Cross Country Instrument

[2nd505th]

I just finished my cross country instrument. it was 6.5 hrs, 5 in the air and about an hour in actual and bumpy in those cumulus all the way. I wish I could say it went better. We did 4 approaches and 3 times I busted minimums. One time I thought I could descend on the ILS because I was on it but not yet at the FAF and got warned (me the old man here who just can't listen). In all I thought this was the most difficult thing I have ever done. My reason for posting is wondering if this is also one of the most difficult flights you have ever done. Maybe it is because I'm old, stupid and slow, still sick in my stomach and yet I know I want to conquer this thing.

 

[Jim K]

I just finished my cross country instrument. it was 6.5 hrs, 5 in the air and about an hour in actual and bumpy in those cumulus all the way. I wish I could say it went better. We did 4 approaches and 3 times I busted minimums. One time I thought I could descend on the ILS because I was on it but not yet at the FAF and got warned (me the old man here who just can't listen). In all I thought this was the most difficult thing I have ever done. My reason for posting is wondering if this is also one of the most difficult flights you have ever done. Maybe it is because I'm old, stupid and slow, still sick in my stomach and yet I know I want to conquer this thing.

How many hours of instrument training do you have? My instrument xc went pretty well and I felt like I gained a lot of valuable experience, but by the time we did it I had over 35 hours of training and was pretty good at approaches. We also only did 4 hours in the air, and took a 30min or so break at the farthest airport. I was pretty beat by the time we got home. 6.5 hours is a LONG time to be flying under the hood in one day.

Busting minimums is something you'll definitely have to fix. Putting the power back in 100' above works for me. I usually wind up about 50' above in level flight. Remember the standard is +100/-0. You can descend on an ILS whenever you have the glideslope, just make sure your altitude checks at the FAF.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Jim asks a good question. How far into the training are you? Too early and you are still learning. And unless one sees what you are doing, it's difficult to know whether comments are constructive. But in any event...

Avoiding busting minimums due to turbulent conditions takes a different level of control. We are taught to be gentle when we pressure the controls and make only small throttle changes. But with turbulence, these adjustments need to be more aggressive. We still don't want to go crazy, but we need to find the level that works for the conditions.

Thinking you are in position to descend when you are not is often one (or more) of three possible issues. Chart reading skills. Situational awareness. Staying ahead. They often work in combination. Doing it correctly and smoothly involves a chart briefing which a mental picture of the sequence from where you are to the runway from the plan view, not just the numbers. Then knowing where you are in that sequence and anticipating the next step well in advance. The famous 5Ts, used as a briefing for what comes next, rather than what you are doing now, can be a good learning tool.

 

[luvflyin]

I just finished my cross country instrument. it was 6.5 hrs, 5 in the air and about an hour in actual and bumpy in those cumulus all the way. I wish I could say it went better. We did 4 approaches and 3 times I busted minimums. One time I thought I could descend on the ILS because I was on it but not yet at the FAF and got warned (me the old man here who just can't listen). In all I thought this was the most difficult thing I have ever done. My reason for posting is wondering if this is also one of the most difficult flights you have ever done. Maybe it is because I'm old, stupid and slow, still sick in my stomach and yet I know I want to conquer this thing.

I’m going to guess not many will say yeah, that’s what mine was like. Those were pretty intense conditions. You got a lot of experience on that flight. Hang in there. I to am wondering like @Jim K , what stage in your training are you at.

 

[2nd505th]

Well I had 18.1 hrs of training total including the 3 from VFR. Some of that not really recent either. Of recent consistent training i have about 10 hours, plus this xc now.

 

[PaulS]

Ok, I need some help here. If you are on the ILS, you don't worry about being exactly at the FAF, when you intercept you descend IF you are cleared for the approach. Now there are caveats, but you didn't mention any so I assume you were at the proper altitude and somewhat near the FAF. Unless you intercepted a false GP.... I think I need more explanation.

 

[ja_user]

I believe he means he was on the Localizer portion of the ILS, not following the glideslope down. I could be wrong.

 

[2nd505th]

Here is what happened. At RYY ILS RWY 27 it says 3000 before you can descend on the the GS at albrs. However, way back at cffhv I was aligned for the 273 degree approach and at 4000 which is where ATC had me. I'm now thinking they said to intercept but maybe did not clear me. But I started to gradually descend because I was aligned and thought it was mine to do as I wanted to and so I headed for 3000 and when I got to about 3500 I got a firm "what in the world are you doing son - I got other airplanes out there". Oops. All I could think of is because you are dealing with an idiot sir!

 

[Jim K]

I'm guessing I would've had the same experience if I tried my xc at 10 hours. We didn't even start discussing it until about 30 hrs in.

