Checkride next week...

david0tey

david0tey

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Mar 2, 2012
Messages
545
Location
Virginia
Display Name
Display name:
Fox-Three
Despite my best efforts to put off my checkride until after my funeral, it looks like it's time. A couple questions...

I'm flying a 2002 172SP with a KLN94 and a KAP140 autopilot. It (the autopilot) is temperamental on good days. One of the CFI's said the examiner is aware that it sucks and will allow me to just use the autopilot for heading and altitude holds. Simply put, if I am asked to do a coupled approach, I will fail. Does anybody have any experience with this setup? What am I missing?

Weather has always been my weakness. In your experience, how in depth do examiners go into weather depiction charts, surface analysis, etc? I feel like I can get a good picture of the overall weather using less conventional methods, but the symbols and coded language on charts (which were clearly designed in the early age of computers) have always bested me.

Thanks.
 
What type of check ride? Private pilot?

I don't know how much chart symbology is required today. For weather I'd think the meat and potatoes starts with TAFs and Metars. For about any check there is a plethora of practice info in the web, much of it free.

I like to grab the low hanging fruit, leave those top few for the birds. The more in the weeds you get, at least know where to look up the info.
 
sourdough44 said:
What type of check ride? Private pilot?

I don't know how much chart symbology is required today. For weather I'd think the meat and potatoes starts with TAFs and Metars. For about any check there is a plethora of practice info in the web, much of it free.

I like to grab the low hanging fruit, leave those top few for the birds. The more in the weeds you get, at least know where to look up the info.
Click to expand...

Sorry; Instrument checkride.
 
Well, you could always ask MX to disable and placard the autopilot….and if it's truly temperamental (rather than just hard to use), that's completely legit.

Or use a 172 that doesn't have one. Though it's kinda rare to find one with a KLN94 but not an autopilot. 430Ws are everywhere. And at least one guy I know is going into the check ride with no GPS at all (that takes cojones in this airspace).
 
With regards to the weather stuff my DPE was really in depth with weather especially icing. He asked my to pull up prog charts and surface analysis charts and asked me to explain them. It all depends on the examiner though.
 
Placard the auto pilot inop,if you have confidence with your hand flying abilities. Study up on your weather charts.
 
Inop the AP. Have mx pop and collar the breaker or whatever, no biggie. Frankly for a initial IFR you should'nt need it anyways.
 
Explain the situation to the DPE. You may not even have to INOP it. And if you try to do so when it is really operational, it probably won't wash anyway, since he'll want to see the logbook entry if he's really doing his job.

My experience FWIW: my STEC 20 + VSS System 60 is only good for tracking a course once you're already within 10-20 degrees or so of it. That's normal STEC behavior for non-precision VOR or LOC-based approaches, but even on LNAV approaches where it's driven by the GPS, it can't do 90 degree turns and still stay established. So there's no way I could do a fully coupled approach though it's a useful workload reducer. I talked with my DPE, and it turned out he had no intention of asking me to do a coupled approach anyway. He said he was more interested in my hand-flying skills "at this level" (his words). In the end he allowed me to use it at one point during the ride in lieu of him taking the controls (since I had a genuine glitch with the HSI that needed resolving, and he offered to take the yoke while I figured it out), but otherwise the A/P was off.
 
david0tey said:
Simply put, if I am asked to do a coupled approach, I will fail.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. My plane has a coupled autopilot...but it was slightly outta whack in GPPS mode during my IFR check ride. DPE asked if it could do coupled approaches...knowing that could be in the cards..I answered "in theory it does coupled approaches but the times I have tested it I would have landed in the hangars so I only use and trust and use the autopilot in manual heading mode with altitude holds"

He was perfectly fine with me knowing the limitations of the equipment and not putting the safety of my flight in the hands of something that I considered temperamental and it did not warrant an INOP as it worked great in heading mode.

And FYI...If you INOP anything in the plane that could be used for IFR, expect them to verify it in the log books with a log entry. DPE said they are calling out a lot of students for INOPing equipment that is really fine.
 
Last edited:
So I just talked to the examiner and he told me a few things.

1. I need to bring proof of completion of a home study ground school course? I used the Gleim book and the Sporty's DVD's but there is no certificate that I know of to prove it.

2. I need to be able to intercept an airway. I'm not sure if he specified whether it had to be with the GPS or just with VOR radials.

3. I need to be able to hold at an intersection. That seems like it might be a little harder than just at any old waypoint or VOR but I don't think I will have too much trouble.


Any last minute advice?
 
david0tey said:
So I just talked to the examiner and he told me a few things.

1. I need to bring proof of completion of a home study ground school course? I used the Gleim book and the Sporty's DVD's but there is no certificate that I know of to prove it.

2. I need to be able to intercept an airway. I'm not sure if he specified whether it had to be with the GPS or just with VOR radials.

3. I need to be able to hold at an intersection. That seems like it might be a little harder than just at any old waypoint or VOR but I don't think I will have too much trouble.


