IR Training Sylabus

Rob Schaffer

Rob Schaffer

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
1,371
Location
Green Lane, PA
Display Name
Display name:
CLR2TKF
I am looking for an intrument training flight sylabus or a program outline on general that I can use or modify to begin the IR training. My flight school doesn't have a typical sylabus they follow, but have a basic outline depending on which CFII you work with.

I have gleim ans ASA knowledge test books to study and the King video series (all of which I got used from POA members! Thanks guys again!) but those don't have outlines with them.

Please post them here if you don't mind, or PM me and I can get in touch by email.

Thanks!
 
I am currently using the Jeppesen Guided Flight Discovery Series in my 141 program. I have the textbook and supporting materials..hmmm maybe its posted on the jepp website. Its very structured and has the stage checks and really detailed ground and flight lesson sequence. Let me know if you find anything and I can try to get more info if I can.
 
Gleim has a second book that has a sylabus in it. It's upstairs, or I'd grab the title for you.
 
IFR training syllabus?

We just went flying a lot. Seems to have worked. :)

Ok, to give you something helpful: I'd suggest that you try to get as much time as XC time as possible, going to different airports and such to give you experience at different kinds of approaches. Doing the same 5 approaches for 40 hours won't help you as much as going to someplace new and doing all different kinds of approaches like you'd do for real.
 
If your IR instructor doesn't have a syllabus, then maybe you should find a different IR instructor. This is Aviation Instructing 101 stuff, and if your instructor doesn't have this part under control, one can only wonder what else isn't being done right. However, if your instructor would like assistance preparing such a syllabus, I'll be happy to help -- at my standard rates.
 
Ron Levy said:
If your IR instructor doesn't have a syllabus, then maybe you should find a different IR instructor. This is Aviation Instructing 101 stuff, and if your instructor doesn't have this part under control, one can only wonder what else isn't being done right. However, if your instructor would like assistance preparing such a syllabus, I'll be happy to help -- at my standard rates.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Rob will correct me, but my assumption from his OP was that the Flight School didn't mandate any particular syllabus.

I think that's fine, though I think they should be the one making suggestions.
 
Ron Levy said:
If your IR instructor doesn't have a syllabus, then maybe you should find a different IR instructor. This is Aviation Instructing 101 stuff, and if your instructor doesn't have this part under control, one can only wonder what else isn't being done right.
Click to expand...

That assumes that one requires a syllabus. Some people don't work well with a specified syllabus, I'm one of them. It has its value in certain situations, but to say that it's always a requirement ignores other Aviation Instruction 101 stuff, namely that each student is different.

I'd argue that getting your instrument rating in 10 days is no way to get quality learning accomplished, but clearly for a number of students it works fine.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
That assumes that one requires a syllabus. Some people don't work well with a specified syllabus, I'm one of them. It has its value in certain situations, but to say that it's always a requirement ignores other Aviation Instruction 101 stuff, namely that each student is different.

I'd argue that getting your instrument rating in 10 days is no way to get quality learning accomplished, but clearly for a number of students it works fine.
Click to expand...

The most efficient use of training time requires at minimum that you know what you will be doing, why you're doing it, and how you will know you achieved the objective, and how the current objective fits into the overall mission.

A written syllabus keeps both instructor and student on task.

Some instructors have so internalized the sequence of objectives that they don't need no steekin written nothing. That's fine, as long as the instructor can leave the student with a "Next time, we'll be doing X, so read Y or practice G on the sim at home..."
 
dmccormack said:
The most efficient use of training time requires at minimum that you know what you will be doing, why you're doing it, and how you will know you achieved the objective, and how the current objective fits into the overall mission.

A written syllabus keeps both instructor and student on task.

Some instructors have so internalized the sequence of objectives that they don't need no steekin written nothing. That's fine, as long as the instructor can leave the student with a "Next time, we'll be doing X, so read Y or practice G on the sim at home..."
Click to expand...

Right, and like I said for a lot of people that works out fine, but for me it doesn't. It doesn't surprise me that the military types are the ones who are actively for the structured syllabus whereas I (about as un-military as it gets) don't work well with such programs.

A syllabus works for a lot of people and I never said there wasn't merit to it. A lack of syllabus has worked well for me.
 
dmccormack said:
Are you sure there was no syllabus? Or perhaps simply one you weren't aware of?
Click to expand...

Lessons tended to start off with a discussion about what we wanted to do that day, and evolved some based on a combination of what we needed to work on and what the weather allowed for. So unless you consider the requirements spelled out in the FARs to be a syllabus, there wasn't much of one.

