Flight plan for instrument practical

Salty

Salty

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
13,418
Location
FL
Display Name
Display name:
Salty
Would you stick to airways and VOR's for navigation even if you had a GPS available, or just pick a good route, say one that's been accepted a lot in foreflight even if it's not on any airways?

No matter the answer to the last question, is a DPE looking to see a nav log that could be used for dead reckoning?

Just curious what people do and examiners expect.
 
It doesn't matter much. It's a conversation item to test your chart/plate knowledge so I did a short route with an (ILS) approach half way, an airways leg then GPS back to the RNAV approach initial then home field. I laid it out in FF and I didn't do a nav log.

The DPE had a handy low IFR chart to ask more questions from. I point out his chart was expired.:D
 
My DPE told me to plan the route along airways. That's also the way I was taught in training. It will become increasingly difficult as VORs are shut down.

During the oral, it was clear that he was very familiar with the possible routings from A->B and wanted to see which one I would pick. I didn't pick the one he was expecting, but he liked the way that I did it. He had me walk him through my process, which included looking for preferred routes and STARs, and yes, checking for cleared routes on fltpln.com.

He did expect me to have a navlog, and when we flew he expected me to mark time at takeoff and the first checkpoint. The first checkpoint happened to have a published hold (almost like he planned for that lol), which he instructed me to enter, and he wanted me to consider my fuel state and be able to tell him how long I could hold before I would be minimum fuel.

It takes <5min to do a navlog on 1800wxbrief, and I actually print them out when I file because I still like to have a place to write, and they list all the relevant frequencies, morse identifiers, and bearings. It saves a fair bit of chart reading/head down time. My DPE is also known to be a little more 'old school' and like paper backups, so YMMV.
 
I tell all my students to plan it the same way you would actually plan it if you were going to fly the route. So, would you fly airways if you were flying the trip or not?

That said, it has been my experience that more often than not you’ll be put on airways down in Florida. You might as well anticipate being on one whether you want to be or not.

As far as the nav log goes, examiners don’t seem as interested in a fully detailed log on an instrument checkride as they are on the private.
 
mondtster said:
I tell all my students to plan it the same way you would actually plan it if you were going to fly the route. So, would you fly airways if you were flying the trip or not?

That said, it has been my experience that more often than not you’ll be put on airways down in Florida. You might as well anticipate being on one whether you want to be or not.

As far as the nav log goes, examiners don’t seem as interested in a fully detailed log on an instrument checkride as they are on the private.
Click to expand...
As it happens, there’s not really any good airways for the selected trip. Getting to and from the airways would almost be longer than the time spent on them. That’s why I asked the question, cuz it seems kinda stupid to go so far out of the way.
 
Salty said:
As it happens, there’s not really any good airways for the selected trip. Getting to and from the airways would almost be longer than the time spent on them. That’s why I asked the question, cuz it seems kinda stupid to go so far out of the way.
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t be surprised if the examiner picked this pairing intentionally to see what your thought process is. Like I mentioned before, plan it like you’d want to fly it. If it were a real flight your clearance may be totally different though.
 
No, he's not looking for a nav log which reflects a skill (DR) removed from instrument training requirements long ago. OTOH, there can be heading-only legs on procedures like ODPs and MEA gaps which use DR on enroute charts, so you need to at least understand the concept.

Leaving aside the weird DPE (and your CFII should know), even 30 years ago, it was "plan like you will fly." My Nav log was a dot matrix printout from the original GTE DUAT.

Hopefully obvious, if "plan like you will fly" is "kick the tires, light the fires, and hope for the best," the oral might not work out well ;)
 
Best advice I got on check ride flight plans was not to overthink them. For my instrument check, same as for Private and Commercial, the DPE simply used my plan to create scenarios for the oral. So long as you have reasons for choosing your flight path and can provide evidence for why you did it your particular way, you'll be fine. DPE isn't looking for the 'perfect' flight path. They want to see whether you have actually thought about how to accomplish the flight, what hazards may come up along your chosen route, and how you plan to deal with them. Good luck!
 
I find it's a good idea to add the IAF you want to the flight plan. That's a good way to let them know what you are looking for.
 
MauleSkinner said:
That just complicates the NORDO discussion. ;)
Click to expand...

