First Instrument Lesson

Ted

Ted

The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
29,889
Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
**Content removed**
 
Last edited:
That was your FIRST IR lesson -- holds and approaches? Your instructor operates off a different syllabus than I do, and no wonder you had trouble with them. Email me if you want to talk about it.
 
Sounds complicated for a first IR lesson.

My 1st lesson I did Basic Attitude Instrument (BAI), Power Configuration Changes, Straight & Level, Turns, and scanning. Joe Areeda taught me. :D
 
I didn't see the complexity as being what caused me problems, more the wind (it would've been better to have started on a non-windy day) and me choosing the wrong heading. My basic hood work (which wasn't long ago) my instructor said was very good. He also knows that I tend to prefer a more challenging curriculum. I certainly didn't feel overwhelmed or overloaded, I enjoyed it. :)

But I am always interested to hear how others do/have done it and gain more perspectives. :)
 
Sounds like your CFI did a great job of showing you what you'd be doing throughout the instrument training you'll be doing.

Bravo to your CFI for not pussyfooting around and getting right to the meat. I bet your next lesson will be all basic attitude stuff.
 
SkyHog said:
Sounds like your CFI did a great job of showing you what you'd be doing throughout the instrument training you'll be doing.

Bravo to your CFI for not pussyfooting around and getting right to the meat. I bet your next lesson will be all basic attitude stuff.
Click to expand...
There's something to be said for starting with basics. Did your CFI teach steep turns on your first time up?

HPNFlyGirl said:
Sounds complicated for a first IR lesson.

My 1st lesson I did Basic Attitude Instrument (BAI), Power Configuration Changes, Straight & Level, Turns, and scanning. Joe Areeda taught me. :D
Click to expand...
This would be how it should start. Gotta learn to walk, first.
 
KennyFlys said:
There's something to be said for starting with basics. Did your CFI teach steep turns on your first time up?
Click to expand...
My discovery flight was hard IFR. I shot the ILS. I turned out OK
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I didn't see the complexity as being what caused me problems, more the wind (it would've been better to have started on a non-windy day) and me choosing the wrong heading. My basic hood work (which wasn't long ago) my instructor said was very good. He also knows that I tend to prefer a more challenging curriculum. I certainly didn't feel overwhelmed or overloaded, I enjoyed it. :)

But I am always interested to hear how others do/have done it and gain more perspectives. :)
Click to expand...

The Building Block approach is proven, but Scenario-Based Training has it's advantages (see FITS).

Starting with holds seems a bit excessive --there's plenty more to know and master before that.

Flying IFR isn't all about approaches and holds -- it's about mastering yourself and your airplane in a very disorienting situation, within two systems -- weather and ATC.

If anyone claims they've never experienced some disorientation in IMC, he/she is liar, lunatic, or Sky King.

Too much IFR training is about shooting approach after approach, when the biggest hurdle lies between our two ears.
 
Last edited:
KennyFlys said:
There's something to be said for starting with basics. Did your CFI teach steep turns on your first time up?
Click to expand...

Nope, but my first instrument lesson was all under the hood, some basic maneuvering, a hold, and terminating in an ILS to runway 22 at KAEG. I wish my instructor had gone more in depth with it like Ted's did, maybe I'd have been interested enough to finish my IR.
 
SkyHog said:
Nope, but my first instrument lesson was all under the hood, some basic maneuvering, a hold, and terminating in an ILS to runway 22 at KAEG. I wish my instructor had gone more in depth with it like Ted's did, maybe I'd have been interested enough to finish my IR.
Click to expand...
It should be under the hood. That's the whole purpose.
 
A more typical IR flight training syllabus will look something like this:
  1. Basic Instruments (Four Fundamentals and Six Configurations)
  2. Basic Radio Nav (VOR orientation/interception/tracking, and also ADF/GPS as appropriate)
  3. Advanced Radio Nav (PT's and Holding)
  4. Approaches
  5. XC Operations
  6. Test Prep
 
dmccormack said:
Lemme guess -- brought it in with two inches of clear ice, and the field was 200 RVR with 002 OVC??