I'm also guessing you weren't cleared for the approach at RYY, if you were it would've been acceptable to descend to 3000. I was taught, and I agree with, the theory that you don't descend until you are on the glidelope, assuming you are on the localizer and not way too high. That way you have your descent rate dialed in by the time you cross the FAF and you only have to make small adjustments. Looking at the chart i can understand why you did what you did, just have to be careful that you get the golden words 'cleared for the approach'. Otherwise the last vector/altitude you got stands.

Definitely have your CFII take you on some more xc's once you get closer to your 40 hours....I think you will find them much more productive. We did about 5 hours of just attitude flying, about 20 hours of shooting approaches & holds, and then started doing more enroute and xc stuff. I'm scheduled to do my checkride on the 31st, and I'm still not perfect, but it gets easier.

 

[PaulS]

Here is what happened. At RYY ILS RWY 27 it says 3000 before you can descend on the the GS at albrs. However, way back at cffhv I was aligned for the 273 degree approach and at 4000 which is where ATC had me. I'm now thinking they said to intercept but maybe did not clear me. But I started to gradually descend because I was aligned and thought it was mine to do as I wanted to and so I headed for 3000 and when I got to about 3500 I got a firm "what in the world are you doing son - I got other airplanes out there". Oops. All I could think of is because you are dealing with an idiot sir!

Ok, you need more experience, not a big deal, but I'm wondering where your instructor was while you did this. You have to stay at your assigned altitude until you are told otherwise, or you are cleared for the approach. That's a very important part of flying instruments, if you cause a loss of separation then you will have an issue or worse. On this flight your instructor would have been in trouble.

Don't worry about XC yet, that's easy stuff. Get competent at approaches and make sure you understand the rules. When you are competent at approaches, filing, departures, then do another XC.

On my long XC, we went on a winter day, around 3 pm, landed in HFD, then TEB, From TEB we went to RUT (Rutland VT). It was dark by the time we got to Rutland and it was snowing. (FIKI plane). We landed at RUT, then took off into a 1,000 foot ceiling. It was on that flight that I realized how important not only approaches were, but departure procedures, or more importantly ODPs, I got off the ground and could not see the large mountains nearby.

I was a little slower than most (more hours) but I got a lot of good experience with an instructor who would fly in most conditions.

 

[chemgeek]

I would recommend having a discussion with your CFII about ATC expectations of flying approaches and enroute ops. The terminology and procedures are quite predictable. One of the basic principles is that while under ATC direction (approach vectors or enroute) you do not vacate an altitude or heading directive without a clearance. In the case of approach evironment ops, you will either be cleared to follow a published transition or will be directed via vectors. (The latter is more likely in busy airspace.) If you are cleared to fly a published transition, you will conform to the published track and altitude limitations. If being vectored, you will not assume your own navigation until you hear the magic words"...X miles from XXX, maintain X thousand until established, cleared for the XXXX approach..."

If ATC forgets about you completely (it happens occasionally during practice approaches or a clusterbonk of traffic) and you are are on a vector to intercept the localizer, if you don't hear the magic words, you continue right through the localizer at the last altitude and heading. If you can get a word in edgewise, you might call up approach to see if they forgot you, but you don't strike out on your own.

Keep at it. At first, learning how to use the ATC system while flying the airplane is like drinking from a waterfall, but most pilots will get there with practice.

 

[frfly172]

You need to have a long discussion with your instructor ,it shouldn’t have gotten to the point of ATC having to correct you.

 

[Hang 4]

Look at the profile view of that approach. Notice that CFFHV isn't on it. First at or above altitude is OPVEW. Unless approach controller gave you a new altitude, you weren't cleared to descend.

 

[Jim K]

Look at the profile view of that approach. Notice that CFFHV isn't on it. First at or above altitude is OPVEW. Unless approach controller gave you a new altitude, you weren't cleared to descend.

I'm no expert, but the way I read it is that IF you are CLEARED for the approach, you could descend to 3000 if you are anywhere on the bold line from DLUTH to OPVEW, which would include on the localizer inside of CFFHV.

 

[chemgeek]

I'm no expert, but the way I read it is that IF you are CLEARED for the approach, you could descend to 3000 if you are anywhere on the bold line from DLUTH to OPVEW, which would include on the localizer inside of CFFHV.

If ATC assigned you an altitude, you fly that altitude. When ATC clears you for the approach, they will normally give you an altitude restriction until established. Even if you are flying along a published transition route, unless ATC cleared you to fly that route as published, you don't get to choose your own altitude. If on vectors, you are on a short leash until told otherwise.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I'm now thinking they said to intercept but maybe did not clear me.

Could be. "Intercept the Localizer" and "join the approach" (funny, I posted a video where that happened this past week) are lateral only instructions. Only "cleared for the approach" allows automatic descent on published segments.

