Safety Pilot during Training

[Rob Schaffer]

At what point do you find it is practical to have a safety pilot fly along with you during the IR training?

I am just beginning the lessons (two completed so far) and have been introduced to a GPS approach, a holding pattern and Localizer approach, and gone through all the timed turns, climbs, decents, stalls, etc of the basic hood work. My CFII say's my VOR skills are really good, probably since that's been my primary navigation instruments since I started flying, and why we did two laps in a hold yesterday. Next lesson will be holds on an assigned VOR radial, like 180* radial of PTW for example.

Is a good time after the CFII introduces the various hold entries to me, then go practice those, or is it better to wait till I can shoot a more types of approaches that the CFII has gone through with me previously?

I guess what I'm looking for is opinions on when flying with a safety pilot can be introduced to help suppliment my training progress. From another post, looks like I have 4 good guys to count on (3 of which have IR ratings and experience).

 

[AdamZ]

Rob, it all depends on how you learn best. If you think you will learn the GPS hold best be being taught it and flying it with the CFII a couple of times and then doing it on your own, then flying with the Safety pilot soon after you are taught the approach makes sense.

If you think you will learn better by being taught a GPS approach, a VOR circling approach and an ILS and then practicing each then wait. Logic tells me ( and the way I personally learn best ) is to learn one type of approach and then practice it. Its like any skill or task new skills are built on older skills.

So Me I'd use a SP soon after I learn the approach, One caveat if Heidi is going to keep reviewing the approaches with you ie teach you the VOR approach and later work your way into intersection holds but keeps comming back to the VOR approach ( or other approach) to practice it regularly,you may not need to fly with the SP until later.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I see flying with a safety pilot as the instrument student's version of solo. It's an opportunity to practice what you were taught and IMO should, at least at the early stages, be treated as "homework" from your CFI, much the way those early solo flight are.

How early? Pretty much between you and your CFI. Is you basic knowledge skill on a procedure good enough that you won't simple be practicing errors? For example, even if still working on that basic instrument scan and don't have a PC program to play with, an assignment to do patterns with a safety pilot, maybe even with your handheld GPS tracking it for later review, might be a huge benefit.

 

[Rob Schaffer]

Rob, it all depends on how you learn best. If you think you will learn the GPS hold best be being taught it and flying it with the CFII a couple of times and then doing it on your own, then flying with the Safety pilot soon after you are taught the approach makes sense.

If you think you will learn better by being taught a GPS approach, a VOR circling approach and an ILS and then practicing each then wait. Logic tells me ( and the way I personally learn best ) is to learn one type of approach and then practice it. Its like any skill or task new skills are built on older skills.

I am able to load the GPS 6 into the KLN 94, and I'm reading the book to know it better. Unfortunately, doesn't look like there is a downloadable sim available for the 94. I tried the hold at GOOGL and the LOC 28 at PTW yesterday as an intro. I can see another flight with Heidi on holds and that approach, then maybe looking to practice with a safety pilot on some things.

I see flying with a safety pilot as the instrument student's version of solo. It's an opportunity to practice what you were taught and IMO should, at least at the early stages, be treated as "homework" from your CFI, much the way those early solo flight are.

Good point, that's a good way to relate the two.

How early? Pretty much between you and your CFI. Is you basic knowledge skill on a procedure good enough that you won't simple be practicing errors? For example, even if still working on that basic instrument scan and don't have a PC program to play with, an assignment to do patterns with a safety pilot, maybe even with your handheld GPS tracking it for later review, might be a huge benefit.

I know personally I'm not ready yet, but thought I'd throw the question out there now. I know there are areas that I would just like to go up and practice under the hood for my own practice, and then there will be those procedures and approaches to practice coming up soon.

 

[poadeleted20]

As soon as you have learned any maneuvers well enough to identify and correct your own errors, you should be able to practice them with a safety pilot.

BTW, you appear to have accomplished in two flight lessons what usually takes me five to cover -- including sim lessons between flights. I'm impressed!

 

[Ted]

Rob, sounds like you're at about the same rate I did. I did most of my instrument time with my instructor, but that's because I wanted his feedback on what I was doing. However I don't see a problem with going out and practicing things once you understand what you're supposed to be doing. If your IR ride is anything like mine, holds and approaches will make up most of it, so once you get a few lessons down and understand what you're supposed to be doing, I don't see a problem going out and practicing it with some of the other folk.

Remember you need 16 hours with your instructor prior to the ride, so keep that in mind as you count up your hours.

 

[Rob Schaffer]

As soon as you have learned any maneuvers well enough to identify and correct your own errors, you should be able to practice them with a safety pilot.

