Polishing IFR skills

A

Alexb2000

En-Route
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
3,530
Location
Dallas, TX
Display Name
Display name:
Alexb2000
Today I flew much of the day with an old friend that just returned from the great white north flying single pilot turbo prop cargo on a it has to get there period service level. He was up there for three years and just moved back to Texas. Anyway he was a good solid professional cargo pilot when he left, now he is on a whole other level IMO.

So we went out and did an IPC today. I fly IFR quite a bit, so the issue wasn't completing an approach safely, rather polishing up/improving some of the things I was doing based on his experience.

Little things:

I didn't turn on the strobes anytime I was on or crossing a runway. His point was in bad vis. that may save you from a collision.

Flows: I do a departure briefing, but I lacked a memorized departure flow. Missed turning of my landing and taxi lights. He uses a lot of flows because he flies single pilot no autopilot all the time and he feels it works more consistently and is safer than a checklist for something like the climb out where you don't want your head down, then just verify the checklist items when you are in cruise.

Buttons and Switches: NEVER touch any button or switch without verifying it has done what you wanted it to do. If it is something that can kill you then a double verification is required. For example, they just had a crash where they suspect what happened is on a bad weather night time departure the pilot thought they had armed the autopilot and began doing something else. It didn't engage and while the pilots head was down on the charts the airplane flew into the ground. So for example if you want to engage the AP hit the button, look at the scoreboard to verify it is engaged and on course AND keep your hand on the yoke so you can feel the servos working before you start doing some heads down task.

The approaches:

He challenged me using this approach KGVT LOC BC 35:

http://155.178.201.160/d-tpp/1310/05138LBC35.PDF

He asked me as we were approaching from the North at 5K how I would fly it if there was a layer of icing just below me and we were approaching fuel minimums. I said I would stay at 5K until established inbound then bring it down fast right before CASH. His idea: while South bound 1 second after CASH begin an aggressive procedure turn with a rapid descent holding about 150 indicated. We did it and it worked out fine although really fast for what I'm used to. His point was to practice flying approaches for tough conditions not to just fly them all the same speed and slow pace so that when it happens in real life you'll be ready.

BTW We were able to do all this in actual and the approach was right at minimums which made for a perfect practice day.

We did a couple other approaches and came home. It was a great day of flying and I learned something.

Good times.
 
The best flying with an instructor is when you learn something. I like those flights.
 
He sounds like my kind of pilot. Those are a lot of techniques I use.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
He sounds like my kind of pilot. Those are a lot of techniques I use.
Click to expand...

For active amateurs like me, I believe the best pool of teachers are the cargo/charter single pilot operators like you guys. They told him when he started flying in MI and ND that a few winters up there flying basically every day and night regardless of conditions and he'd be good to go. I believe it, he has razor sharp skills.
 
Alexb2000 said:
For active amateurs like me, I believe the best pool of teachers are the cargo/charter single pilot operators like you guys. They told him when he started flying in MI and ND that a few winters up there flying basically every day and night regardless of conditions and he'd be good to go. I believe it, he has razor sharp skills.
Click to expand...

They do still dull with lack of use. I'm not as sharp as I was in July of last year when we moved out here. However I definitely think about and act on safety more.

Before I moved out, I had a few clients who were similar to you as far as mission and general use, and I loved doing "continuous improvement" lessons with them. It was a ton of fun for both of us, and I really believe they came away with some extra tricks that might save them one day. If nothing else, having more confidence in the abilities they already had is a safety bonus.
 
Forgot one.

Declutter: Don't allow anything to be in the cockpit that you are not using. I was flying along and he asked if I was following the flight director. I said No. Then turn it off! Old approaches in the flight plan, minimums set from the last approach, old nav freqs, get rid of all of it. In a stressful moment or emergency you might reference it or it could cause confusion and a loss of situational awareness.

I think this is a good one.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Forgot one.

