILS approach, while using the KX170B + GS Indicator ?

I guess so, too. OTOH, mine (in Germany) wouldn't let me program the 430 for
the approach, but he would still allow me to have the simple map display with
ground speed and track (yeah!).

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Do they still require single VOR holds be demonstrated? I'd expect the
autopilot to be declared INOP as soon as the prop turns; it isn't
required equipment for IFR operations on a Dakota. If the instructor
spent more than an hour on showing how the autopilot coupling system
works, then something is wrong. Students aren't encouraged to use
coupled autopilots during training are they?



-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Borchert ]
Posted At: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 7:29 AM
Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
Conversation: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use
?
Subject: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use ?

Roy,

Now comes my question, what will I be allowed to use on my
instrument
checkride ?

The FAA has recently changed its attitude on this. The key point is
that
you
will have to be able to use everything that's there. So you need to be
proficient in autopilot and Garmin use. OTOH, the examiner can declare
broken
whichever equipment he wants to. That depends a lot on the mindset of
the
examiner, and your CFII should be familiar with the quirks of the
examiners in
the area.

I am assuming that the examiner will want the 530 switched off at
some
stage
for at least one ILS approach, while using the KX170B + GS Indicator
?

I guess so, too. OTOH, mine (in Germany) wouldn't let me program the
430
for
the approach, but he would still allow me to have the simple map
display
with
ground speed and track (yeah!).

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Jim,

If the instructor
spent more than an hour on showing how the autopilot coupling system
works, then something is wrong.

I think you got that wrong. What could be better than to learn about
autopilot use from an instructor. Would you prefer to have the student
figure it out on his own? Why?

Students aren't encouraged to use
coupled autopilots during training are they?

As I said: The FAA's attitude on that has changed, and rightly so,
IMHO. They adapt to the fact that more and more GA planes have
autopilots, and that many accidents could be prevented if only the
pilots knew how to use them beyond "hold the plane straight and level"
mode. The Kennedy accident comes to mind as a perfect example.

So, to answer your question: Yes, in a current training environment,
students are encouraged to ALSO use coupled autopilots during training,
if the aircraft is so equipped. I said "also", as in: in addition to
hand flying. The FAA requires you to be able to use all eqipment in the
aircraft and the PTS calls for a focus on autopilot usage if the plane
is so equipped.

IFR flying is not a macho contest about who can fly in the soup with
the fewest instruments...

FWIW, here in Germany, single pilot IFR requires an operational
two-axis autopilot. One of the few country-specific regulations here
that make sense to me.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Tom, et al,
I'm not advocating against autopilots at all, but I am
suggesting that the student should not learn to rely on an autopilot. A
check ride should test the student's ability to handle emergency
situations. If the student can handle the emergency by demonstrating
proper understanding, technique, and execution of the procedures you can
rest assured he or she can handle the tasks when everything is spinning
properly.

I would be surprised if it took more than an hour in the
aircraft to demonstrate the proper procedures for using an autopilot,
hence my statement about it taking more than an hour. An autopilot is
one of those things where a lot of classroom work and mockup work can be
done to really reduce the time spent in the aircraft.

I have never been in favor of a student making extensive use of
autopilots during training because it relieves them of a lot of the
multitasking work. Practicing workload management when things aren't all
there to help the student is one of the benefits of having an instructor
in the other seat. Learning instrument flying by spending more than just
a little time coupled to the box is not the best use of the student's
time or the instructor's skills.

I don't agree with Germany's regulations on single-pilot IFR
operations, but those decisions are often made for political
expediencies. Single-pilot IFR is not an unmanageable task if the pilot
understands his or her limitations, the limitations of the equipment
being used, and has a reasonable set of personal minimums. Taking these
decisions away from the pilot by mandating use of a 2-axis autopilot may
be popular, but should not be necessary.

Demonstrating that a student can fly a typically one-hour check
ride by hand is not a macho task. There will typically not be more than
one or two holds, three or four approaches, and some partial panel
unusual attitudes. Although a typical instrument flight won't involve
all of these elements in a one-hour period, this scenario is still very
real world.