No complication at all. If its IMC they know exactly what you plan to do if NORDO. I've only had my IR for a couple months but I'm beginning to understand all the guys in the "just file direct and let them (ATC) figure it out and tell you" camp..
 
AlphaMike said:
No complication at all. If its IMC they know exactly what you plan to do if NORDO. I've only had my IR for a couple months but I'm beginning to understand all the guys in the "just file direct and let them (ATC) figure it out and tell you" camp..
Click to expand...
They may know what you plan to do, but do you know what the reg would require you to do?
 
MauleSkinner said:
They may know what you plan to do, but do you know what the reg would require you to do?
Click to expand...

I believe I understand what I'm expected to do, but based on your question there must be a twist I don't understand?
 
My understanding would be to go to the IAF and hold until my ETE and proceeded on the approach and land. That's the way I was taught.
 
AlphaMike said:
My understanding would be to go to the IAF and hold until my ETE and proceeded on the approach and land. That's the way I was taught.
Click to expand...
If your clearance limit is the airport, which it normally is, the reg says
(ii) If the clearance limit is not a fix from which an approach begins, leave the clearance limit at the expect-further-clearance time if one has been received, or if none has been received, upon arrival over the clearance limit, and proceed to a fix from which an approach begins and commence descent or descent and approach as close as possible to the estimated time of arrival as calculated from the filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route.
Click to expand...
 
and right above that it say this.

i) When the clearance limit is a fix from which an approach begins, commence descent or descent and approach as close as possible to the expect-further-clearance time if one has been received, or if one has not been received, as close as possible to the estimated time of arrival as calculated from the filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route.
 
I wonder why its worded that way?
Either way.
AIM 6-4-1 a: "It is virtually impossible to provide regulations and procedures applicable to all possible situations associated with two-way radio communications failure. During two-way radio communications failure, when confronted by a situation not covered in the regulation, pilots are expected to exercise good judgment in whatever action they elect to take. Should the situation so dictate, they should not be reluctant to use the emergency action contained in 14 CFR Section 91.3(b)."

I'm landing.
 
AlphaMike said:
It’s exactly as I was taught. I think it’s just a poorly written reg.
Click to expand...
Not really. It is a reg which was written at a time when radios had vacuum tubes, there were large areas of the US with no radar contact, and (this part is a guess) clearance limits probably did not include the airport since you couldn't navigate to it anyway other than by flying an approach. It is important to know and understand the rules, but, aside from checkride scenarios, understand its practical limitations in the US airspace in 2020.
 
MauleSkinner said:
If your clearance limit is the airport, which it normally is, the reg says
Click to expand...
AlphaMike said:
and right above that it say this.

i) When the clearance limit is a fix from which an approach begins, commence descent or descent and approach as close as possible to the expect-further-clearance time if one has been received, or if one has not been received, as close as possible to the estimated time of arrival as calculated from the filed or amended (with ATC) estimated time en route.
Click to expand...
midlifeflyer said:
Not really. It is a reg which was written at a time when radios had vacuum tubes, there were large areas of the US with no radar contact, and (this part is a guess) clearance limits probably did not include the airport since you couldn't navigate to it anyway other than by flying an approach. It is important to know and understand the rules, but, aside from checkride scenarios, understand its practical limitations in the US airspace in 2020.
Click to expand...

A lot of confusion stems from taking 91.185(c)(3) out of context, including the Flying Magazine article which I believe gets it wrong as well.

The title of 91.185(c)(3) is "Leave clearance limit" and is only a concern if you must leave the clearance limit to go somewhere else. If you've been cleared to the airport, you don't have to worry about when to leave the airport unless you're idiotic enough to do an IFR lost comms takeoff. Therefore I assert 91.185(c)(3) is inapplicable and ought to be entirely ignored like it doesn't exist whenever the clearance limit is the airport at which you're landing.

This was discussed awhile back here: Lost Communications IFR Help
 
Last edited:
dmspilot said:
A lot of confusion stems from taking 91.185(c)(3) out of context, including the Flying Magazine article which I believe gets it wrong as well.

The title of 91.185(c)(3) is "Leave clearance limit" and is only a concern if you must leave the clearance limit to go somewhere else. If you've been cleared to the airport, you don't have to worry about when to leave the airport unless you're idiotic enough to do an IFR lost comms takeoff. Therefore I assert 91.185(c)(3) is inapplicable and ought to be entirely ignored like it doesn't exist whenever the clearance limit is the airport at which you're landing.