Declutter: Don't allow anything to be in the cockpit that you are not using. I was flying along and he asked if I was following the flight director. I said No. Then turn it off! Old approaches in the flight plan, minimums set from the last approach, old nav freqs, get rid of all of it. In a stressful moment or emergency you might reference it or it could cause confusion and a loss of situational awareness.

I think this is a good one.
Click to expand...

I like that. I'm also not much of a FD user/fan. When I was flying the turboprops, the boss insisted I use it. But when I flew the Cheyenne to a night ILS to mins (lights at 200, runway at 100), I did it by hand and raw data.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I like that. I'm also not much of a FD user/fan. When I was flying the turboprops, the boss insisted I use it. But when I flew the Cheyenne to a night ILS to mins (lights at 200, runway at 100), I did it by hand and raw data.
Click to expand...

I haven't been a big flight director fan historically either and I like raw data (little lie, I do like the flight path marker overlaid on SVT). He showed me some tricks to make it more tolerable. For example on the climb out I often am at a different pitch than the FD wants. He showed me that just taping the CWS once aligns the bars with my current pitch. Little things.
 
Alexb2000 said:
I haven't been a big flight director fan historically either and I like raw data (little lie, I do like the flight path marker overlaid on SVT). He showed me some tricks to make it more tolerable. For example on the climb out I often am at a different pitch than the FD wants. He showed me that just taping the CWS once aligns the bars with my current pitch. Little things.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and on the Cheyenne hitting go-around when lined up for takeoff got the pitch about right for initial climb-out. It helped, but when my primacy and recency is all raw data, it's a tough adjustment. :)

If we install an AP in the 310 that can feed the Aspen a FD, then I'd probably use it and get used to it. The previous owner of the 310 (now T310R) has an Stec that drives a FD on the Aspen. On the legs he let me fly to Dallas and up to NJ, he was surprised to see me not wanting to use it, but I pointed out he was used to it, I wasn't.
 
I have said on this forum several times if you want to know how to fly instruments grab an old freight dog. Much better advice than grab an instructor. The freight dog most likely is an instructor but, that is not important to me.
No criticism here but, it amazes me at the reluctance of some pilots to use the equipment in the plane. I have not been in a plane without a FD more than hand full of hours in the last 30 years. Same goes for the AP use. It is almost like a badge of dishonor to admit to using the AP. I see this a lot in the inability to use the AP/FD correctly. Autopilot 101, is to hit the control wheel sync button as gear is coming up. Then hit the sync button again before engaging the servos. It only takes spilling coffee on the owner's wife's white shorts one time to cause you to never forget to sync the FD before engaging the AP.
Certainly a pilot needs to be able to do raw data, equipment fails. But, do you keep the radar turned off so you don't get dependent on it? How about the second engine for the twin drivers? The last plane I flew would out climb and cruise faster on one engine than their old Navajo would on both. Just keep one shut down so as to stay current on SE ops? Yes, I am being a little ridiculous but, I hope you see my point.
At sim school I was allowed to use anything in the plane. Of course anything in the plane was subject to failure. In training, I would expect to practice failure modes of all equipment and practice that to keep the rust off. In the real world of single pilot IFR, I just don't get the reluctance to use the bells and whistles. JMO.
 
ronnieh said:
I have said on this forum several times if you want to know how to fly instruments grab an old freight dog. Much better advice than grab an instructor. The freight dog most likely is an instructor but, that is not important to me.
No criticism here but, it amazes me at the reluctance of some pilots to use the equipment in the plane. I have not been in a plane without a FD more than hand full of hours in the last 30 years. Same goes for the AP use. It is almost like a badge of dishonor to admit to using the AP. I see this a lot in the inability to use the AP/FD correctly. Autopilot 101, is to hit the control wheel sync button as gear is coming up. Then hit the sync button again before engaging the servos. It only takes spilling coffee on the owner's wife's white shorts one time to cause you to never forget to sync the FD before engaging the AP.
Certainly a pilot needs to be able to do raw data, equipment fails. But, do you keep the radar turned off so you don't get dependent on it? How about the second engine for the twin drivers? The last plane I flew would out climb and cruise faster on one engine than their old Navajo would on both. Just keep one shut down so as to stay current on SE ops? Yes, I am being a little ridiculous but, I hope you see my point.
At sim school I was allowed to use anything in the plane. Of course anything in the plane was subject to failure. In training, I would expect to practice failure modes of all equipment and practice that to keep the rust off. In the real world of single pilot IFR, I just don't get the reluctance to use the bells and whistles. JMO.
Click to expand...