-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Borchert ]
Posted At: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 8:26 AM
Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
Conversation: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use
?
Subject: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use ?

Jim,

If the instructor
spent more than an hour on showing how the autopilot coupling system
works, then something is wrong.

I think you got that wrong. What could be better than to learn about
autopilot use from an instructor. Would you prefer to have the student
figure it out on his own? Why?

Students aren't encouraged to use
coupled autopilots during training are they?

As I said: The FAA's attitude on that has changed, and rightly so,
IMHO. They adapt to the fact that more and more GA planes have
autopilots, and that many accidents could be prevented if only the
pilots knew how to use them beyond "hold the plane straight and level"
mode. The Kennedy accident comes to mind as a perfect example.

So, to answer your question: Yes, in a current training environment,
students are encouraged to ALSO use coupled autopilots during
training,
if the aircraft is so equipped. I said "also", as in: in addition to
hand flying. The FAA requires you to be able to use all eqipment in
the
aircraft and the PTS calls for a focus on autopilot usage if the plane
is so equipped.

IFR flying is not a macho contest about who can fly in the soup with
the fewest instruments...

FWIW, here in Germany, single pilot IFR requires an operational
two-axis autopilot. One of the few country-specific regulations here
that make sense to me.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Jim Carter writes:

Demonstrating that a student can fly a typically one-hour check
ride by hand is not a macho task. There will typically not be more than
one or two holds, three or four approaches, and some partial panel
unusual attitudes. Although a typical instrument flight won't involve
all of these elements in a one-hour period, this scenario is still very
real world.

One could argue that any IFR flight without an operational autopilot
is an emergency, in which case the only type of IFR flight that one
would need to verify without autopilot would be landing at the nearest
airport. Although it apparently is not done this way in most
jurisdictions now, I can see the logic in doing so. Essentially it
would amount to little more than increasing the number of functional
instruments required for IFR flight.

I don't personally agree with legislating this, but basing testing on
this assumption isn't necessarily unreasonable.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mxsmanic ]
Posted At: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 6:23 PM
Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
Conversation: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use
?
Subject: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use ?

Jim Carter writes:

Demonstrating that a student can fly a typically one-hour check
ride by hand is not a macho task. There will typically not be more
than
one or two holds, three or four approaches, and some partial panel
unusual attitudes. Although a typical instrument flight won't
involve
all of these elements in a one-hour period, this scenario is still
very
real world.

One could argue that any IFR flight without an operational autopilot
is an emergency, in which case the only type of IFR flight that one
would need to verify without autopilot would be landing at the nearest
airport. Although it apparently is not done this way in most
jurisdictions now, I can see the logic in doing so.


One could argue that posting opinions of IFR requirements should require
significant real, IFR experience too.

It amuses me that so much of what was done 30 years ago, with less
accurate technical toys is today seen as macho and Herculean. Single nav
radio holds? Full ADF approach? Cross country without a moving map or
GPS? Single-engine, night IFR? There are way too many opinions about the
lack of safety of these practices by people who have little or no
experience with them.

Of course everyone must know their personal and equipment limitations. I
just have a problem with setting the limits based on the least competent
-- sort of like my problem with our public schools teaching to the
lowest common denominator rather than expecting excellence as the
standard.

I'm really going to upset the apple cart now when I suggest that landing
at the nearest airport isn't always the best choice in any situation.
Even with a blown piston or swallowed valve, the engine can often get
you someplace better than the closest airport. It always makes more
sense to plan and execute a solution rather than just jumping to
conclusions based on what the least skilled have decided we should do.

An autopilot may be on someone's personal list of minimum equipment for
IFR, but that doesn't mean it should be a mandate for all of us.



--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Jim Carter writes:

It amuses me that so much of what was done 30 years ago, with less
accurate technical toys is today seen as macho and Herculean. Single nav
radio holds? Full ADF approach? Cross country without a moving map or
GPS? Single-engine, night IFR? There are way too many opinions about the
lack of safety of these practices by people who have little or no
experience with them.

