IFR begins

[SmashTime]

I have started my IFR journey.

I did hood work all the way from KFTW to KTPL and back. Using the ILS to RW34.

I looked up only 2 or 3 times in 2+ hours of flying. Which took the fun out of my usual flying. However, the scanning and focus it took was challenging and equally as fun as looking outside to the world down below.

It was different for me trying to maintain the glidescope and localizer, I found myself concentrating on one or the other, luckily my coach and safety pilot kept me on track. I'm exited because I tried the ILS once around 15total hours (115 now) and it was extremely difficult and now it seems easier and I know I'll get better with practice.

Now the ifr written might be a different story.

 

[jordane93]

Don't get hung up on the ILS. You just started, you should only be doing your instrument scan, systems and basic attitude flying.

 

[SmashTime]

Understood, we did a lot of all what you mentioned. The ILS was at the end, we focused more on VOR, altitude and keeping the needle centered.

 

[poadeleted20]

If you'd been training with me, you wouldn't have even touched the radio navaids until you were fully proficient on the four fundamentals (both full and partial panel) including configuration changes from climb to cruise to approach and back, and nobody gets that proficient in just one flight training session. But there are a lot of instructors who find all that boring, and they will start people out with instrument approaches on the first flight -- and then I get to clean up the mess when their trainees call PIC to get finished up properly.

 

[SmashTime]

Well to be clear this was not a cfi, it was a friend who wanted to show me what it's like to fly ifr. I was informed that I could log the time w/a safety pilot towards my ifr. There was no curriculum and I don't see any of it as a negative.

Certainly there is a right way and wrong way but I'm just getting my feet wet so I won't hold anything against him for helping me. And when the time comes if there's a big mess to fix, you'll be the man to fix it Ron bc I hear your the man.

 

[poadeleted20]

Well to be clear this was not a cfi, it was a friend who wanted to show me what it's like to fly ifr. I was informed that I could log the time w/a safety pilot towards my ifr. There was no curriculum and I don't see any of it as a negative.

Based on my experience training people for the IR, you do yourself a disservice by trying to do things you have not yet been trained to do. You set the laws of exercise and primacy against your success. Nothing wrong with getting some training from an instrument instructor and then practicing what you've learned with a safety pilot, but I strongly recommend keeping the horse firmly in front of the cart.

Certainly there is a right way and wrong way but I'm just getting my feet wet so I won't hold anything against him for helping me. And when the time comes if there's a big mess to fix, you'll be the man to fix it Ron bc I hear your the man.

Thanks -- I'd be happy to do that. But I'd be happier to see you trained right from the git-go, as that would probably save you time, money, and aggravation in the long run.

 

[jordane93]

If you'd been training with me, you wouldn't have even touched the radio navaids until you were fully proficient on the four fundamentals (both full and partial panel) including configuration changes from climb to cruise to approach and back, and nobody gets that proficient in just one flight training session. But there are a lot of instructors who find all that boring, and they will start people out with instrument approaches on the first flight -- and then I get to clean up the mess when their trainees call PIC to get finished up properly.

Yea it doesn't seem smart on a first lesson to teach the studenthow to shoot an ILS when they don't even have the fundamentals of instrument flying down. My training started with basic insturment flying and developing my instrument scan. Climbs, turns, descents, standard rate turns all under the hood. Also included was an instrument cockpit check developed by my flight school. Stuff like setting the GPS, making sure all the instruments are working correctly. Then we did Pattern A and B to get down power settings, timed turns, to simulate holds and procedure turns. Once I got that down, we then started doing approaches.

 

[asgcpa]

You should just concentrate on basic attitude flying under the hood with a CFII for the first few lessons. Also it's helpful to learn the power profiles as soon as possible.

 

[SmashTime]

We worked power profiles some. I learned that 2000rpms gives me a 500fpm descent. But I'll need to know a lot more profiles before I feel any kind of confidence at all.

I'm very humbled by the experience and intrigued.

 

[Clark1961]

We worked power profiles some. I learned that 2000rpms gives me a 500fpm descent. But I'll need to know a lot more profiles before I feel any kind of confidence at all.

I'm very humbled by the experience and intrigued.

Learning to fly safely without looking out the windows is well worth your intrigue. Stick with a good CFII rather than a skilled safety pilot. There's a lot of headwork which goes with the monkey skills of pushing/pulling the levers and buttons.

 

[Zeldman]

To me, the instrument training was the most intriguing and frustrating flying I did at the time. The basic attitude went easy and quickly, intercepting and tracking went well, approaches went well, but putting it all together took a little time.

Finally on a marginal VFR day my instructor and I did a cross country with approaches and after that it all clicked for me. Seems that the training environment wasn't helping me put it all together, but doing an IFR cross country put it all in perspective for me.

And I failed my first attempt at the checkride because the examiner moved the heading indicator while I wasn't looking, so it was off for the NDB approach. My fault, I should have double checked.

Just don't get frustrated. Well, at least try not to anyway....

 

[poadeleted20]

And I failed my first attempt at the checkride because the examiner moved the heading indicator while I wasn't looking, so it was off for the NDB approach.

We have a list of examiners who do things like that -- it's called the "Do Not Use" list.