Ronnie, I don't know if this was directed at me, but as embarrassing as it is to say, no one ever showed me the sync. Will I use it from now on, absolutely. I have flown with at least 5 other instructors over the last few years and not one pointed this out.
 
Alex, no criticism directed at you. But you make my point about many flight instructors. Do you think your friend knew about the sync button because he was an instructor or because he made his living in the real world of single pilot IFR? A lot of the older freight dogs flew junk in all kinds of weather. When a new bell or whistle came along you can bet they learned how to use it. Alex, are there other buttons on your plane that you do not know what they are for?
 
ronnieh said:
Alex, no criticism directed at you. But you make my point about many flight instructors. Do you think your friend knew about the sync button because he was an instructor or because he made his living in the real world of single pilot IFR? A lot of the older freight dogs flew junk in all kinds of weather. When a new bell or whistle came along you can bet they learned how to use it. Alex, are there other buttons on your plane that you do not know what they are for?
Click to expand...

I have a G1000 GFC700 bird and I have been flying a G1000 since 2007. I feel I am a pretty good G1000 operator, I certainly don't need to think about how to do something or where it is. The day before yesterday I could have told you where the CWS button was, what it does, and how I use it. For some reason I had a gap in my training that just taping it caused the FD to sync. My workaround was to use FLC setup on the ground for the climbout to work around the FD pitch problem in that mode. If you're asking do I feel stupid for not knowing that, yes I do, but that won't stop me from being honest and possibly helping others.
 
I think another challenge with flight directors is whether they are single cue or double cue. I found it harder to use a double cue because the way my brain processed the information. The single cue on my Aspen/STEC is much more intuitive for me and I use it more frequently.
 
Alex, why would you feel stupid? You had not learned something. That can and apparently has been fixed. You can't fix stupid. Nothing I said was a criticism of anyone or anything. Just observations and questioning why some pilots are reluctant to use the available automation. :dunno:
 
ronnieh said:
Alex, why would you feel stupid? You had not learned something. That can and apparently has been fixed. You can't fix stupid. Nothing I said was a criticism of anyone or anything. Just observations and questioning why some pilots are reluctant to use the available automation. :dunno:
Click to expand...

As with anything, there's balance. We know that automation dependency has been cited as a growing problem. So it's not entirely a bad thing to do it the old fashioned way, especially if that's what you're used to. Now obviously flying around OEI if you don't have to isn't a great idea other than for training.

In your case, you flew one airplane and flew it a bunch. As someone who used to fly 7 different planes with 7 different sets of procedures, it was helpful to keep things as common as possible.
 
ronnieh said:
Alex, why would you feel stupid? You had not learned something. That can and apparently has been fixed. You can't fix stupid. Nothing I said was a criticism of anyone or anything. Just observations and questioning why some pilots are reluctant to use the available automation. :dunno:
Click to expand...

I feel it was something I should have known. I'm sure at some point you had someone come along and show you something on a bird you flew all the time that you didn't know. This was just pretty basic as you pointed out.

No biggie, I'm sure I'll feel that way again, all that matters is learning and getting better.:)
 
Alex, I could make a list but, that is another thread. Nothing I said was meant to be critical or in any way demeaning to your skills or you personally.

Ted, you make good points. One should not and I do not advocate developing a dependence on automation. I just question the refusal of some to use it because it might fail. Certainly if your flying skills are so rusty you can not hand fly the plane then corrective action should be taken.