BTW, you appear to have accomplished in two flight lessons what usually takes me five to cover -- including sim lessons between flights. I'm impressed!

Thanks Ron,...

Please read my Blog for my full write ups (link below). I think it helps that I did the Tailwheel endorsement and then completed an additional hour of hood time when doing my flight review on Memorial Day. Plus, I've been a stickler for holding headings and altitudes in my VFR flying, so that helped greatly too.

 

[markb5900]

Not a CFI or II.
Most of the time that I used a safety pilot when working on my IR was just basic "hood work". (just flying the plane)
I had several lessons with my CFII and then went up with another pilot friend as safety pilot. I personally did most approaches etc.. with my CFII. We would fly together so much it just worked out that way, which turned out great for me.
My CFII was still a full time CFII at the local airport and I was his only Instrument student, so whenever the weather would go downhill and he couldn't do instruction with his primary's he would call me "get out here, lets go up" and I was able to get quite a bit of actual during my training. Best thing that ever happened to me, the more actual you can get now, the more comfortable/competent you will be once you take the check ride.

 

[Ted]

My CFII was still a full time CFII at the local airport and I was his only Instrument student, so whenever the weather would go downhill and he couldn't do instruction with his primary's he would call me "get out here, lets go up" and I was able to get quite a bit of actual during my training. Best thing that ever happened to me, the more actual you can get now, the more comfortable/competent you will be once you take the check ride.

+1000. Get as much actual as you can during your training. Hood work just don't cut it.

 

[AdamZ]

Rob based upon your last post I'd say you should make sure you have the operation of the equipment ie kln94 down before you fly with the Safety pilot.

 

[Rob Schaffer]

I emailed my instructor, and here's the response:

Timed turns would be fine with a safety pilot, but you probably wouldn't need a lot of time on that. The difficult part is adding timed turns to approaches.

It probably would be more useful to wait until you know how to do all the types of approaches on your own. (Not perfectly, but well enough to know if you are doing something wrong.) You also want to do everything on your own so that your safety pilot will ONLY have to look outside for traffic. It is very easy for a safety pilot to get distracted. . . . You also should make sure you can make the radio calls on your own when you are doing practice approaches. I always try to phrase things so that anyone will know our location. I've heard many people call "over ABCDE inbound" which doesn't even say what direction they are unless you have your approach plates memorized.

 

[midlifeflyer]

You're in good shape Rob

 

[flyersfan31]

Yeah, what Ron said, with an addendum: don't just use any PPL. I'd make sure the safety pilot is IR too. Not for instruction, but belt & suspenders on any mistakes you might make.

Good luck with the training. You will not regret getting the rating!!!

 

[JeffDG]

Yeah, what Ron said, with an addendum: don't just use any PPL. I'd make sure the safety pilot is IR too. Not for instruction, but belt & suspenders on any mistakes you might make.

Good luck with the training. You will not regret getting the rating!!!

Another alternative is a PP who's doing the same training at about the same stage as you are...even better if with a different instructor...you'll get another perspective on some stuff.

 

[Gary]

From another post, looks like I have 4 good guys to count on (3 of which have IR ratings and experience).

Hmmm... Are you saying that the fourth pilot has no experience??

Gary

 

[poadeleted20]

Yeah, what Ron said, with an addendum: don't just use any PPL. I'd make sure the safety pilot is IR too. Not for instruction, but belt & suspenders on any mistakes you might make.

I might go the reverse -- the less your safety pilot knows about instrument flying, the less likely s/he is to try to act as an instructor (which s/he isn't) instead of a safety pilot (which s/he must be). Not saying that no IR safety pilots can keep from meddling, but that meddling must be minimized, and perhaps the less they know, the less likely they are to meddle. Of course, if they don't know anything about instrument flying and start asking questions about what you're doing, that's bad, too, as that means their attention isn't where it should be -- outside.

 

[poadeleted20]

Another alternative is a PP who's doing the same training at about the same stage as you are...even better if with a different instructor...you'll get another perspective on some stuff.

The safety pilot is there to look outside and make sure you don't hit anything, not to provide another perspective on your instrument flying. If you want that, get the other instructor for a second opinion, not the other instructor's student.

 

[flyersfan31]

I might go the reverse -- the less your safety pilot knows about instrument flying, the less likely s/he is to try to act as an instructor (which s/he isn't) instead of a safety pilot (which s/he must be). Not saying that no IR safety pilots can keep from meddling, but that meddling must be minimized, and perhaps the less they know, the less likely they are to meddle. Of course, if they don't know anything about instrument flying and start asking questions about what you're doing, that's bad, too, as that means their attention isn't where it should be -- outside.

