pre-IFR training/preparation?

I will be starting IFR training soon and would like to minimize the pain /
maximize my learning potential.

Is there anything that recent (or not-so-recent) IFR students wish you
had done in preparation for training? (specific books to read, home
flight simulator)

A friend has invited me to tag along in the back seat during his lessons
and I have learned a great deal following along while looking at the
approach charts... I have found it an excellent way to become familiar
with alot of the terminology.

Thanks,

Is there anything that recent (or not-so-recent) IFR students wish you
had done in preparation for training? (specific books to read, home
flight simulator)

I'm also in the pre-IFR stage and would like to add the following question
to Jonathon's. Is there anything in particular to look for in an instrument
instructor (in addition to the criteria used when finding a private pilot
instructor)?

Thanks,
- Ray

Get an instructor that isn't afraid to get you into the clag... Seems
like I have been reading about some CFII's that don't want to get the
students up into the clouds... Why I don't know...

Other that that it is nice to have your 50 hours of x-country time in
before starting... Not required but it is something that you can do
ahead of time...

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
'79 Mooney 201 4443H

Ray wrote:
Is there anything that recent (or not-so-recent) IFR students wish you
had done in preparation for training? (specific books to read, home
flight simulator)


I'm also in the pre-IFR stage and would like to add the following question
to Jonathon's. Is there anything in particular to look for in an instrument
instructor (in addition to the criteria used when finding a private pilot
instructor)?

Thanks,
- Ray

Get the King's video course and watch it ALL the way through at least
three times (yes, three)... If you actually do that and work all the
problems in the book, you will be prepared for both your written and
the oral - there is a reason they stay in business decade after decade,
and that is results...
A good instructor is the next requirement, and really hard to find...
Like looking for a girlfriend, you are gonna have to keep trying until
you find the right one... Do not start out teaching yourself on a
simulator (a dunce for a student and a flaming incompetent for an
instructor is not a recipe for success) as all you will do is ingrain a
pile of really bad habits that are nearly impossible to break once
formed... Once you have an instructor have him/her set the protocol
for using the simulator...

Oh ya, and have fun...

Denny - who is looking for a break in his schedule to drag his carcass
off for the annual IFR refresher...

Ohhh, so I have an engine fire..
Lessee, where's the check list..
Hmmm, why is that red overvoltage light on..
Gee, the gyros have rolled over
And ATC says to remain clear of the bravo and expect further
instructions by 0378 Z
Golly why's that whistling sound getting louder..
And why is the heading gyro going around so fast

Jon Kraus wrote

Get an instructor that isn't afraid to get you into the clag... Seems
like I have been reading about some CFII's that don't want to get the
students up into the clouds... Why I don't know...

I'll tell you why Jon....As a 20,000+ hour former navy and retired
airline pilot who served as an instrument instructor in both services,
and has been an FAA authorized instrument instructor for 35 years...
I'm in charge of the training session...not ATC. I try my best to
maximize my student's lesson time as opposed to following ATC's
directions to keep me clear of other traffic. By using an enroute
VOR out in the sticks completely away from an airport and under VFR, I
can accomplish 2-3 times the number of holds and approaches in a given
period than I can under IFR control. I want to be able to allow the
student learn from his mistakes without incurring the wrath of ATC and
endangering other aircraft.
In the airline industry, we learned very early on that you did not have
to set foot in a B-747 in order to learn how to fly one, the simulator
is a much better training tool. The same holds true for instrument
training...the simulator is best followed by simulated instrument in
the aircraft.

Bob Moore
ATP B-727 B-707
Flight Instructor, Airplanes/Instrument
PanAm (retired)

Bob Moore wrote:

I'll tell you why Jon....As a 20,000+ hour former navy and retired
airline pilot who served as an instrument instructor in both services,
and has been an FAA authorized instrument instructor for 35 years...
I'm in charge of the training session...not ATC.
snip

Bob, with all due respect to your very impressive background (seriously), I
wanted to ask you to comment on something you didn't mention at all: How
flying in actual conditions differs from flying under a hood to a new
instrument student.

As a March '03 instrument rated pilot, I had the advantage of training in
a lot of actual instrument conditions. ATC at out class C approach
facility (Syracuse, NY) was *very* accommodating to my instructor's
requests while I practiced numerous holds, DME arcs, and published
approaches. Granted I never created a separation issue for ATC, so I
suppose my take on this might be skewed.

The point I wanted to make was that to me there was a big mental and
physiological difference between flying under the hood and flying in actual
conditions, thanks to how the "actual" clouds and precipitation tricked my
direct and peripheral vision.

Not *once* under the hood did I get spatially disoriented, most likely
because no matter how good the hood was at blocking the view, there was
always some type of peripheral clue that aided my spatial orientation.
The first few times in actual, though, I experienced a low-to-moderate case
of the leans. Those experiences and how I responded to them really helped
my confidence in actual from that point forward.

I can certainly appreciate the flexibility you as an instructor have when
you are VFR. But reading this and the IFR group over the last few years I
have seen more than a few threads where pilots who received their
instrument rating with little to no actual time immediately need to employ
a CFII to take them into the clouds. IMO this seems like a failing of
their instrument training.

From my very small corner of the world, I believe instrument students would
benefit tremendously from several hours of actual time, despite the fact
that the instructor doesn't have *as much* flexibility.