When I was your age, Ted, a few decades ago, I too flew multiple aircraft. My salaried job was a Chieftain. However my boss allowed me to fly contract work also. I guess he felt guilty about my low salary:rolleyes2:. In addition to the Chieftain I flew a 602P, 700P, T310, and a Seneca III.This included both 91 and 135 ops. I took a different approach to this. I made sure that I was proficient in the use of the systems of each aircraft. The 135 recurrent helped with the Seneca. It was a lot of work but, for me single pilot IFR ops is very demanding and I have always taken it very seriously.

My recurrent training always focused on failure modes. The instructors always assumed I could fly the plane and shoot the approaches when everything was working. What each one wanted to know and especially in sim school was could I handle it when everything went to h... in a hand basket. My 135 and 91 recurrent training always required that I be familiar with all equipment installed in the plane however, I got to practice the failure modes until I had it down pat.

We have two different dialogs going here. Ted, in your case you felt trying to keep up with the equipment in seven different planes was not practical. There could be a good argument made for that. Keep everything simple and reduced to the lowest common denominator. Good point.

My original comment was about pilots that poo-poo the use of automation because it might fail. If a pilot can not be proficient in basic flying skills and use the automation then perhaps he should not use the automation. Again, JMO.
 
Actually, it wasn't a matter of keeping up with the equipment in 7 different airplanes. It was about human factors and reducing the opportunity for errors. So between the 7 planes I had 7 different panels, 7 different engine types with 7 different power settings, 6 different landing gear systems, 4 different APs, 3 GPSs (although 2 were 530/430s), etc. I could still rattle off all of the important things, like how to battery vs. GPU start the Commander, power settings, etc.

Now, the part they all had in common was they had fixed wings, engines, and yokes that operated as a normal airplane would. Airplanes pretty much fly the same. So when I look at the single most important thing for not dying, which is flying, why would I try to confuse myself? We know from human factors that in times of high stress you revert to what you're most familiar with.

I'll use the example of the ILS to mins in the Cheyenne at night. I'd been flying for 8 hours that day, had never shot an approach in the plane, and was generally unfamiliar with the AP because I only had about 10 hours in the plane (8 of which were that day) and hadn't been given instruction or practice in its use. It would not have been in the interest of safety to use that time as an opportunity to learn how to use it. Although my boss (who was flying with me) at first didn't like the decision, after we landed and I explained why, he agreed I made the right call. If I'd been given proper training in the thing, I would've used the AP without a doubt.
 
As far as poo-pooing APs, I won't go that far. But I think it is a good point to note that my SimCom instructor said the #1 problem he sees is a lack of basic hand flying skills in pilots who come through.
 
Ted, what are we disagreeing on? Instead of "keeping up" I should have said proficient on the different avionics systems. You use a particular situation. Two pilot crew in a plane you were not comfortable with the avionics. You reduced the task to the lowest denominator using what you were comfortable with. I never had the luxury of the two pilot crew. I said twice "you make a good point".:dunno:

My experience with sim training, both Sim Com and Flight Safety were different. They assumed you could fly. If you showed up and could not fly I am not sure what they would do. But, again it was always failure modes they were looking at. You were welcome to use the AP, flight director what ever. Chances were it would fail at a very inopportune time. Also they looked at cockpit resource management. For example is the AP approved for single engine operation? If so, why not use it?

Pilots have many different experiences to learn from. We do not all see things the same way.
 
Ronnie, I'm probably just sounding argumentative because that's comprised my entire day at work. But the projects move forward. Now where's my gin and tonic? :)
 
Marauder said:
I think another challenge with flight directors is whether they are single cue or double cue. I found it harder to use a double cue because the way my brain processed the information. The single cue on my Aspen/STEC is much more intuitive for me and I use it more frequently.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing that many people here have no idea what you are talking about. Here is a picture. Single cue on the left, double cue on the right.

FlightDirector.jpg
 
Marauder said:
I think another challenge with flight directors is whether they are single cue or double cue. I found it harder to use a double cue because the way my brain processed the information. The single cue on my Aspen/STEC is much more intuitive for me and I use it more frequently.
Click to expand...

FWIW I prefer the dual cue FD and I have substantial time using both singles and duals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top