instrument training questions

[ScottK]

I was talking a friend yesterday about how his instrument training was going. He told me that he was getting all the "hood work" out of the way first with a safety pilot before he hired a CFII for the final 15 hrs. I asked him what he was working on and he said that he has been building his 50 hrs of x-c by flying it under the hood. He figures he'll get to approaches in the last 15 hrs with the CFII. Now I haven't started my Inst training yet, but his plan seems backwards to me.

It seems to me this is his way of trying to save a couple bucks. Other than trying to follow the PTS on your own, what would you really be getting out of this. Basically, you take off visual, fly enroute under the hood then land visual. Other than some basic nav work, could he really be getting much out of this?

What is the typical layout for Inst training by a CFII?

 

[bqmassey]

There's more to instrument flying than executing the approach. There's plenty of opportunity to get spatial disorientation en route, and when you get outside of the training environment and actually fly places under IFR, most of your time will be en route. No reason to not be really good at it

There's some possibility that he picks up bad habits by learning on his own, especially if his safety pilot isn't instrument rated or giving any good guidance. It can be hard to unlearn the way you learned something the first time, but a CFII should be able to fix any problems.

If his safety pilot is instrument rated, and they are doing all of the flights under IFR, it could be great experience to go out and get those X/C hours while working within the system. Even better if he does it at night, where it's harder for your brain to help you cheat and spatial disorientation is a little more likely.

Either way, he has to be trained to the PTS. I think the biggest pitfall here is that he'll need more than the 15 hours of dual he expects, and won't end up saving as much money as he hopes.

 

[MyassisDragon]

I agree that is does seem a little backwards. But its what ever works best for an individuals training style.

I remember my training started with an instructor to learn some of the basics (what my instructor wanted to see) then I went off and built time with a safety pilot. His only concern during my time building with a safety pilot was that I was reinforcing bad habits. So he would wanted to do periodic lessons to check progress and teach me another step or two.

Not sure I would have wanted to build a lot of hours without any instruction, then find out I had to change my process cause of my own misunderstanding. But this is just me.

My opinion : 15 hours is 15 hours required regardless of when it happens, I would pepper it in between all the hood time. I spent the last 2 hours required prepping for the check ride and it ended up working for me (got my instrument ticket with 40.1 hours logged instrument/hood time, and plenty of Microsoft sim time).

 

[poadeleted20]

The problem with doing it that way is you don't develop much in the way of instrument flying skills by droning around straight and level for hours at a time with the hood on. There's nothing wrong with getting a lot of your required 40 hours of instrument time practicing with a buddy between lessons what you've already learned from an instructor, but trying to get 25 hours of hood time with a buddy before doing Lesson 1 is not going to save you any money in the long run. On the contrary, when someone comes to me with 20-30 hours of hood time with a safety pilot without any actual instrument training, it can take more work to first break bad habits and then learn good ones than if I was training them from scratch.

 

[jordane93]

From what I remember, my training went from basic attitude instrument flying/developing instrument scan, Pattern A and B which was pretty much setting up for a holding patterns and doing timed turns while configuring for landing, holding patterns/approaches, x countries, test prep. Like Ron had said, if he just flies around with a safety pilot with the hood on, he probably won't learn much and will have to do some extra time with his CFi and he also might develop bad habits that are hard to break

 

[ScottK]

On the contrary, when someone comes to me with 20-30 hours of hood time with a safety pilot without any actual instrument training, it can take more work to first break bad habits and then learn good ones than if I was training them from scratch.

This was my real concern. It didn't seem to me he would be gaining any real advantage, but I wasn't sure.

 

[JasonM]

I am 15 hood time hours into my IFR training. I started flying with a safety pilot and after 1.5 hours of that I thought it was kinda worthless for me. I didn't feel like I was learning anything. I have decided to go the more expensive route and spend all the required hood time with my instructor. I could never have learned what I have so far without him. Plus this IFR stuff is serious. I want to be confident in my skills.

 

[ja_user]

At least he is saving money though...

I mean, it is only flying without reference to the horizon.. Why spend a dime more than is required?

 

[asgcpa]

At least he is saving money though...