Any last minute advice?
Click to expand...
2 and 3 are fair game but I've never heard of needing to present proof of completing a ground school course at the checkride. You need an endorsement to take the written, and that can be from your ground instructor or from one of the home study courses, but all you need for the checkride is your paperwork from the written showing you passed.

Something doesn't sound right there...
 
I believe the issue with home study ground school is that there are specific items that a CFI must endorse that they taught you. If those aren't in the logbook from your "flight" CFII, you need one from the "ground" CFII.

(And a smart "flight" CFII will still go over them all with you and may elect to "re-endorse" those items since they can't really trust that you did receive instruction in all of those items without having covered them personally themselves.)

When I used Gleim there was an online system that allowed for a phone call from one of their staff CFIIs after the self study and a graded test where they went over what you did and asked if you had any questions and then they sent you a collection certificate endorsed by that staff CFII.

When I flew with Jesse later, he still went over all of the required items for endorsement for the check ride as ground school time and made sure I really knew those items prior to adding additional endorsements of his own to my logbook and endorsing for the check ride.

As far as the A/P goes... I elected to simply tell the examiner that I wouldn't trust my Cessna 200 A/P with its innate ability to fly "turns across a course" with my life or my passenger's lives. I said I would be willing to MAYBE use it in a life-threatening situation as a wing-leveler and even then, I doubt it could do the job properly and I'd need to be in dire fear of death to even attempt it.

Examiner laughed and said ok but not much more. About halfway through the flight he had me switch it on and set it properly and watched me fight against it for about 60 seconds and said "turn that thing off and never use it again". He apparently agreed with my assessment of the venerable piece of crap's flying capabilities.

Whether you could have a similar discussion about a modern A/P and have the DPE understand, is a risk you don't have to take, and can have it marked INOP and disabled of course, but I suspect that generally most DPEs understand that some of our GA A/Ps are just junk and have problems.

In my case the DPE essentially met the requirements of his rules... He still had me demonstrate the use of everything on board including the A/P, but turning mine on probably also qualified as points toward avoiding unusual attitudes.

I don't think I've even ever mentioned the A/P thing, even to Jesse. It's such a non-event in my airplane to know the A/P is as likely to kill you as to help you that it wasn't even an event I gave a second thought to how the DPE handled it. In the end, they want you to be a safe pilot and they aren't going to make you fly a dangerous A/P. Flying one that's got a malfunction that you can manage around, maybe.

In the end, it's you that keeps the airplane on the course that is desired and the shiny side up. If the A/P gets in the way, kill the POS and fly the damn airplane.

Whether that meets current "guidance" I have no frakking idea. But I know I've tried playing with mine and It'll hold a course very poorly in non-turbulent conditions with lots of S-turning, and it'll barely hold a localizer if activated once things are pretty stable. Since it doesn't have elevator trim control at all, I don't have to even worry about it being able to do that.

It's not INOP but it doesn't fly any better than it did when it left the factory in 1975. Probably slightly worse since the ailerons are slightly heavier in a Robbie kitted 182. That's probably why it chases more than it should. And back then, the STC was approved but probably should have had a limitation on keeping the weak servos of the factory A/P. If anyone could even get a Robbie style STC through the process today, it'd probably have a bunch of limitations on it like removal of the A/P or testing that the new aileron rigging didn't affect any installed A/P adversely via flight test. Who knows?

Anyway. Don't stress the A/P use. Just be prepared to override it and remain pilot in command if it isn't flying the aircraft safely. IMHO, anyway.
 
Oh. Intersection holds. Your instructor should have taught them.

They're not too awful if you get up to speed on them and personally I think they're a shortcut a DPE can use to determine if your head is really in the game.

Think about it. If you can set up a random intersection hold, or any hold made up out of random, and nail it, they can be reasonably assured you can fly a depicted one on a chart.

See where that is leading? Go nail those down and know they're your ticket out of "doing holds" and on to the rest of the ride, which is stuff that is a lot more fun than flying holds. :) (Even for the examiner.)

Examiners don't have some of the leeway they did in the past on many things, but I have a friend who nailed an ADF approach in some god awful tail and cross wind and had an examiner look over and tell him to land and taxi in. He thought he busted. On the ground the examiner said anything else he would have thrown at him would have been easier and there was no point if he just nailed that ridiculous NDB approach. Handed him his pass papers and told him to have a nice rest of the day.

Here's a generality that usually holds but not always: Instructors start easy and work your way up to things. Examiners start hard and see if you just have it right in your head.

They of course can ask you to do anything and everything necessary for the ticket and some might even ask more and use it as a learning session (and I know that's not current "guidance" but they do like to teach or they wouldn't be in the job) , but they'll always go right to the hard stuff if they can make it work that way in the order they want to organize the flight exam. Do your best to nail the difficult stuff and the examiner's thoughts start to turn away from looking for a reason to fail you and more toward making sure you've covered everything needed and are making good decisions.

