FNG looking for IFR checkride advice

hi all, new guy here. Been grounded for 2 weeks due to 100 hour on training plane and the a&p’s found something that needed a part that still hasn’t arrived (that and the a&p and CFI aren’t exactly friendly with one another)
Anyhow, with having been grounded I have been studying for the oral checkride and doing some chair flying for my local airports approaches.
Having the ASA oral exam guide I notice a lot of questions on GPS operations and am curious if people have had much in depth questioning about their planes GPS units beyond the basics of RAIM and non-precision approaches. We have a KLN94 and I wouldn’t consider myself nor my instructor an expert with the device. I can couple it to precision and non-precision approaches (as a situational awareness tool) other than RNAV and use all the NRST functions as well as hand dialing flight plans and fixes but beyond that I am more comfortable with the VOR navigation with the autopilot.
Anyway, just thought I would ask since I will be grounded for a while yet.

Thanks for having me.

 

Seeing how it's a IFR GPS I'd be surprised if he didn't want to see you shoot a few approaches with it.

Also real world, most everything is GPS, its crazy your CFI isn't having you do MUCH more work with that GPS, I can't remember the last time I shot a VOR approach, or even used a VOR for anything other than doing a 30day VOR check, it's all GPS and ILS

 

It’s mostly because he isn’t fully familiar with it either. That has irked me more than a little. There is far more dysfunction at my 141 school than I care to elaborate on, and at this point I’m 40 hours in and won’t be able to transfer more than half that if I switch to another school so I am stuck here until the owner of company/dpe passes me...at some point.
And as a correction I do have an ILS I practice at the adjacent airport and am very comfortable with it.

Thanks for response.

 

Isn't the rule in the ACS that if it is there you must be familiar and proficient in its use? I believe the ACS requires demonstration of proficiency with GPS and AP if present.

 

And, yes, we have done RNAV approaches, I was just curious more about the plethora of questions in the ASA oral guide book that may not be relevant to the KLN94. For example, I understand WAAS in theory but have not used it...
How in depth may a DPE get with these types of questions considering my a/c has only LNAV capability?

 

I would be looking to get a partial refund, you paid for IFR training and you didn't get the product you paid for, your CFI not knowing how to operate the systems of the plane, or be bothered to learn how himself, is not a valid excuse.

 

Like I said, other dysfunctional housekeeping items as well...but I guess I never thought about that, and considering it is a 141 and the chief instructor hasn’t nit picked his CFII to actual standards...I’m just thinking out loud now.

 

My opinion only, YMMV...

You should be able to answer anything about your GPS and fly any approaches it can legally fly, and have a reasonable conversation and understanding about GPS receivers that can do more, and why they can, without needing to know how to fly an approach with one.

Expect that to be presented in a scenario format also. “Plan a flight from here to there with X weather.”

“I won’t be able to land at There.”
“Why?”
“My equipment can’t fly an approach that will get me low enough to ever see the airport.”
“Why?”
“It’s a KLN and can’t fly that vertical nav approach.”
“How do you know?”
“Approaches it can do are listed in the GPS operations manual, here...”
“Okay weather came up to X. Can you fly that?”
“I need an alternate. How much fuel do I have on board?”
“Plenty. Say X gallons.”
“Okay I would choose to go here.”
“Why not here?”
“I can’t use another GPS approach as my alternate with this GPS.”
“How do you figure?”
“It’s also in the GPS manual, here.”
“Okay. You find there a PIREP for icing along be route. Any changes?”

You get the idea. The scenario based stuff is the way many checkrides are leaning these days.

Makes you think and apply all the stuff you know and can reference. A lot of the instrument oral is seeing how your decision making process works. Especially about weather. The part in the aircraft is mostly about showing you can fly the approaches. And handle emergencies and failures.

IFR is a big one. Lots of stuff going on and balls to juggle mentally and then for real in the airplane. But the examiner can only make you juggle with the balls that are in the plane when you’re in the plane. On the ground you need a working knowledge of what’s out there and how your equipment relates to it and what you can and can’t do with it.

 

As another data point... I've seen a particular DPE fail multiple students for OVER reliance on the GPS.

 

Usually if they’re concerned about that, they’ll just simulate that it failed and see what your Plan B is.

 

On my checkride, the DPE made me fly three different types of approaches - an ILS, a VOR and a GPS (there aren’t any NDBs nearby, and the plane had no ADF anyway). The GPS one also involved a circle to land, so it was one of the more challenging of the three approaches. He also had me do a DME arc and a hold...we did the hold at an intersection, and although we could have done it with just the VORs, he let me use the GPS for “positional awareness”. Since the plane had no actual DME, I needed to do the arc using GPS as well.

Point is, you really need to know your GPS well enough to pull off all these maneuvers. The hold, for instance, means you need to get to a particular fix and then dial in the right radial in OBS mode. And when the DPE says, “let’s do the GPS approach at KXYZ”, last thing you want to do is be fumbling with getting the approach loaded and activated in the GPS while the DPE is peppering you with questions and you’re trying to get the radios setup, talk to ATC and study the approach plate.