You're a ^%$$ Genius, Gump!

:p
Click to expand...
He said it seemed like I really wanted to fly so he didn't want to make me wait. Most likely--he probably just needed some more ramen that day. I didn't really have any problems on the flight but it isn't like it was hour 1 for me.
 
I'm noticing a divide here.

CFIIs: "What?! No no no, this is the proper way to do it."
IR students: "Hey, I liked it this way and it got my interest."

(I say this without the intent of saying the CFIIs are being nagging, I know it is with the best interest of students in mind)

While both are very important, the second one is what leads to getting more people to fly. Granted, I am getting my instrument rating regardless of whether or not the process is particularly fun, but if it's fun and I enjoy it, then all the better. One thing I know about myself is that traditional, proven methods of teaching normally bore me.

Anyways, I did not want (and do not want) this to be a debate on things where eveyrone obviously has an opinion on and those differ. There are no doubt virtually infinite routes on how to become a proficient instrument pilot. Which one is "best" is also virtually infinitely debatable.

I'll ask that a moderator close this thread now, this was NOT the intention of my original post.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I'm noticing a divide here.

CFIIs: "What?! No no no, this is the proper way to do it."
IR students: "Hey, I liked it this way and it got my interest."

(I say this without the intent of saying the CFIIs are being nagging, I know it is with the best interest of students in mind)

While both are very important, the second one is what leads to getting more people to fly. Granted, I am getting my instrument rating regardless of whether or not the process is particularly fun, but if it's fun and I enjoy it, then all the better. One thing I know about myself is that traditional, proven methods of teaching normally bore me.

Anyways, I did not want (and do not want) this to be a debate on things where eveyrone obviously has an opinion on and those differ. There are no doubt virtually infinite routes on how to become a proficient instrument pilot. Which one is "best" is also virtually infinitely debatable.

I'll ask that a moderator close this thread now, this was NOT the intention of my original post.
Click to expand...

Before we shut this down, maybe we need to remember that, this is the never-ending conflict between two Good Things: "I want to Do Something Different/Cool/Awesome" VS "You Need To Master The Basics in Order to Do the Cool Things"

For an extended treatment of this theme, review The Karate Kid.

Seriously -- the only danger in letting the new IFR student "jump right in" is giving him/her a false sense of facility.

How many VFR pilots have Bought the farm because "I had plenty of that instrument stuff and I fly the gauges in Flight Sim..." or "This isn't so tough.."?

For a review of that syndrome, see the JFK Jr. NTSB report.

Anyway, that's my .02...

Oh.. and one more thing ("Yes, Detective Columbo?") -- get up into the clouds with your CFII as soon as possible. You'll have a whole new respect for the self control it takes to fly IMC (and put me down as one of "the hood don't cut it" crowd).
 
Last edited:
dmccormack said:
Oh.. and one more thing ("Yes, Detective Columbo?") -- get up into the clouds with your CFII as soon as possible. You'll have a whole new respect for the self control it takes to fly IMC (and put me down as one of "the hood don't cut it" crowd).
Click to expand...

I agree completely that real IMC is not the same as hood time. I prefer real IMC, actually. Yes, I have real IMC time.

Lesson number 2 in my PPL training:

Plane: PA-24-180
Airports: IPT-PIT-IPT
Total Duration of Flight: 2.7 hrs
Actual Instrument Time: 1.0 (really was more than that as per my recollection)

Reason: My (now ex) was flying into PIT and I was going to drive to pick her up. At the end of my first lesson, I was having so much fun I asked when the second lesson was, and he said "What're you doing tomorrow?" "Driving to Pittsburgh to pick up my fiancee at the airport" "Ok, let's fly there."

He only touched the controls on the entire flight to assist with takeoff, guide me through using the landing gear and prop, and then to guide me through landings. He said I did very well, especially given that it was my second lesson, period. My fiancee was having a blast as my passenger, sitting in back.

Before you say "He did WHAT?!", he was doing me a favor. 2.7 hours of flying vs. 8 hours of driving. We even used his plane for it.