It's not so much that they are unsafe as that they are unnecessary.

Maybe you could fly a 747 across the country with just a compass and a
map. I don't see any technical obstacle to it offhand. But would you
really want to, when there are so many technical aids to safe
navigation? If all the fancy gadgets fail, is it better to cancel the
flight until the gadgets are fixed, or press on with just the compass?

People lived with simpler instrumentation. But more of them died,
too. Why take the risk?

Indeed, you don't really _need_ IFR. People used to fly without it.
They used to fly without ATC. A lot of the time they survived.
Sometimes they didn't. The current opinion, though, is that the
losses were unacceptably high in those days, and so the risks that
were accepted then cannot be accepted now.

I'm really going to upset the apple cart now when I suggest that landing
at the nearest airport isn't always the best choice in any situation.
Even with a blown piston or swallowed valve, the engine can often get
you someplace better than the closest airport.

Better in what sense? With a failing engine, how could a distant
airport be better than a nearby airport? A lot of pilots die because
they want someplace "better" than the nearest airport, and then their
luck runs out before they find that ideal spot.

It always makes more sense to plan and execute a solution rather
than just jumping to conclusions based on what the least skilled
have decided we should do.

I try to follow the path of least risk. Or more specifically, I try
to manage the risk/benefit ratio. It's hard to see the benefit of
staying in the air with a bad engine. What's wrong with landing and
fixing the problem?

An autopilot may be on someone's personal list of minimum equipment for
IFR, but that doesn't mean it should be a mandate for all of us.

I don't think anyone should be compelled to use an autopilot if he's
flyingon his own. However, I would want an autopilot for IFR flight,
otherwise--at least in my estimation--the aircraft really isn't
suitable for IFR flight.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Jim Carter" wrote in news:000901c7141a$5c8da380
$8202a8c0@omnibook6100:

It amuses me that so much of what was done 30 years ago, with less
accurate technical toys is today seen as macho and Herculean. Single
nav
radio holds? Full ADF approach? Cross country without a moving map or
GPS? Single-engine, night IFR? There are way too many opinions about
the
lack of safety of these practices by people who have little or no
experience with them.

It's not the equipment that's the weak link in the safety factor MOST of
the time.....

It's the human factor addressing the extra workload and undivided
attention that's the weak link in the safety of single engine, night IFR,
or hard IFR operations.

I have done both hard IFR with and without an IFR certified GPS.
Obviously a successful outcome for both situations, but given my
druthers, GPS direct sure is easier then flying VOR to VOR.

Of course everyone must know their personal and equipment limitations.

And this is where lies the safety of IFR or any type of flying we do.

Equipment failures happen, but more often then not, it's the human error
that bites us in the rear end.

I'm really going to upset the apple cart now when I suggest that
landing
at the nearest airport isn't always the best choice in any situation.
Even with a blown piston or swallowed valve, the engine can often get
you someplace better than the closest airport.

I'd have to respectfully disagree with the above having been through a
partial engine failure.

First, the suddeness of onset catches you off guard.

AVIATING, going through the emergency procedures AND THEN getting the
plane set up for best glide NAVIGATING evaluating whether I can make the
field, getting in touch with ATC COMMUNICATING (I called into 121.50 as I
was not using ATC services),

You do not know what is the problem causing the severe vibration, nor do
you know if the fan will stop in front of you. For me, the engine ate an
exhaust valve, and my oil loss was minimal. After all my trouble
shooting, I had no clue what was happening to my plane.

When things go to crap like it did for me, my first look / see was for a
farm field. Once I evaluated I had enough altitude and power to make it
to my destination (which by the way was the nearest airport) I stuck to
my decision to press on to the airport (16 LONG miles).

This decision was made based on a 200 fpm loss of altitude with what
little power I had, and ALWAYS keeping an off aiport site front and
center of my attention should I lose everything. I was at 3,500 when
things went south with the cylinder.