 

Another bit of advice, dump the oral exam book. Roll your own study guide based on the ACS. The ACS contains what you need to know and the references/citations of where to find the answers.

Questions will be asked scenario style similar to Nate’s example. To cut/dry/rote memorization like the ASA oral guide represents.

 

If it’s in the plane you need to know it well (for the checkride and if your going to be flying it). Simple as that really.

Read the manual cover to cover. If there’s a simulator available use that (many GPSs have sims you can download). If not ask the flight school to hook the plane up to external power and just sit in there trying different scenarios until you have it down good.

Focus on scenarios where you need to make rapid changes to exiting plans. That’s the typical scenario where you’ll get into trouble if not proficient with the device.

 

Put a cover and an INOP sticker over it... problem solved... (maybe?)

 

Sounds to me like the problem is the oral questions that he'd still get if the GPS was inop.

 

I’ll take this all into consideration. Other than inop of course.
ACS clearly states, “GPS equipment must be Instrument certified and contain the current database...and qualified to fly GPS approaches”
Another battle I’ve had with the school, updating database.
Thanks for assistance all.

 

+1. On my check ride, I also got ILS, VOR and GPS. No NDB, although I know the NDB procedures well, the trainer I was flying wasn't equipped.

None of my were circling.

On top of this, he wanted me to use the GPS for assistance on the KFFZ MESA ONE published departure.

You need to know how to use the GPS well enough to do the work it can be reasonably expected to do.

 

IA checkride advice? Don’t look out the window.

 

Run away, don't walk.

 

If I could transfer all my hours part 141 I would have ages ago! I’m just ready to be done with months of delays at this point.

 

Why would hours already accounted for in your logbook not transfer?

I'm not grokking what you meant by the statement I highlighted...

 

Under 141 the cross country requirement goes away so maybe that would cause a problem switching to 61.

Log book entry also required I believe. There were rumors about ADFs labeled inop when I took my checkride.

 

Well that depends on if he just wants his IFR ticket to have it, like to put it in a frame as a conversation piece, or if he actually is going to fly IMC/IFR.

Nowadays not being familiar with GPS approaches makes you about as useful as a pork pie in a synagogue

And that's the talk I'd have, they can train you to ACS spec, or you can go else where and they can, or a court can have them, pay you those hours you'd not have credit for and at the rate of the new school.

Also being a 141, if they don't make right REAL QUICK, I would bring your concerns to the FSDO too

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/

There is zero excuse for this, not properly training a student for IFR and giving them a ticket to launch into IMC, this can and has killed people, that's only presuming you get a DPE that will pass you, which if you don't have knowledge of that IFR GPS he shouldn't pass you, shy of it being a sketch ball "in house" type arrangement.

 

James, I agree. Obviously this started as a question of what information on my gps do I absolutely need to know.

(short of knowing everything, I should be comfortable with most functions. Understood.)

I actually don’t have anyone in house to talk with, the owner is a charter helo pilot and THE DPE.
Wife runs the books and not much else from what I see, they have a charter “manager” and the only other CFII is their primary charter pilot and chief instructor. I wish I could tell new students about these issues as well.

I probably should have done my homework but training costs here in Montana border on rediculous and I found their prices to be more on par nationally ($7-8000 for an IFR ticket), as opposed to centers with glass panel only planes ie DA20/40 trainers. I like the idea of having dual time under 141 as opposed to going out with a safety pilot for 50xc hours and teaching myself bad habits, specifically under the hood. I think my instructor is good, short of GPS knowledge, but waaay overworked. I’m ready to be done or move my hours if it’s not a headache. Woe is me.

Thanks again all.

 

I also called the FSDO, had to leave a message with the supervisor, we’ll see how that goes...

 

The KLN94 is not a fun device but you'll need to know it if you're doing a checkride with it. How to check signal, verify databases, load and edit a flight plan, find NRST, load and activate approaches, how the missed approach works, how to load a new approach after the missed (this one is tricky with that unit).

Expect your DPE to quiz you on the differences between the various GPS approaches. LNAV, LNAV+V, LPV, etc.

 

Here's the ACS, it's what you're going going to be tested on

https://www.faasafety.gov/files/events/GL/GL09/2016/GL0969456/instrument_rating_acs.pdf

That said, you should know the can I use it part of the GPS, when the database is needed and how often, RAIM, using it in lieu of DME, can it shoot a LPV, what can it shoot, etc

Ops wise, you'll want to know how to use it to fly a SID, STAR, approach, enroute, hold, missed, when to go missed, etc.


Also real world you have two approaches that'll you'll shoot, a GPS and a ILS, and nearly all your enroute is GPS or ATC vectors.

I wonder if he's a IFR helo pilot

 

WAAS is just a method that improves accuracy by comparing calculated GPS positions to known precisely mapped positions and transmitting these correction to WAAS-enabled receivers. RAIM, used in older GPS (including the KLN-94) is an internal self check for accuracy. Occasionally, if the satellite geometry is insufficient to provide the level of accuracy for an approach, RAIM will indicate that there in insufficient signal accuracy for a approach and prevents the RAIM-equipped unit from entering approach-active mode.