I agree completely, there is the fun bit and there is the practical reality of having to master skills in order to do something, which is frequently less fun. Doesn't mean that the two necessarily have to be mutually exclusive, nor does it mean that you need to immediately jump into the boring parts to make the subject thoroughly uninteresting for the student.

If you want to debate this further, start a new thread, please.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I'm noticing a divide here.

CFIIs: "What?! No no no, this is the proper way to do it."
IR students: "Hey, I liked it this way and it got my interest."
Click to expand...
Wait, wait, before you close the thread I want to say that, again, it's a case of "know the student". Even though I have not met either you or Jesse I can sense that the two of you are the adventurous type who are comfortable with being plunged into new things. Other students might be overwhelmed and intimidated and never come back. Most times the CFI doesn't know the student well at the beginning of training, therefore it's a good idea for to take the conservative approach. At least that's my two cents.
 
My first two IFR training flights were the basics. Level, turns, climbs, descents, etc. The idea was to get the scan down plus control the airplane through the basic manueveers and configuration changes.

Did not start on holds or approaches until the stage check was completed for basic flying.

This was in a Cessna part 141 school.
 
The first five hours (approximately) should be devoted to learning basic attitude flying. Concurrently, you should be learning "the numbers" for the airplane you will be training in.

For example, you should be able to transition from cruise speed to approach speed without changing altitude or heading; you should be able to transition from approach speed to a given rate of climb or descent without changing airspeed or heading. That you should be able to make level turns without changing airspeed or altitude is a given.

How much of a power change is required to slow from 120 to 90? Can you do it without staring at the airspeed indicator? Do you know the number of degrees of pitch-up necessary to accomplish this task?

There are a number of books (including mine) that talk you through getting the numbers: Peter Dogan, Richard L. Taylor, Bill Kershner, Rod Machado.....

When I was an examiner, if an applicant's logbook showed multiple approaches from the first hour of training I fully expected a sloppy ride...and I was usually right. Not bad enough for a pink slip in most cases, but sloppy.

Bob Gardner
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I'm noticing a divide here.

I'll ask that a moderator close this thread now, this was NOT the intention of my original post.
Click to expand...
Awww, Ted. We all applaud you on your first lesson. Though it sounds like it really was your second.

Unintended consequences - you opened up a dialog on teaching/learning styles. Go with it. These discussions are good for all of us.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Awww, Ted. We all applaud you on your first lesson. Though it sounds like it really was your second.

Unintended consequences - you opened up a dialog on teaching/learning styles. Go with it. These discussions are good for all of us.
Click to expand...

Well said. I agree completely and hope this isn't sen as a "debate," but as a discussion.
 
In the spirit of discussion, not debate (I'm not qualified to debate on the subject):
As long as continued IFR lessons return to, and thoroughly cover the basics, and the student understands that they're about to start in the deep end just for the hell of it, then go back to the kiddie pool for a while, I don't see the harm in it.
I don't think it's better than starting with the first building blocks, but it's not necessarily harmful. I guess a key factor is that the student understand and accept what is going to happen.
The OP in this case is already a PP with some hood time- starting with some advanced stuff could be just a good test of aptitude and interest, and a generous bite of the carrot that will be dangled just out of reach later as the basics are covered.

This lesson reminds me a little of my first real VFR lesson- we didn't do any advanced maneuvers, but the CFI did say "I'm gonna show and tell you a lot today, but don't worry, you're not expected to retain it all right away". It was almost overwhelming, dealing with radios, navigation, etc while being caught up in just getting a feel for flying... but I was glad we did it that way, and I wasn't frustrated later when we started building the foundation the "correct" way.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I'm noticing a divide here.

CFIIs: "What?! No no no, this is the proper way to do it."
IR students: "Hey, I liked it this way and it got my interest."
Click to expand...

I think you'll find the divide exists more as:

1) I have over 1000 hours, you need to listen to the way I do stuff, its the only right way
2) I only have a few hours, but man, this seems to be sticking!

High hours doesn't have to equal pompous wand waving, but it sure tends to.
 