I mean, it is only flying without reference to the horizon.. Why spend a dime more than is required?

That's was simulators are for. I would use a CFII and then build up XC in between with a safety pilot to work your scan. I'm going through it now and the scan is the most important thing in my limited opinion. I mean, if your scan is not good, it seems that everything else will be that much more difficult. Just my 2 cents.

 

[ja_user]

Exactly, and most people can get an IFR rating in 30 hours of dual and 10 hours of simulator.. As long as they have frequent lessons by a good instructor.

So best case you are going to save yourself 15 hours of the CFI's time (maybe $750 if you pay $50 per hour ), worst case you will spend far more than that correcting learned errors in the airplane with that same CFII beside you..

Using a safety pilot can be very helpful to build time, and practice between lessons... It is also sometimes helpful when your CFII can't go and you want to practice.. But in the grand plan, it isn't going to save you enough for that next rating...

I guess you might find a safety pilot that would like to pay for 1/2 the plane too, then you might have some reasonable cost savings..

 

[AggieMike88]

The problem with doing it that way is you don't develop much in the way of instrument flying skills by droning around straight and level for hours at a time with the hood on. There's nothing wrong with getting a lot of your required 40 hours of instrument time practicing with a buddy between lessons what you've already learned from an instructor, but trying to get 25 hours of hood time with a buddy before doing Lesson 1 is not going to save you any money in the long run. On the contrary, when someone comes to me with 20-30 hours of hood time with a safety pilot without any actual instrument training, it can take more work to first break bad habits and then learn good ones than if I was training them from scratch.

Based on my experience with Ron, I'll +1 this.

While I only had a few hours of hood time before I started the PIC training, I can tell you that the first flying day was a healthy mix of basic tasks that lay the foundation for later training. Taught and trained correctly, it makes learning the items that come later much simpler.

I can definitely see what Ron speaks of if I had more "hood time" before we started. Primacy and muscle memory would have you doing certain things "out of order", and an order that will just cause you confusion when the more complex items are to be done. And that gets you behind the airplane, fast!

Working with a good instructor early on in IFR training is a good thing, and might save you money in the long run. You learn solid basics like the 5-T's and why they are to be employed each..and..ever..time. This is something I'm still working and still hear Ron's coaching in my right ear on this. But if I had gone out and done my own thing, who knows how much time we would have spent unwinding this.

My vote is a bit of hood time before hiring a CFII is okay, but the sooner you hire the CFII, the better.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I was talking a friend yesterday about how his instrument training was going. He told me that he was getting all the "hood work" out of the way first with a safety pilot before he hired a CFII for the final 15 hrs. I asked him what he was working on and he said that he has been building his 50 hrs of x-c by flying it under the hood. He figures he'll get to approaches in the last 15 hrs with the CFII. Now I haven't started my Inst training yet, but his plan seems backwards to me.

It is. It'd be better to do it the other way around - Start with the II and then go do hood time. At least he'd learn things right the first time rather than having to pay the II three times as much to beat the bad habits out of him.

Better yet would be to do at least 5 hours with the II and then maybe an hour with the II for every 3 with the safety pilot for the rest.

Best is to just suck it up and use the II for the entire thing. Going any other route isn't likely to make you nearly as good an instrument pilot and when it's your life involved, what's another 40 bucks an hour?

 

[Blackhawk]

The problem with doing it that way is you don't develop much in the way of instrument flying skills by droning around straight and level for hours at a time with the hood on. There's nothing wrong with getting a lot of your required 40 hours of instrument time practicing with a buddy between lessons what you've already learned from an instructor, but trying to get 25 hours of hood time with a buddy before doing Lesson 1 is not going to save you any money in the long run. On the contrary, when someone comes to me with 20-30 hours of hood time with a safety pilot without any actual instrument training, it can take more work to first break bad habits and then learn good ones than if I was training them from scratch.

What Ron said. One of the most frustrating things for an instrument instructor and the student is to get someone with a bunch of hood/weather time, either with a safety pilot or a poor instructor who jumps right into approaches and holds. You usually spend many lessons trying to undo the bad habits and the student gets frustrated at having to redo previous "lessons".