By the time I had descend down to 3000, I had figured I had 15 minutes
flying time and my GPS had 12 minutes ETE with the field elevation of a
whopping 40 feet.

It always makes more
sense to plan and execute a solution rather than just jumping to
conclusions based on what the least skilled have decided we should do.

Absolutely agree with the above, but when something goes as dramatically
wrong as losing one piston operating under the cowling, nearest is best.

The severe vibration brought on by losing a cylinder can easily snowball
into something else to catastrophically fail, and pressing on past a
perfectly useable landing site is a reckless decision in my opinion.

An autopilot may be on someone's personal list of minimum equipment for
IFR, but that doesn't mean it should be a mandate for all of us.

Agree, since I do not have autopilot and have flown 2 1/2 hours in IMC
with the last hour at night.

Like you said above, it's highly dependent on personal limitations AND
equipment. I have my own plane, so I know what is behind the
maintenance. Even with that knowledge doesn't mean the next flight will
be the demise of my vacuum pump, but with the training I have had, it
shouldn't be that big a deal. Been through one of those during a night
flight and it was a non event. Of course, that was easy compared to IMC,
but it happens.

Allen

Jim Carter wrote:


It amuses me that so much of what was done 30 years ago, with less
accurate technical toys is today seen as macho and Herculean. Single nav
radio holds? Full ADF approach? Cross country without a moving map or
GPS? Single-engine, night IFR? There are way too many opinions about the
lack of safety of these practices by people who have little or no
experience with them.

I started flying IFR in 1958. I started instructing IFR the next year.

I went with a major airline in early 1964 and continued a lot of light
aircraft flying for the next 12 years.

Prior to 1965, or so, I never flew a light aircraft with an autopilot.
The first really good light aircraft autopilot I used extensively was a
Bendix (or Motorola) M4C in an Aerostar 600.

I mention my air carrier experience because it was an autopilot world at
crusie in my earlier years. The autopilots were not good enough for
climb out or descent (it was easier to hand fly in those phases of
flight). The later generation autoflight systems were excellent for all
phases of flight.

So, my point? When it was a VOR/DME/ILS world it was quite manageable
for a competent pilot to fly a stable light aircraft without an
autopilot. In fact, like the early airline jets the early light
aircraft autopilots were basically wing levelers with some heading
control (sometimes).

But, now we are evolving into a space-based navigation system with the
complexities of nav databases and, in the case of panel mount light
aircraft in particular, difficult (from a total human-factors systems
management standpoint) to input and manage nav data.

During the past 10 years, or so, light aircraft autopilots have improved
greatly. The use of such a current generation autopilot makes the
management of the complex space-based navigation system, especially as
it is implemented in light aircraft, much more manageable and, thus,
much more safe.

In VMC, without the autopilot, the single pilot on an IFR flight plan
using RNAV cannot maintain an adequate traffic watch. In IMC trying to
juggle all the balls is asking for loss of situational awareness.

An autopilot may be on someone's personal list of minimum equipment for
IFR, but that doesn't mean it should be a mandate for all of us.

It should be mandated for single-pilot normal IFR operations in today's
environment. That doesn't mean the pilot should let his hand-flying and
partial panal skills deteriorate. Speaking of partial panel, that did
not apply in jet transport operations and it does not apply to a G-1000
equipped light aircraft.

So, we are in transition in a very fundamental sense.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Carter writes:


Demonstrating that a student can fly a typically one-hour check
ride by hand is not a macho task. There will typically not be more than
one or two holds, three or four approaches, and some partial panel
unusual attitudes. Although a typical instrument flight won't involve
all of these elements in a one-hour period, this scenario is still very
real world.


One could argue that any IFR flight without an operational autopilot
is an emergency, in which case the only type of IFR flight that one
would need to verify without autopilot would be landing at the nearest
airport. Although it apparently is not done this way in most
jurisdictions now, I can see the logic in doing so. Essentially it
would amount to little more than increasing the number of functional
instruments required for IFR flight.

Sure, ignorant people make all sorts of stupid arguments.

Matt