As fas as the -94, it's a good unit (as was it's KLN89B predecessor). Flew one in my Cherokee for several years. It you're familar with a KLN-94, moving to a Garmin 430+/-W is pretty easy, since the same engineers worked on it's development. James331 is right in that, it's getting to me mostly ILS and RNAV now, sometimes doing VOR approaches for fun and practice.

If your instructor isn't acquainted with using whatever unit you have in the training aircraft, he probably shouldn't be teaching with it until he's learned it and is comfortable using in in IFR.

 

And you’ll see more and more “SBAS” and less WAAS as other satellite augmentation systems other than WAAS come online. Garmin has mostly flipped their manuals in the GTN series to this more generic ICAO term as well as the screen alerts if the WAAS signal is lost.

 

Not sure what school you're doing your 141 through... but having done the Checkride recently, I was more "nervous" about the oral than that actual flight, and it turned out I had no problem with the Oral but the flight was hair raising. I passed, but it was difficult. Not to scare you, but just to give you an idea, and perhaps some things to consider. BTW, I did it all in an C172SP G1000 Trainer without auto-pilot.

My DPE had my plan for a course that we flew none of, then gave me a completely new plan on the spot to plan for that we would fly between 2 airports that were about 20NM away from each other (not much time for setup and re-setup).

Took off thinking we were going to fly the published DME ARC.... and we ended up doing a 5 DME ARC to the LOC approach to minimums, then alternate missed, while enroute to alternate, unusual attitudes, then hold non-standard with a parallel entry, then a Circle to Land touch and go, to an RNAV vector to FAF, Touch and Go, then to the published ILS, Failed my PFD just before FAF. Also all the while, would intermidedtly try to throw me off by asking me oral questions I had to think about while setting up for stuff (i.e. Icing questions, How to Compute RAIM, he even asked where I would go if I lost an engine right there, and also asked me to recite the VOR operating volumes).

What made it the most difficult, was the next to ZERO time I had to setup for anything. The close proximity of the airports to shoot multiple approaches made for a very rushed flight (it seemed). Also, the DPE wasn't a native English speaker (no offense), but at times.... it made it difficult to understand.

In any case, I passed... and it was the biggest sigh of relief I had had in a long time.

 

Sounds a little ridiculous to me what you went thru @USAF-LT-G. Oral questions should have been on the ground before you flew, IMO.

 

100% agree.... it was a bit ridiculous.... and I did ask my CFII afterwards if it was normal "after" the oral to then do more Oral in the plane while I was flying.... He said "it's within their limits to do so.... but usually no..."

Just giving the helluva experience I had. As I stated.... Glad I passed, cause it was hell.

 

I'm curious about that aircraft.... and yeah, I'm picking a nit...

Sure it wasn't a C172SP? I haven't heard of the Skycatcher's having the SP designation, nor a G1000 suite.

And odd that a G1000 equipped aircraft didn't have an AutoPilot.... nearly everyone I've seen/heard of that had G1000 had at KAP or GFC

 

Yeah sounds like a real jerk. One way to change his attitude is for people not to use him for check rides. I might've been tempted to just say **** this crap, ride is over dude.

 

Indeed

Correct answer would have been to tell him you need a sterile cockpit and/or put your finger over the isolate button and tell him you need to focus on flying the plane now.

 

Damnit... you beat me to it I just saw that, and edited the post to 172

There were 3 G1000 aircraft, and every one of them had a blown KAP 140. Actually.... during training, it worked for 1 flight I had.... then... next day, Blown until I was done. It was bogus. Also no WAAS.

 

So to be honest... after I spoke to the school about the whole thing, they informed me I was the first "student" they sent to him, and I would be the last....

 

Thankfully. Someone should report him to the FSDO, poor excuse for a DPE. They ain't God.

 

Agreed... I've been blessed to find two really good ones... very thorough, covered all the required items, no added surprises, and also downloaded some valuable wisdom through out the exam.

My instrument DPE did intentionally and slowly nudge me out of my comfort zone to where I was sweating it a bit. But it was done in a good/fair way and he explained his reasons afterwards. He wanted to see/evaluate how I handled myself when approaching saturation to ensure I didn't break down or lock up when the brown stuff hits the fan. The experience was good and gave him opportunity to share more valuable wisdom.

So they should stretch your boundaries a bit... but not be demi-god jerks.

 

It may have been a “realistic distraction” test and the examiner may have been expecting exactly that. If so, and the pilot decided instead to “power through” and managed to complete the ride with the distraction, they may have shrugged and decided he was going to do just fine.

Honestly, that’s usually a sign of confidence in the candidate. There really shouldn’t be major differences between DPEs and nobody should be “teaching to the examiner” instead of teaching to the standard, but it happens. Because humans are humans. Even examiners have individual pet peeves or Rohan’s is areas they like more than others. The prepared candidate should be able to handle any of them, but patterns emerge anyway.