 

[Aileron]

This has the potential to work, but should be done with a CFI. If you fly with a CFI to get the lessons, and then practice what was taught to proficiency, then this works well.

Flying at 55% power on long cross country flights for 25 hours with a safety pilot will never work.

 

[poadeleted20]

Flying at 55% power on long cross country flights for 25 hours with a safety pilot will never work.

That's like the guy upgrading from an RV-6 who got his insurance company-required 5 hours in his new-to-him 36 Bonanza by going on a 2.5 hours out/2.5 hours back lunch jaunt with a CFI the week before starting a 10-day IR course in the Bonanza (which included a CNX-80 GPS which he knew only how to turn on and dial radio frequencies). Didn't go well.

 

[GeorgeC]

What should be done before approaches and holds? For how many hours?

What Ron said. One of the most frustrating things for an instrument instructor and the student is to get someone with a bunch of hood/weather time, either with a safety pilot or a poor instructor who jumps right into approaches and holds. You usually spend many lessons trying to undo the bad habits and the student gets frustrated at having to redo previous "lessons".

 

[JasonM]

What should be done before approaches and holds? For how many hours?

Things I had focused on with my CFII before approaches and holds had been: Establishing the proper air speeds, proper standard rate/ half standard rate turns, getting proficient at Pattern A and Pattern B stuff.

 

[flyingron]

The PIC course I think does a morning session of command-performance on the simulator and then repeats that in the aircraft. I suppose if you haven't mastered basic instrument flight regimes (straight and level, turns, climbs, descents) then they spend more time.

After that it's three days on bookwork and the stimulator leaning holds and approaches and then back to the airplane.

 

[poadeleted20]

What should be done before approaches and holds?

The general flight syllabus I use is:

1. Basic Instruments (Four fundamentals with full/partial panel)
2. Configurations (climb, cruise, descent, approach) and transitions between configuration
3. VOR Orientation, Interception, and Tracking
4. Procedure Turns
5. Holding
6. Approaches
7. Cross-Country
8. Test Prep

For how many hours?

As many as it takes to master that stage before moving to the next. How much that is varies depending on the student and the equipment.

 

[jonnyjetprop]

No NDB?

Not sure many planes still have one.

The general flight syllabus I use is:

1. Basic Instruments (Four fundamentals with full/partial panel)
2. Configurations (climb, cruise, descent, approach) and transitions between configuration
3. VOR Orientation, Interception, and Tracking
4. Procedure Turns
5. Holding
6. Approaches
7. Cross-Country
8. Test Prep

As many as it takes to master that stage before moving to the next. How much that is varies depending on the student and the equipment.

 

[poadeleted20]

No NDB?

Not sure many planes still have one.

Point taken -- ADF/NDB use is covered in the same block as VOR O/I/T if the client has one. Ditto GPS (if they have one). But it's been a couple of years since anyone who hired me for IR training had a working ADF in their plane, so I just forgot to mention it.

 

[Blackhawk]

What should be done before approaches and holds? For how many hours?

What Ron wrote and in the order he wrote it. As you can see from his order approaches come last (except for the cross country), and ONLY after the pilot is proficient in all the other stages. Look at almost any instrument syllabus and it is in general the same order. I have spent many hours undoing the damage caused by instructors who either skipped steps or brushed over steps.

 

[weilke]

Tell your buddy that he is doing it all wrong. Tell him to get his basics with a good cfii, use the safety pilot in between to practice the correct techniques he has learned. Spend time again with the II to get ready for the test (and to lose the bad habits picked up flying by himself with the SP ;-) ).

 

[AggieMike88]

The general flight syllabus I use is:

1. Basic Instruments (Four fundamentals with full/partial panel)
2. Configurations (climb, cruise, descent, approach) and transitions between configuration
3. VOR Orientation, Interception, and Tracking
4. Procedure Turns
5. Holding
6. Approaches
7. Cross-Country
8. Test Prep

Having done this syllabus with Ron, I can say it worked well for me. It's definitely a foundational building block by building block approach. At first, a few items were a bit confusing and didn't make much sense where they fit into the puzzle. But by the time we were doing the various approaches, the early stuff made total sense and I appreciated the sequence they were taught.