When I do my instruction, it's similar. I examine what the student needs and we do it accordingly. Keep it fun but challenging. I'll admit to being a bad fit for a student looking for military-esque training, but an instructor who taught that way would have certainly convinced me that flying wasn't worth doing, and I wouldn't have bothered. That's why I specifically chose not to take lessons from particular instructors over the course of my training.
 
My instructor has one, but it is a basic outline of the requirements and setup in an order in which the typical training will progress. It doen't follow King/Jepp/Gliem.

Wrapped in quotes here is what the Flight School has, but they will work with any particular ground study/IR material the student has. I was thinking something for training may be a little more detailed, but I guess that depends on the student.

For my PP, we had a syllabus that showed ground school discussion, review material, flight tasks, and they corresponded in a nice order.

Instrument Airplane Syllabus

Minimum Requirements:
At least a Private Pilot Certificate (Airplane)
Pass Knowledge Test (Requires logbook endorsement)
50 hours cross-country flight time as PIC (10 in airplanes)
40 hours instrument time including:
15 hours instrument flight training
3 hours instrument training in preparation for the practical test within 60 days preceding date of test
250 nm cross-country under IFR including 3 different kinds of approaches

Stage I: Basics

Ground:
Preflight
Instrument check
Aircraft requirements
Pilot requirements
Weather
ATC procedures
Towered vs. nontowered procedures
Enroute and approach charts

Flight:
Instrument scan
Basic attitude instrument flying
Basic maneuvers:
4 fundamentals, slow flight, stalls, steep turns, unusual attitude recovery
Navigation:
Intercepting and tracking; LOC and LOC BC tracking
Timed turns
Partial panel
Holds: Navaid, intersection, DME
Practice approaches
GPS LOC NDB
VOR LOC BC VOR-A
VOR/DME ILS


Stage II: ATC system and actual IFR
ATC procedures
Cross-country instrument flights (simulated then actual)
IFR cross-country (3 different approaches, 250 nm total)

Stage III:
Checkride preparation (local)
Click to expand...
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Lessons tended to start off with a discussion about what we wanted to do that day, and evolved some based on a combination of what we needed to work on and what the weather allowed for. So unless you consider the requirements spelled out in the FARs to be a syllabus, there wasn't much of one.

When I do my instruction, it's similar. I examine what the student needs and we do it accordingly. Keep it fun but challenging. I'll admit to being a bad fit for a student looking for military-esque training, but an instructor who taught that way would have certainly convinced me that flying wasn't worth doing, and I wouldn't have bothered. That's why I specifically chose not to take lessons from particular instructors over the course of my training.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by "military-esque." :dunno:

I learned to fly Part 61 at a school that also did 141. They used the Jepp syllabus and folder and after each flight we went over what we did, what we would do next time, and what the next progress check would require.

I'd read or practice on the desktop for the next lesson.

The IR was at a more loosey-goosey school. After a few lessons not knowing what or why, I asked the CFII (I later learned I was his first IR student) what the progression would be. We walked through the PTS and developed a plan based on that.

Comm and CFI were both fairly laid back, with assessments and then focus on areas needing improvement (my CFI instructor was and is about as un-military as they come).

But in every case I knew what was expected, knew what to expect next time I was at the airport, and knew what hurdles had to be cleared to move on.

I've used a syllabus for my students as a check on me to make sure I am covering everything and as a paper trail that shows date, time, when, where of every required maneuver so when Pilot Johnny loses it on a crosswind, I at least have some evidence that indeed I did instruct Johhny on crosswind technique on the third of May 2008 at the Morgantown airport with winds 240@10G14 landing runway 18.

A "syllabus" doesn't have to be a lock step progression -- it's just another checklist that assures that you cover stuff you might forget.

It also ensures efficient use of resources -- a good thing for the fiscally challenged/frugal among us. :yesnod:
 
dmccormack said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "military-esque." :dunno:
Click to expand...


You have a military background, as does Ron. Military training (from everything I've read) is highly structured. That's my reference, and why it doesn't surprise me that you and Ron especially are big proponents of a syllabus.