--
Peter







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Bob Moore wrote:

In the airline industry, we learned very early on that you did not have
to set foot in a B-747 in order to learn how to fly one, the simulator
is a much better training tool. The same holds true for instrument
training...the simulator is best followed by simulated instrument in
the aircraft.

Oh, one other comment: IMO your comparison of a 747 simulator training to
hood time is apples to oranges.

I have only been in a multi-million dollar simulator once, and I can say
that I have no problem believing you that a pilot could fly the simulator
for 100% of his/her training and transition to a real 747 with no problem.
Those simulators are incredible.

IMO, a $25 dollar hood does a mediocre job of replicating actual
conditions.

--
Peter







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Bob Moore wrote:
I'll tell you why Jon....As a 20,000+ hour former navy and retired
airline pilot who served as an instrument instructor in both
services,
and has been an FAA authorized instrument instructor for 35 years...
I'm in charge of the training session...not ATC. I try my best to
maximize my student's lesson time as opposed to following ATC's
directions to keep me clear of other traffic.

Translation - operating in actual under ATC control means you simply
can't do one-size-fits-all training. You have to be flexible, think on
your feet, work with ATC (rather than insisting that you are in
charge), and figure out how to maximize training value in a constrained
environment (meaning under ATC control). That's much harder than doing
it in the unconstrained environment (VFR in the sticks), and you simply
can't fully plan it. In other words - effectively instructing in
actual is MUCH harder than doing it under the hood, even if you don't
consider the additional degree of difficulty of needing to maintain
your own scan while teaching. The whole concept of preparing a
syllabus and sticking to it rigidly (which is the military and airline
way) goes out the window. To effectively utilize actual time, you wind
up having a different syllabus for each student.

Of course this means you must also have solid experience in the system,
become pretty good at predicting what is likely to happen, and
effectively brief your student on what to expect. Instruction in IMC
requires a much longer and more thorough ground briefing so the student
is prepared for what is coming.

Also, no matter what you do, and no matter how good you are, the fact
remains that you will need more total aircraft hours training in actual
than you will if you do it all under the hood in the sticks. It won't
be 2-3 times as much (that would take a pretty rigid instructor who
can't go with the flow) but it will be more.

No matter how you slice it, if you leave instruction in actual out of
the curriculum, you can get the student to the checkride in fewer hours
while demanding less from both the instructor and the student. There's
only one problem. You're not getting an instrument rating to fly
around under the hood, are you?

Operating in actual teaches you things that you're simply not going to
learn in a simulator or under the hood. Peter has already made some
valid points in that area, and I won't repeat them. But there are
others.

Operating in actual teaches you that it's not ceiling that's really
crucial on an approach, it's visibility (which, unlike ceiling, can't
be effectively simulated). It teaches you where the pitfalls are in a
low-vis circling approach - something you will NEVER learn flying under
the hood in CAVU. It teaches you to handle ATC when it's REALLY busy -
filing in CAVU won't. It teaches you to anticipate what's coming
(those ground briefing sessions are NOT wasted time) and how to be
prepared for it. It teaches you to deal with the twin hazards usually
associated with IMC - T-storms and ice. Really the list is too long to
cover everything. There is absolutely no validity to the idea that you
can consistently do a complete and valid instrument course without
exposure to actual IMC and turn out a pilot who can consistently
self-dispatch and operate in conditions below VFR minimums with a
reasonable margin of safety.

Michael

Bob,

I never had any problems doing multiple approaches, holds or whatever in
IMC after getting a clearance from ATC... Even pop-up clearances were
not a problem for me around here anyway... Basically they would clear
us for whatever we wanted to accomplish and then talk to them when were
were ready to move on... This of course is not in busy airspace...

I agree that the fancy full motion simulators are great for training the
Big-Iron but the Elite Sim we have to use is pretty useless unless you
program in some scenarios that you could not practice live..

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
'79 Mooney 201 4443H


Bob Moore wrote:
Jon Kraus wrote


Get an instructor that isn't afraid to get you into the clag... Seems
like I have been reading about some CFII's that don't want to get the
students up into the clouds... Why I don't know...


I'll tell you why Jon....As a 20,000+ hour former navy and retired
airline pilot who served as an instrument instructor in both services,
and has been an FAA authorized instrument instructor for 35 years...
I'm in charge of the training session...not ATC. I try my best to
maximize my student's lesson time as opposed to following ATC's
directions to keep me clear of other traffic. By using an enroute
VOR out in the sticks completely away from an airport and under VFR, I
can accomplish 2-3 times the number of holds and approaches in a given
period than I can under IFR control. I want to be able to allow the
student learn from his mistakes without incurring the wrath of ATC and
endangering other aircraft.
In the airline industry, we learned very early on that you did not have
to set foot in a B-747 in order to learn how to fly one, the simulator
is a much better training tool. The same holds true for instrument
training...the simulator is best followed by simulated instrument in
the aircraft.

Bob Moore
ATP B-727 B-707
Flight Instructor, Airplanes/Instrument
PanAm (retired)

"Jon Kraus" wrote in message
...
Get an instructor that isn't afraid to get you into the clag... Seems like
I have been reading about some CFII's that don't want to get the students
up into the clouds... Why I don't know...

Other that that it is nice to have your 50 hours of x-country time in
before starting... Not required but it is something that you can do ahead
of time...

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
'79 Mooney 201 4443H



I am not sure that I would want to go flying with an instrument student with
only one set of instruments, certainly not on a regular basis. It makes
more sense just to train under the hood at night when there are no visual
cues.

Mike
MU-2