This was discussed awhile back here: Lost Communications IFR Help
Click to expand...
I agree with you. Sadly, the Chief Counsel doesn't (2018 Van West letter) One of those questions which really didn't need to be asked and got pretty much the expected answer.

Fortunately, it's pretty irrelevant to modern pilot-side lost comm situations.
 
For both my PP and my IR, the DPE provided origin and destination airports for the flight plan. In both cases, it was clear we weren't going to fly either one. The purpose in both was to provide a scenario for the oral. My PP one had a large mountain range if you drew a straight line between the two airports. One thing he would be looking for was you not just making the route direct between the two, but rather following a valley to get around the mountain.
For the IR, it was a 500 mile distance. The terrain rose about 4,000 feet gradually from the start to the landing. For that one, it was things like. How do you know the weather is ok over the whole route? What altitude will you fly (remember the rising terrain?) It basically was the foundation of a 30 minute or so discussion that include weather, reading low level charts, alternates and how to pick them etc. The flying part never used the flight plan at all. I think we flew VFR for the flying part and the DPE played the part of ATC, but can't remember for sure.
 
Yeah, a lot of the reason for the question is the route he gave me seemed a bit to “easy”. Less than 150 miles, no terrain (it’s Florida) very little water even, and not even much airspace. Didn’t leave much to be concerned about.

I’m happy with my plan, thought through everything, I was just curious about the airways thing.
 
Salty said:
Yeah, a lot of the reason for the question is the route he gave me seemed a bit to “easy”. Less than 150 miles, no terrain (it’s Florida) very little water even, and not even much airspace. Didn’t leave much to be concerned about.

I’m happy with my plan, thought through everything, I was just curious about the airways thing.
Click to expand...
:yes:

Whichever method you choose to plan a route will just lead into some different scenario-based questions. Not using airways lead to things like reasons for the choice, altitude selection, the role of OROCAs, the limitations of "random impromptu routes," options for a GPS outage, what you do when ATC changes your clearance or gives you an instruction to intercept an airway.
 
midlifeflyer said:
:yes:

Whichever method you choose to plan a route will just lead into some different scenario-based questions. Not using airways lead to things like reasons for the choice, altitude selection, the role of OROCAs, the limitations of "random impromptu routes," options for a GPS outage, what you do when ATC changes your clearance or gives you an instruction to intercept an airway.
Click to expand...
Or the same questions via a different tack...you choose airways. The examiner asks, “can you legally file direct?” You answer, “yes,” and the examiner goes into the same discussion. ;)
 
MauleSkinner said:
Or the same questions via a different tack...you choose airways. The examiner asks, “can you legally file direct?” You answer, “yes,” and the examiner goes into the same discussion. ;)
Click to expand...

I’ve usually seen that phrased, “Why didn’t you file direct?”

Makes the candidate explain more and makes the unprepared ones more nervous, wondering if they missed something “wrong” about their choice.

People should expect pointed questions like that which sound to them, because they’re nervous, like they’re accusatory, but really aren’t. :)

Examiners have fun ways to see if you’re confident in your original answers for things.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Or the same questions via a different tack...you choose airways. The examiner asks, “can you legally file direct?” You answer, “yes,” and the examiner goes into the same discussion. ;)
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Any answer to the scenario just creates a potential new branch.

Just don't answer, "I chose this route solely because ForeFlight/FltPlan.com/Flightaware/etc told me ATC has cleared it 119 time in the last month." (Note the "solely.")
 
denverpilot said:
People should expect pointed questions like that which sound to them, because they’re nervous, like they’re accusatory, but really aren’t. :)

Examiners have fun ways to see if you’re confident in your original answers for things.
Click to expand...

I had a boss many years ago who operated on that principle. At the weekly staff meeting he would always give someone a royal a$$ chewing. I noticed that it usually started with a "about 10" answer to a question. That quickly devolved into "what is it? 10, 11, 9? in an increasingly loud and intimidating voice. Once I saw the pattern, I answered every question with two rules; answer confidently and never use a number that is divisible by 5. So instead of "about 10" I would say 9 like I had the answer on a piece of paper under my nose. Never got yelled at again.

Not sure how that helps your Oral, but @denverpilot 's comment revived an old memory.

Good luck @Salty
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top