I will accept that answer.

"You just keep me from hitting anyone or anything, I'll do the rest."

 

[poadeleted20]

"You just keep me from hitting anyone or anything, I'll do the rest."

Probably the easiest and simplest safety pilot briefing I've ever heard.

 

[Areeda]

As soon as you have learned any maneuvers well enough to identify and correct your own errors, you should be able to practice them with a safety pilot.

I agree.

BTW, you appear to have accomplished in two flight lessons what usually takes me five to cover -- including sim lessons between flights. I'm impressed!

I've been trying to figure out how to say this without sounding too negative. I give up.

This worries me more than impresses me. I mean this as a cautionary note not a criticism.

One of the problems I often see in instrument trainees is a lack of basics. Now perhaps you have this down and I'm worrying for nothing but let me ask a few questions, just to make me feel better.

Were you trained in the control/performance or primary/supporting technique of scanning?

Do you have approximate power settings and configurations for each phase of instrument flight?

Can you control the plane in different basic maneuvers while performing other simple tasks like finding/tuning an ATIS frequency and copying the info?

The reason I ask is that the basics tend to be boring (especially for the instructor) and there seems to be a tendency to gloss over them so you can get to the fun stuff. This leads to trouble later on.

Again, this is not a "fire your instructor" rant.

Joe

 

[Rob Schaffer]

One of the problems I often see in instrument trainees is a lack of basics. Now perhaps you have this down and I'm worrying for nothing but let me ask a few questions, just to make me feel better.

Were you trained in the control/performance or primary/supporting technique of scanning?

Yes, both in prior flights with this instructor and with my instructor that I recently did the tailwheel endorsement and my FR with. He really put me through my paces under the hood and emphasized the inverted-V scan style. With this current CFII, she reviewed the scan with me in the inverted-V, T and the rectangle, but I prefer the inverted V scan, or scanning like a T, going back to the AI in the top center and going to each instrument. We also looked at the relationship of pitch & roll indicating instruments that are in the panel. Most of this was on the ground in the room and then in the plane.

Do you have approximate power settings and configurations for each phase of instrument flight?

Not yet for the approach configurations. She said we will focus on them more when we begin the approaches. (next two lessons) Doing the GPS 6 into home base we have configured for 90 knots and 500 fpm decent after the FAF, but I end up breaking off at pattern altitude.

Can you control the plane in different basic maneuvers while performing other simple tasks like finding/tuning an ATIS frequency and copying the info?

Finding and copying ATIS, yes,... changing NAV's/COM's,.. yes,.. working the GPS,.. not yet, as the GPS is a new instrument to me. Am I keeping the needle locked headings but not on altitudes 100%,.. but I'm within +- 50-75 ft, 95% of the time. Lots to learn yet. Lots to practice. When working the GPS, I lose focus on the scan. Usually the heading is fine, but I dip in altitude.

The reason I ask is that the basics tend to be boring (especially for the instructor) and there seems to be a tendency to gloss over them so you can get to the fun stuff. This leads to trouble later on.

Again, this is not a "fire your instructor" rant.

Joe

No offense taken, that's why I asked up front about when to start, not that I am ready to tomorrow, but looking for some feedback which I greatly appreciate from fellow POA members who have been through the IR rating. All your questions are great, and I hope I answered them respectfully. I know I have a lot to learn and I am looking forward to the challenge and the experience I will gain by going through the training.

thanks Joe.

 

[Ted]

One tip on multitasking - if the airplane is trimmed right, it should be pretty much hands off. I've found that I'm more likely to screw things up by trying to fly it while looking at the GPS or charts. Letting off the controls for a few seconds is fine if done properly.

While I do agree on the importance of getting the basics down and theory, I feel like a lot of people beat that too hard and neglect to focus on the real-world aspects of the instrument rating. Knowing the proper power setting to maintain the glide slope at 90 kts is fine, but does you no good when approach brings you in too high, too close, with a tailwind, and wants you to keep your speed up as long as practical on the ILS. Personally, I think it's most important to be able to fly the plane and adapt to changing situations.

In my training, we did go over the basics and we did get power settings, etc. established for various phases of flight, got scans down, all those good things. The real important bits of multitasking, dealing with weather, adapting to changing conditions and orders that are outside of procedure, were what we focused on. Today a bit over 10% of my time is actual IMC with lots of weather to deal with and I've never had to shoot a practice approach for currency since getting my ticket. I don't feel that my training hindered my instrument flight in any way, quite the opposite.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Were you trained in the control/performance or primary/supporting technique of scanning?

I never heard of either of them.