HPNFlyGirl said:
Sounds complicated for a first IR lesson.

My 1st lesson I did Basic Attitude Instrument (BAI), Power Configuration Changes, Straight & Level, Turns, and scanning. Joe Areeda taught me. :D
Click to expand...

I have to agree. How can you practice holds and approaches when you haven't yet mastered basic attitudes? My personal preference is to teach power settings, basic attitudes, climbs and constant speed descents, then pieces of the approach (intercepts, tracking, procedure turns, then holds) before ever attempting an approach with a student. And all that is mastered in the sim before we ever get into the airplane.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
CFIIs: "What?! No no no, this is the proper way to do it."

IR students: "Hey, I liked it this way and it got my interest."
Click to expand...

SkyHog said:
I think you'll find the divide exists more as:

1) I have over 1000 hours, you need to listen to the way I do stuff, its the only right way
2) I only have a few hours, but man, this seems to be sticking!
Click to expand...

I think that is how you perceive it, Nick. The reality, I believe, is more like Ted stated it. There are a very few "Aces of the Base" that have the natural ability to control the airplane without going through the basics first. For most, starting in with the advanced stuff just does not work.

High hours doesn't have to equal pompous wand waving, but it sure tends to.
Click to expand...

Not in the GOOD instructors.
 
Ted, nice meeting you yesterday, too bad I didn't get a chance to talk to you much. Good luck on your instrument training!
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Not in the GOOD instructors.
Click to expand...
I've try to remain humble with my students. A few times, I've said... "You're doing great! You don't need me." Though a student's wife once riding in back disagreed. :)

I do think it's humbling to let the student know how important the basics are and if it was tough for you, heck, tell them. I have no problem telling someone I was stumbling at that point as well but I got through it with persistence and a good instructor pacing me along the way.
 
skyflyer8 said:
Ted, nice meeting you yesterday, too bad I didn't get a chance to talk to you much. Good luck on your instrument training!
Click to expand...

Thanks, Kate! It was nice meeting you as well, sorry we didn't talk much. Hopefully we'll see eachother at Gastons, Osh, etc.
 
KennyFlys said:
I've try to remain humble with my students. A few times, I've said... "You're doing great! You don't need me." Though a student's wife once riding in back disagreed. :)

I do think it's humbling to let the student know how important the basics are and if it was tough for you, heck, tell them. I have no problem telling someone I was stumbling at that point as well but I got through it with persistence and a good instructor pacing me along the way.
Click to expand...

Absolutely -- it's both disarming and a confidence boost when you say "I remember how hard it was to do X -- and I still have to work at it!"

And in a new airplane, I'll say "Let's learn how this airplane behaves in slow flight.. I'm learning it along with you..."

My Comm CFI told me after the rating, "I was 3-5 hours ahead of you in the Bonanza, as I was learning that airplane along with you..."

He's got mucho hours and owns a C185 (BIG Taildragger). He knows how to fly.

Of course it depends on the student. If the student has little confidence, you need to exude it and help them acquire it through emulation.

Once again, more reasons why Flight Instructors must be students of human psychology and behavior -- not in the clinical sense, but in a practical, day-to-day working attitude.
 
I have no trouble with demonstration rides very early in the training process as an interest-piquer, but it must be recognized that little or no effective training occurs on them.
 
Ron Levy said:
I have no trouble with demonstration rides very early in the training process as an interest-piquer, but it must be recognized that little or no effective training occurs on them.
Click to expand...

I'd agree 100%. You might not draw much from them, but they're sure fun, probably for both the CFI and the student. That seems like enough to make it worthwhile for me.
 
write-stuff said:
I have to agree. How can you practice holds and approaches when you haven't yet mastered basic attitudes?
Click to expand...

Not very well, but that provides not only the motivation, but the proof that you need to master the basics to a much higher level.
 
my first instrument lesson was in actual IMC. I was all for it, as I wanted to get a taste of what I was training for. In the end, like Ron said, the experience was probably not the best training excercise but it certainly was a great experience for me to have.

keep it up Ted, hope to hear more about your instrument lessons!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top