It also ensures efficient use of resources -- a good thing for the fiscally challenged/frugal among us. :yesnod:
Click to expand...
Well, seeing as I completed my private in a hair over 40 and my instrument with a hair over 40 instrument hours (both in under a year from my first lesson and with compliments from the DE), it's not a requirement, which is my point. ;)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
That assumes that one requires a syllabus.
Click to expand...
The FAA doesn't agree with you in its Aviation Instructor's Handbook:
Instructors should:
• Provide a training syllabus (see Chapter 8, Planning Instructional Activity) that is organized with clearly defined course objectives to show the student how the training helps him or her attain specific goals.
Click to expand...
Granted, that's a "should," not a "must," but it's hard to imagine how one could train someone for an instrument rating without at least a mental syllabus. As it says further on...
A syllabus is a summary or outline of a course of study that generally contains a description of each lesson, including objectives and completion standards. In aviation, the term "training syllabus" is commonly used and in this context it is a step-by-step, building block progression of learning with provisions for regular review and assessments at prescribed stages of learning.
Click to expand...
...and if you don't have such a plan with objectives and completion standards, how can you make the training effective?
A determination of objectives and standards is necessary before any important instruction can be presented. Although some schools and independent instructors may develop their own syllabus, in practice, many instructors use a commercially developed syllabus that already has been selected by a school for use in their aviation training program. For the aviation instructor, the objectives listed in the syllabus are a beginning point for instruction.
Click to expand...
IOW, without a beginning point, you can't even start your journey. Which is why they conclude:
In all cases, a systematic plan of action requires the use of an appropriate training syllabus.
Click to expand...
BTW, I've cleaned up the messes left behind by instructors with no organization, so it may be a hot-button for me for that reason, rather than my military backgroud. Remember -- I had my CFI before I went to military flight training.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
BTW, I've cleaned up the messes left behind by instructors with no organization, so it may be a hot-button for me for that reason, rather than my military backgroud. Remember -- I had my CFI before I went to military flight training.
Click to expand...

You're still assuming that all student/instructor combinations have a requirement for that. My point is that they don't, but there are merits in a number of situations.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
You're still assuming that all student/instructor combinations have a requirement for that. My point is that they don't, but there are merits in a number of situations.
Click to expand...
The FAA thinks you're wrong, and based on my 37 years as a CFI (well, it will be 37 next month), I agree with them. You may not have realized what your instructor's syllabus was, but I'll bet s/he had one, at least mental if not written. If not, your training probably was not as efficient as it could have been.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
You have a military background, as does Ron. Military training (from everything I've read) is highly structured. That's my reference, and why it doesn't surprise me that you and Ron especially are big proponents of a syllabus.

Well, seeing as I completed my private in a hair over 40 and my instrument with a hair over 40 instrument hours (both in under a year from my first lesson and with compliments from the DE), it's not a requirement, which is my point. ;)
Click to expand...


This is the same debate as the checklist argument, and I'll submit that once any list gets long enough its better written down than drawn from memory, even if the "writing down" is some mental aid such as flow.

There are some things (well, lots of things) the military gets right. Training skills is one of them.
 
Last edited:
Ted,

Face it: Your opinion and my opinion are worthless. The government is always right and without error, and you are stupid. Shut up and be a good little lamb.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
The FAA thinks you're wrong, and based on my 37 years as a CFI (well, it will be 37 next month), I agree with them. You may not have realized what your instructor's syllabus was, but I'll bet s/he had one, at least mental if not written. If not, your training probably was not as efficient as it could have been.
Click to expand...

Yeah, getting your private and instrument at almost exact minimums is horrible efficiency. I was at 40 and 40.2 the days I got signed off for the check ride. The syllabus was tossed for my IR training.

The FAA is not always correct: See short field take-offs for exhibit A.
 
EdFred said:
Yeah, getting your private and instrument at almost exact minimums is horrible efficiency. I was at 40 and 40.2 the days I got signed off for the check ride. The syllabus was tossed for my IR training.
Click to expand...

So was mine... just over 40 on the private, just over 40 for instrument.

But as you said, we're worthless. Thanks for reminding me. :mad2:
 
Ted DuPuis said:
So was mine... just over 40 on the private, just over 40 for instrument.

But as you said, we're worthless. Thanks for reminding me. :mad2:
Click to expand...

That's ok, as inferred previously by someone in this thread, since I do not have an aviation degree, I am also a worthless manager of an airport. So I am one up on you in the worthless department.
 
EdFred said:
That's ok, as inferred previously by someone in this thread, since I do not have an aviation degree, I am also a worthless manager of an airport. So I am one up on you in the worthless department.
Click to expand...


Not sure about the aviation degree, but in English “imply” is used when someone else is asserting something without being explicitly stated and “infer” when you are trying to arrive at a conclusion based on what you think you heard or read.

To wit:

  • You implied that a specific degree is a prerequisite to success.
  • Someone could infer that you have no use for any degree.
We now resume regularly scheduled programming. :D
 
I aced chemistry, biology, calculus, and physics in college without studying. English was back burnered for good reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top