^^ those are all just generalities of course. You can always find a tougher or easier examiner and it can even be the same guy or gal on different days of the week.

But definitely get random made up or "intersection" holds down. Most examiners need to use them to keep you out of the way of other traffic while maneuvering anyway. If he's hinting that you need to do it, it's because he probably has a specific intersection in mind that'll keep you out of everyone else's way while he's watching to see if you enter and go around the laps correctly.
 
MAKG1 said:
And at least one guy I know is going into the check ride with no GPS at all (that takes cojones in this airspace).
Click to expand...

Huh. I did my IR check ride in San Diego without a GPS.....didn't realize my testicles were so large.
 
denverpilot said:
I believe the issue with home study ground school is that there are specific items that a CFI must endorse that they taught you. If those aren't in the logbook from your "flight" CFII, you need one from the "ground" CFII.

(And a smart "flight" CFII will still go over them all with you and may elect to "re-endorse" those items since they can't really trust that you did receive instruction in all of those items without having covered them personally themselves.)

When I used Gleim there was an online system that allowed for a phone call from one of their staff CFIIs after the self study and a graded test where they went over what you did and asked if you had any questions and then they sent you a collection certificate endorsed by that staff CFII.
Click to expand...
Right, but AFAIK all of that is done prior to the written - you need an endorsement from a CFII or ground school in order to take the written. Since you have to present a report from the written at your checkride, it seems redundant for the DPE to be asking for a completion certificate from a ground school. Of course they'll check your logbook to be sure you had an endorsement for the written and that all of the required areas were covered since that stuff is spelled out in 61.65, and that applies to both ground training and flight training. But I've never heard of a DPE requiring a ground school completion certificate if the CFII endorsed you for the written. And if he didn't, and the OP didn't have a certificate from the study course, then how was he able to take the written?

I never had such a certificate, only an endorsement from my CFII (before my first time taking the written, not the second), and that was enough for my DPE.

The only other consideration might be if the OP did his training under Part 141, but in that case I think there would typically be an integrated ground school in the program, since Part 141 programs are usually all-in-one. But I don't know if that's necessarily true.
 
Thanks all. I did obviously get an endorsement from an instructor that I had mastered the ground school portion to take the written. I will double check with the examiner but I think with that and all training required by 61.65 I should be ok.
 
You need 3 endorcements from your CFII.. Can't remember what they are. I only know that because my CFII had no idea (I was his first). I had to call him in and he ended up getting his butt slightly chewed up by DPE.
 
Passed! I was honestly embarrassed at how poorly I flew but I guess it wasn't bad enough! Now on to really learning and making myself a better instrument pilot.
 
Congratulations! I'm just starting to read the IR books and already breaking out in sweat at all the stuff.
 
Timmer said:
Congratulations! I'm just starting to read the IR books and already breaking out in sweat at all the stuff.
Click to expand...

Obtaining the knowledge just takes time. Putting it into practice under the stress of a checkride was the difficult part. My advice is to do a couple mock checkrides prior to the real one. I was used to having 60 miles to get prepared for an approach, where on a checkride you have three approaches at airports within 15 miles of each other.
 
david0tey said:
Passed! I was honestly embarrassed at how poorly I flew but I guess it wasn't bad enough! Now on to really learning and making myself a better instrument pilot.
Click to expand...
Yeah, everyone feels that way after the IR checkride. You've got the right attitude!

P.S. Congratulations! :cheers:
 
david0tey said:
Obtaining the knowledge just takes time. Putting it into practice under the stress of a checkride was the difficult part. My advice is to do a couple mock checkrides prior to the real one. I was used to having 60 miles to get prepared for an approach, where on a checkride you have three approaches at airports within 15 miles of each other.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice. Even just reading about all the different clearances and instructions I can see that a lot of the practice is just being ahead of the plane and procedures so you can keep everything straight :)

Again, congratulations and enjoy the clouds :goofy:
 
Timmer said:
Thanks for the advice. Even just reading about all the different clearances and instructions I can see that a lot of the practice is just being ahead of the plane and procedures so you can keep everything straight :)

Again, congratulations and enjoy the clouds :goofy:
Click to expand...

Don't worry about the book knowledge and getting approaches down. That's the easy part in my experience. You'll be surprised how quickly things make sense. I'm 15 hours in and we've already covered every kind of approach the plane can do (including NDB, etc.), VOR/GPS navigation, and different kinds of holds. You'll find that approaches are much easier then they look once you get the fundamentals down.

The thing that's going to be most frustrating is getting your crosscheck down and keeping the plane where you want it with all aspects of flight (pitch, bank, speed, power, timed turns, etc.) while also having to lean over and type crap in your GPS or write a clearance down. The workload can get intense.

One thing I've learned is that when I get my own plane, it will dang sure have an A/P. It must be nice to be able to flip it on, hold a heading/altitude, and brief an approach.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top