 

[Jim K]

If ATC assigned you an altitude, you fly that altitude. When ATC clears you for the approach, they will normally give you an altitude restriction until established. Even if you are flying along a published transition route, unless ATC cleared you to fly that route as published, you don't get to choose your own altitude. If on vectors, you are on a short leash until told otherwise.

Agreed. But I've also gotten 'proceed direct xxxxx, cleared for the xxxxx approach', giving me free reign to descend as published. Not uncommon going into nontowered fields. Also, in my admittedly limited experience, only once or twice has the altitude restriction I've been given NOT been the published altitude for the segment of the approach I'm told to join.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Agreed. But I've also gotten 'proceed direct xxxxx, cleared for the xxxxx approach', giving me free reign to descend as published. Not uncommon going into nontowered fields. Also, in my admittedly limited experience, only once or twice has the altitude restriction I've been given NOT been the published altitude for the segment of the approach I'm told to join.

Yep. That's the way it works.

 

[chemgeek]

Agreed. But I've also gotten 'proceed direct xxxxx, cleared for the xxxxx approach', giving me free reign to descend as published. Not uncommon going into nontowered fields. Also, in my admittedly limited experience, only once or twice has the altitude restriction I've been given NOT been the published altitude for the segment of the approach I'm told to join.

I think it would be very unusual to be cleared direct to an approach fix without an altitude restriction. If previously cleared to an IAF and then cleared for the approach from there along a published route, that would be different. If on vectors (most likely case for the OP) you don't get to roll your own altitude, even if you are tracking along a published route.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I think it would be very unusual to be cleared direct to an approach fix without an altitude restriction. If previously cleared to an IAF and then cleared for the approach from there along a published route, that would be different. If on vectors (most likely case for the OP) you don't get to roll your own altitude, even if you are tracking along a published route.

Permitted, yes. Uncommon, yes, although probably less so than a cruise clearance to the destination.

Using this example, if the aircraft is inbound 40 nm northeast of OPUXY at 4,000', all ATC has to say is "proceed direct OPUXY; cleared for the approach," and the pilot would be authorized to descend to 3100 when 30 NM northeast of OPUXY, down to 3,000 when 8 NM northeast of OPUXY, drop to 2300 after crossing OPUXY, etc. I think it's importat we understand this.

But the recommended phraseology for this scenario in the ATC bible is, “Cleared direct OPUXY, maintain at or above four thousand until entering the TAA, cleared RNAV Runway One-Eight Approach." There are other variations on the theme but while a "naked" "cleared for the approach" technically covers it, most controllers I've heard will combine it with an altitude until..." for clarity.

(The pilot/controllers on the Opposing Bases podcast actually discussed this a few episodes ago)

 

[KeepWatch]

Using this example, if the aircraft is inbound 40 nm northeast of OPUXY at 4,000', all ATC has to say is "proceed direct OPUXY; cleared for the approach," and the pilot would be authorized to descend to 3100 when 30 NM northeast of OPUXY, down to 3,000 when 8 NM northeast of OPUXY, drop to 2300 after crossing OPUXY, etc. I think it's importat we understand this.
View attachment 88949

Full disclosure, I'm still learning. But I thought I had to be on a published segment of the approach, meaning on a bold line somewhere, and cleared for that approach to descend without being specifically authorized. In your example, you're using the MSA depiction to descend which is not on a bold line and not considered a published segment of the approach. I thought those were only for emergency use and situational awareness of obstacle clearance in the area.

Thanks for mentioning the podcast. I'm going to check that out.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Full disclosure, I'm still learning. But I thought I had to be on a published segment of the approach, meaning on a bold line somewhere, and cleared for that approach to descend without being specifically authorized. In your example, you're using the MSA depiction to descend which is not on a bold line and not considered a published segment of the approach. I thought those were only for emergency use and situational awareness of obstacle clearance in the area.

Thanks for mentioning the podcast. I'm going to check that out.

That's not a MSA. It's a TAA - "Terminal Arrival Area." It is considered a published segment of the approach. The AIM reference is 5-4-5.d. You will also find a good discussion of TAAs in the Instrument Flying Handbook.

Don't worry about the "still learning" disclosure. TAAs are still new enough many already rated instrument pilots were not exposed to them. For that reason I almost always get into them when I give an IPC, sometimes on the ground and sometimes in the air. And the pilots in my very unscientific sample usually do not understand them. Sometime not very well, but sometimes not at all.

 

[chemgeek]

Permitted, yes. Uncommon, yes, although probably less so than a cruise clearance to the destination.

Using this example, if the aircraft is inbound 40 nm northeast of OPUXY at 4,000', all ATC has to say is "proceed direct OPUXY; cleared for the approach," and the pilot would be authorized to descend to 3100 when 30 NM northeast of OPUXY, down to 3,000 when 8 NM northeast of OPUXY, drop to 2300 after crossing OPUXY, etc. I think it's importat we understand this.