I've heard of the competing control/performance and primary/supporting methods of instrument interpretation, but as far as I've been able to tell, neither are scanning techniques.

Wheel and spoke, inverted V, radial, etc are "scanning techniques."

 

[Areeda]

I never heard of either of them.

I've heard of the competing control/performance and primary/supporting methods of instrument interpretation, but as far as I've been able to tell, neither are scanning techniques.

Wheel and spoke, inverted V, radial, etc are "scanning techniques."

Again, Mark helps me gain a more precise vocabulary.

I have been combining, scan, interpretation, and cross check into the Scan.

One point though, is that I always thought the inverted V was a subset of the Wheel and Spoke pattern not a separate scan technique. It is particularly useful when changing the regimen (rolling into, out of a turn, starting a climb/descent, leveling off ...) while the other part the T being particularly useful in steady state. IMHO you need both to get a proper cross-check.

I agree with Ted, except when the basics are not mastered. I've seen too many students, including myself, taught "it doesn't matter what scan technique you use, just keep your eyes moving". So the student is left to invent a scan technique. Bah humbug, better pilots than I and any new instrument student that I've met have whittled it down to two standards.

My point is that when a person starts instrument training, it takes all of their concentration to fly the plane. I don't start holds, DME arcs, and approaches until they have enough spare brain cells to handle more than one task at a time. As Ted said, that is the main trick.

I often compare the skill to juggling. We spend most of the training teaching how to get more "balls in the air". The life saving skill comes last. No matter how good you get, there are situations where you'll get one more ball than you can handle. Now the trick is to drop one, maybe two instead of all of them. Plus you need to select the lowest priority tasks to drop.

BTW, Rob seems to be right on track, alleviating my worries of glossing over the basics.

Joe

 

[Ted]

I agree with Ted, except when the basics are not mastered. I've seen too many students, including myself, taught "it doesn't matter what scan technique you use, just keep your eyes moving". So the student is left to invent a scan technique. Bah humbug, better pilots than I and any new instrument student that I've met have whittled it down to two standards.

And I agree that those standards makes sense for student. These days, I honestly couldn't tell you which scan I use anymore (I used to use rectangular). I pretty much have all the gauges in view and am looking at them all at once. However, that is after a good number of hours of instrument flight and being a good juggler.

My point is that when a person starts instrument training, it takes all of their concentration to fly the plane. I don't start holds, DME arcs, and approaches until they have enough spare brain cells to handle more than one task at a time. As Ted said, that is the main trick.

I agree with that part, I suppose to me I just view it all as "Fly the plane." I tend to take the book, read it, fly like that, and after a bit it becomes intuition. Perhaps I'm the exception there, but we didn't spend much time on the exercises to promote basic instrument skills. To me, those just teach you how to fly the plane - something you should already know how to do. First instrument lesson we went out and did holds and an approach or two.

I often compare the skill to juggling. We spend most of the training teaching how to get more "balls in the air". The life saving skill comes last. No matter how good you get, there are situations where you'll get one more ball than you can handle. Now the trick is to drop one, maybe two instead of all of them. Plus you need to select the lowest priority tasks to drop.

Truer words have never been spoken - it all comes down to "Fly the plane." Everything else comes secondary.

My point was that the things that have saved me in instrument flying have been keeping a cool head, being a good juggler, proper interpretation of weather, knowing how to fly the plane, and knowing how to not let controllers boss me around ("I said UNABLE."). I feel that those truly important things are glossed over in training. The exercises that people talk about I think still have value, but are more important for people who are lacking in their stick and rudder skills at the start of instrument training.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Again, Mark helps me gain a more precise vocabulary.

LOL

I wasn't just being unnecessarily picky. Through various discussions I've come across folks who think that P/S =is= supposed to be the way we scan the instruments and attack it on that basis. There's plenty to attack about P/S without needing to go there.

 

[poadeleted20]

One tip on multitasking - if the airplane is trimmed right, it should be pretty much hands off.

Not all planes have roll trim, and without it, there's no such thing as "hands off" even if you're well-trimmed in pitch.

As for the basics, if you don't have those down, you can't do the rest reliably and repeatably. Crawl->walk->run.

 

[Areeda]

LOL

I wasn't just being unnecessarily picky. Through various discussions I've come across folks who think that P/S =is= supposed to be the way we scan the instruments and attack it on that basis. There's plenty to attack about P/S without needing to go there.

I do appreciate it when you and others point out sloppy use of terminology.

Just because I am a CFI, people tend to a) think I know what I'm talking about and b) copy my procedures. It's my duty to see that they don't get into trouble doing those foolish things.

Joe