But the recommended phraseology for this scenario in the ATC bible is, “Cleared direct OPUXY, maintain at or above four thousand until entering the TAA, cleared RNAV Runway One-Eight Approach." There are other variations on the theme but while a "naked" "cleared for the approach" technically covers it, most controllers I've heard will combine it with an altitude until..." for clarity.

(The pilot/controllers on the Opposing Bases podcast actually discussed this a few episodes ago)

View attachment 88949

Agreed. But all bets are off if being vectored to the final approach course. At my local airport in the sticks, I get cleared to the IAF "at or above..." as in your second example, and I think that eliminates any confusion.

 

[KeepWatch]

That's not a MSA. It's a TAA - "Terminal Arrival Area." It is considered a published segment of the approach. The AIM reference is 5-4-5.d. You will also find a good discussion of TAAs in the Instrument Flying Handbook.

Don't worry about the "still learning" disclosure. TAAs are still new enough many already rated instrument pilots were not exposed to them. For that reason I almost always get into them when I give an IPC, sometimes on the ground and sometimes in the air. And the pilots in my very unscientific sample usually do not understand them. Sometime not very well, but sometimes not at all.

Thanks for the great info! I did think it was odd that an MSA sector would have have "NoPT" written on it. Good stuff!

 

[midlifeflyer]

Thanks for the great info! I did think it was odd that an MSA sector would have have "NoPT" written on it. Good stuff!

While we're on the subject, another perhaps interesting factoid (since you mentioned MSA) is, if the TAA cover 360, there won't be an MSA, since it would be redundant. So, for example, side by side here are snips of two versions of the same ILS approach. If you want to look at them in full, they are the ILS Y and ILS Z to runway 3 at KTTA, my home base (I'd probably find one one in your area if I knew where it is). One difference between them is the Y approach has a TAA (and requires GPS) and no MSA; the Z approach does not have a TAA and there is an MSA.

 

[chemgeek]

That's not a MSA. It's a TAA - "Terminal Arrival Area." It is considered a published segment of the approach. The AIM reference is 5-4-5.d. You will also find a good discussion of TAAs in the Instrument Flying Handbook.

Definitely good reading. One fine distinction (5-4-5.d.5.a?), which is what I was thinking of in my initial response, is that clearance direct to the IF or IAF without approach clearance does not imply you can descend to the TAA altitude. The magic words are "cleared for the approach."

Good discussion.

 

[KeepWatch]

FWIW, in the last 3 months I studied for and took the IR knowledge test, did most of my required hood time, and passed an IR checkride. I was today years old when I heard about TAAs for the first time.......

It was on my check ride that I heard about T-routes. They're not even shown in the knowledge test supplement. But the DPE wasn't "teaching me", he was "informing me."

 

[midlifeflyer]

The magic words are "cleared for the approach."

Always.

 

[midlifeflyer]

FWIW, in the last 3 months I studied for and took the IR knowledge test, did most of my required hood time, and passed an IR checkride. I was today years old when I heard about TAAs for the first time.......

It was on my check ride that I heard about T-routes. They're not even shown in the knowledge test supplement. But the DPE wasn't "teaching me", he was "informing me."

That's the great thing about forums like this. Yes, you have to verify, but we all learn here.

 

[Boone]

But the recommended phraseology for this scenario in the ATC bible is, “Cleared direct OPUXY, maintain at or above four thousand until entering the TAA, cleared RNAV Runway One-Eight Approach."

I’ve never heard it quite that way. Is that language used in your area?

 

[midlifeflyer]

I’ve never heard it quite that way. Is that language used in your area?

It is one of the recommended phrasings from the 7110.65. Basically the TAA equivalent of "maintain 4000 until on a published segment..." No, the language I usually hear in either case is the common, "maintain [hard altitude] until [fix]. Like pilots, controllers like to do things in a consistent way, and the non-TAA phrasing is the same as they use in multiple situations. TAAs are as new to them as to us,

 

[Bill Watson]

Thinking about the rest of your cross country, it sounds like you may have done a bunch of cloud busting in order to get some turbulent IMC time. That’s what I ended up doing on my cross country on an otherwise VFR day. It was a bit stomach churning and exhausting in a non-AP equipped Maule.

But I do very little of that kind of flying these days. Generally there is little reason to bust convective clouds on purpose. With Nexrad there’s little reason to accidentally bust storm clouds. With a capable AP it certainly is less exhausting even if I decide to hand fly the turbulence because I can give it back to the AP for a break in the smooth stuff.

Sometimes taking a vector through some active Cumulus is the best way to proceed (for ATC’s sake) but not very often. In the SE US I stay above cloud base, between the towering Cus and a healthy distance from blow ups. Most of the actual IMC is in stable stratus type clouds.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro