Starting the IR/PPL blues

[infotango]

So now that I have been a private pilot for about a month, I've realized just how useless the rating is. Whenever I want to go somewhere it's either 1) too windy 2) IMC 3) no plane is available. Most of my friends can't afford their pro rata share of flying with me, so even when I take friends flying it doesn't really reduce my costs at all. Fact is, I'm a goal driven person, and I really enjoy training for things. I've noticed that it is much easier the justify the 85/hr plane rental when I am learning something as opposed to just burning holes in the sky. So I've decided to start training for the Instrument Rating.

I'm looking for tips and suggestions, as to what books to buy, recommended foggles, and comments on whether my plan to accomplish at least 50 percent of the training in actual is insane. I'm currently working my way through the FAA's instrument guides (Instrument Flying Handbook, aviator's guide to NAS and the AIM) which seem pretty helpful, but I'd like a 2nd source as well. I also need some of the PIC xc time still, so I am wondering about what percentage of that can be done while training for the IR, and any tips people have to speed that whole process along.

I'm looking foward to hearing your experiences, recommendations, and stories.

My hopes for doing this are to 1)instill a greater level of confidence in my flying 2) have an IR to ease navigating the airspace around the NE where I primarily fly 3) be able to use the IR to fly when other people aren't renting the airplanes 4) have a blast while continuing to learn things.

 

[ScottM]

I'm a goal driven person, and I really enjoy training for things.

Good for you training is always a good thing to be doing and the IR will really help you be a better pilot able to better judge the weather and deal with ATC.

I'm looking for tips and suggestions, as to what books to buy,

I liked the Jep Commercial/Instrument book and Instrument FLight Training Manual by Doganhttp://www.spinnerspilotshop.com/cg...bc.html?L+scstore+dnrd9974ff06d006+1148679691

recommended foggles,

My pref is for Jepp shades as they can be tilted up at the MDA or DH to see the runway

comments on whether my plan to accomplish at least 50 percent of the training in actual is insane.

That is a lofty goal. I wish I had gotten more actual in training but I also did most of my training at night which was a good prep.

I also need some of the PIC xc time still, so I am wondering about what percentage of that can be done while training for the IR, and any tips people have to speed that whole process along.

After you get some basic instrument instruction and can fly straight and level and do turns. Get a pilot friend to be safety pilot for you and you can pick up the XC while going for $100 hamburgers or do training with the CFII while on XC flights.

I'm looking foward to hearing your experiences, recommendations, and stories.

I took my time, I spent over a year getting the rating as I was not in a rush. This helped me really get comfortable with the system. I also recomend getting a CFI-I that is a bit more seasoned than some of the 90-day wonders that you see at FBOs. Many of them will have about the same actual IMC experience as you have now.

My hopes for doing this are to 1)instill a greater level of confidence in my flying 2) have an IR to ease navigating the airspace around the NE where I primarily fly 3) be able to use the IR to fly when other people aren't renting the airplanes 4) have a blast while continuing to learn things.

Yep those are doable and the right goals IMHO

 

[flyingcheesehead]

So now that I have been a private pilot for about a month, I've realized just how useless the rating is. Whenever I want to go somewhere it's either 1) too windy

Grab a CFI and practice! Remember that demonstrated crosswind components are not a limitation. Just be sure you have somewhere to go with winds down the runway just in case.

My record so far is 25G31, 30 degrees off the runway. Splitting time with a CFII friend. He flew an ILS where he was crabbed so far to the left I was looking at the runway over the right side of the cowl from the left seat! It was nice to see that I can do that if need be. No greasers here, more like "planters" to avoid getting blown away, but it can be done.

2) IMC

Grab a CFII! (I'm sensing a theme here. ) Actual IMC is good stuff to practice in, provided it's not the kind that bites. (TS or ice)

3) no plane is available. Most of my friends can't afford their pro rata share of flying with me, so even when I take friends flying it doesn't really reduce my costs at all.

That does suck. Are there any clubs in your area? Or, maybe find a plane you like on the field and offer to the owner that you'd like to buy into it?

I'm looking for tips and suggestions, as to what books to buy,

Rod Machado - Instrument Pilot's Survival Manual
Peter Dogan - Instrument Flight Training Manual

The Machado is not a "complete" instrument book (as in, it doesn't have all the info you'll want to know for the written/oral) but it has an awful lot of very useful practical information and like all of his books is very fun to read.

I consider both of the above books a must, even if you decide to get Jepp/Gardner/Kerschner as well.

recommended foggles,

Actually, I don't recommend foggles. Foggles suck. So does the big floppy hood.

After trying almost every view-limiting device under the sun, my two favorites are the Viban and the Francis Hood. I did have to hang a post-it note on the Viban to help it out a little (I could still see out the left side of the airplane a bit) but it's what I finished my IR with. The Francis Hood is great for limiting your view, but I found it limited things a little too much for me - I couldn't check engine gauges, radios, etc. without moving my whole head instead of just my eyes. At some point I'm going to take a Dremel tool to my Francis Hood and make it into the perfect view-limiting device.

and comments on whether my plan to accomplish at least 50 percent of the training in actual is insane.

Insane? Not at all. Realistic? Probably not.

You can do plenty of basic attitude instrument work, holds, and the like in actual. However, a large part of your training will be approaches, and there's gotta be some pretty special actual to make that worthwhile. A day with a 1500-foot overcast that's pretty much worthless for VFR flying (too low) is also worthless for practicing ILS approaches (too high).

I did a lot of "semi-actual" flying, where we were in actual but I still wore the hood. That way, being in a broken layer or flying an approach I was still on the instruments.

All that said, YES, get as much actual as you possibly can. There's no substitute for it!

I also need some of the PIC xc time still, so I am wondering about what percentage of that can be done while training for the IR,

About as much as you want. In fact, you should get a fair amount of XC time during training so you can be exposed to approaches at different places. Fly somewhere, shoot a couple of approaches, land to make it count for XC (and don't forget >50nm), go back to the home drome and shoot an approach there. (This is, of course, after you've gotten the basic attitude instrument flying down.)

The funny thing is, short XC's can be some of the most challenging IFR flights. You will be busy for the entire flight. I got an eye-opener on this on my first IFR XC (MSN->FLD). We took off, climbed to cruising altitude, got handed off to Chicago Center, and they asked if I had the weather and what approach I wanted. I was behind for the rest of the flight. Yikes.

Sounds like you've got a good start, the right attitude, and the desire. Go for it!

 

[spiderweb]

My hopes for doing this are to 1)instill a greater level of confidence in my flying 2) have an IR to ease navigating the airspace around the NE where I primarily fly 3) be able to use the IR to fly when other people aren't renting the airplanes 4) have a blast while continuing to learn things.

I think you will be able to meet those goals. One note, though. I've found that while the IR does help with utility and dispatch rate. In the past year since I got my rating, though, some hard facts have started to sink in.

1) Proficiency is a MUCH larger issue if you want true IFR capability. You might plan to fly only in light to moderate IMC (like me), but you shouldn't file at all if you aren't proficient to minimums under partial panel. PARTIAL PANEL KILLS PEOPLE. I don't have the statistics on hand, but you are far more likely to buy the farm if you can't fly PP than if you lose an engine in IMC. So, again, you have to dedicate a lot more flying time to proficiency flying. I meet with my CFII once a month--I don't "knock off rust."

2) I want to fly in most weather, but I don't own. The best plane for this is a locally-rented complex aircraft with a lot of power, a great AP, and weather-display capability. (I don't even take the alcohol props into consideration.) Here we go again with the proficiency issue. It takes more to be proficient in a fast, complex airplane with lots of stuff in the panel--and you WILL learn how to take advantage of all of that for your IR--than in a good 'ol C150 with a VOR. And you guessed it, more time in a complex aircraft = more money spent.

3) You suppose that, since you will be flying in IMC, that during those times you will have more availability in the rental fleet. That may be true of the C172s and Archers, but not necessarily true of the C182s and Arrows. The reason for this is that the people who often rent these birds also have the IRs.

Even reviewing these elements, though, I am still happy I got the IR. They say that serious pilots get the IRs, and although overly-simplistic statements like that are usually to be avoided, there is a lot of truth to it.

 

[poadeleted20]

what books to buy,

You can start with the fundamental FAA reference books -- Instrument Flying Handbook, Instrument Procedures Handbook, and the two weather AC books -- Aviation Weather and Aviation Weather Products. I also recommend as a working text for the course Peter Dogan's "Instrument Flight Training Manual As Developed by Professional Instrument Courses, Inc. 3rd Ed," available from many internet sources.

recommended foggles

JeppShades! Every trainee with whom I work loves them.

and comments on whether my plan to accomplish at least 50 percent of the training in actual is insane.

Not insane, but many instrument instructors don't like to do it, and this time of year you may not be able to find enough IMC at the right altitudes to fly half your time.

 

[Areeda]

All excellent suggestions. The only thing I have to add is to let your CFII know that you need the cross country time. It's easy to get a bounce and go in 50nm away when you're doing the basics.

Joe

 

[flyersfan31]

I'm on the cusp of starting IR training (with PIC, 1st week of July), so I know how you feel. I'll third or fourth the recommendation of Peter Dogan's book. I got it because I signed up with PIC (he founded the Co.) and I'd say it's a great "real world" view into instrument flying. Now, I've only done 1hr of actual during the course of my PPL (who said 19yr old CFIs don't teach well?!!), so take my recommendation with a grain of salt, but it sure seems realistic and practical to me. I've read the FAA books, and various other IFR texts, but Dogan's seems most practical and informative.

I own, so availability isn't really an issue, but when I have time I want to fly. The IR will help make that happen more often, plus when I want to go somewhere far away I'll be less limited by weather factors. Originally, I thought "hey, great, I'll have the IR, I'll fly anytime!" Then I realized that icing, winds and CBs will curtail my flying even with an IR, especially in my Sundowner. Still, better some than none at all... Maybe it's time to get the known-ice P210....

 

[flyifrvfr]

I am an active CFII and I won't take students into actual weather until they are ready. If you don't know how to set up approaches, read approach plates, talk to ATC, or can't fly to PTS standards then you are not ready for actual. I live in Maryland, and the time of year also plays a major part in whether or not the student gets actual. Flying a Skyhawk in the clouds with an airmet for ice is a no-no, as is thunderstorms. I would just simmer down and learn how to fly the plane, and do the things I listed above.

My reasons for the above are simple. I can teach anybody how to fly an airplane in actual conditions, but if you ask them why they did something they would not be able to tell you why. This is definately not the time for rote learning.

 

[spiderweb]

But getting actual while learning is a very good thing, if you can get it. I got about 15 hours of actual here in Maryland while I was learning. As the above poster points out, this largely didn't happen until I was mostly through the syllabus (though there were some flights earlier when we picked up .2 or .3 here and there).

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Two others mentioned Dogan's book; I will third that... it's among the best. Every instrument pilot should read it, IMHO.

 

[infotango]

Thanks everybody for the advice! I'm hitting the books and going to start training tomorrow.

I especially like Scott's tactic of doing a lot of the training at night. I think this might be a good combo of slightly more realistic than simulated with the better plane availability, by avoiding primary students.

The instructor I did the ppl with is a big proponent of getting tons of actual time, and I actually have 1.5 hours already logged of actual. During the private, after the initial 3 hours of basic flying on instruments, he insisted that I get some sense of flying the plane in the clouds.

I'm sure this is going to take a long time, but I'm looking forward to learning some new tricks.

(I too will be doing some of the training in MD, the haze alone should make this pretty useful.)

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I am an active CFII and I won't take students into actual weather until they are ready. If you don't know how to set up approaches, read approach plates, talk to ATC, or can't fly to PTS standards then you are not ready for actual.

That depends what the lesson is.

I got my first actual as I was ticking past 10 hours total time. I had a very limited schedule and you need 3 hours instrument for the private anyway, so we went up and got vectors to an ILS.

I didn't know how to set up approaches, read approach plates... I knew how to talk to ATC somewhat. So by your definition, I was "not ready for actual."

When we got into the clouds (700 AGL), I got a big-time case of the leans, as you might expect from a brand-new student. In that instant, I learned that I never wanted to scud run and risk getting into the muck until I really knew how.

I managed to keep the plane going where it should and by the time we were on the downwind leg, I'd managed to shake the leans. Here's where I learned to trust the instruments instead of my head.

Now, my CFI took care of plenty of things for me. He'd done the VOR check and instrument checks before we took off, he kept an eye on things like the vacuum and engine gauges, and he set up the approach and told me what he was doing and why. He also told me that ATC's next communication would be complex (the approach clearance) and he'd reply to that one.

And finally, I intercepted the localizer and glideslope and flew the ILS. It wasn't pretty, but it was within instrument PTS standards and we broke out at about 600 AGL and landed.

A good CFII should be able to take anyone who can do basic flight maneuvers (straight/level, turns, climbs/descents, airspeed changes, etc.) into actual and have it be a valuable learning experience.

 

[infotango]

I had my first instrument lesson today.
Things went pretty well, we stuck with basic maneuvers i.e. holding straight and level, descending turns and climbing turns. I'm working on my instrument cross checks.
It was not too much fun, but that was because it was nice out and I only got to look at a bunch of needles and the fuzzy part of my free foggles.
I didn't do to great, but it wasn't terrible either.
So now I'm planning on finding a safety pilot who wants to sit with me as I run through the prescribed practice patterns.
We also did a bit of short field work towards the end of the lesson, and managed to get yelled at by an airport manager.
Now it is on to trying to decode this stack of expired plates and en route charts I have....

 

[flyifrvfr]

That depends what the lesson is.

I got my first actual as I was ticking past 10 hours total time. I had a very limited schedule and you need 3 hours instrument for the private anyway, so we went up and got vectors to an ILS.

I didn't know how to set up approaches, read approach plates... I knew how to talk to ATC somewhat. So by your definition, I was "not ready for actual."

When we got into the clouds (700 AGL), I got a big-time case of the leans, as you might expect from a brand-new student. In that instant, I learned that I never wanted to scud run and risk getting into the muck until I really knew how.

I managed to keep the plane going where it should and by the time we were on the downwind leg, I'd managed to shake the leans. Here's where I learned to trust the instruments instead of my head.

Now, my CFI took care of plenty of things for me. He'd done the VOR check and instrument checks before we took off, he kept an eye on things like the vacuum and engine gauges, and he set up the approach and told me what he was doing and why. He also told me that ATC's next communication would be complex (the approach clearance) and he'd reply to that one.

And finally, I intercepted the localizer and glideslope and flew the ILS. It wasn't pretty, but it was within instrument PTS standards and we broke out at about 600 AGL and landed.

A good CFII should be able to take anyone who can do basic flight maneuvers (straight/level, turns, climbs/descents, airspeed changes, etc.) into actual and have it be a valuable learning experience.

Kent, the object of the three hour instrument requirement is to teach a primary student how to maintain control while they do a 180 degree turn and exit instrument conditions back to VFR weather. It is not meant to teach them how to fly on instruments for an extended period of time, just enough time to execute the 180 and return to visual conditions. Taking a primary student into actual conditions does not emphasize the FAA's intent of this regulation. Three hours of instrument training is no where near what is required to fly instruments in less then VFR weather safely. The NTSB reports are full of evidence of CFIT accidents to prove my position.

I use the three hour requirement to first teach the 180 degree turn to exit IMC. I use the remaining time to teach straight and level, standard rate turns, constant airspeed climbs and decents. In this time I also teach my students how to recover from unusual attitudes while emphasizing to them that three hours of training isn't enough to be safe in less than VFR weather.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Kent, the object of the three hour instrument requirement is to teach a primary student how to maintain control while they do a 180 degree turn and exit instrument conditions back to VFR weather. It is not meant to teach them how to fly on instruments for an extended period of time, just enough time to execute the 180 and return to visual conditions. Taking a primary student into actual conditions does not emphasize the FAA's intent of this regulation. Three hours of instrument training is no where near what is required to fly instruments in less then VFR weather safely. The NTSB reports are full of evidence of CFIT accidents to prove my position.

I use the three hour requirement to first teach the 180 degree turn to exit IMC. I use the remaining time to teach straight and level, standard rate turns, constant airspeed climbs and decents. In this time I also teach my students how to recover from unusual attitudes while emphasizing to them that three hours of training isn't enough to be safe in less than VFR weather.

After the experience I gained in actual during primary training (the flight I described plus another 2.1 or so were we got an airspace block and did climbs, descents, timed and compass turns, much of it in a hold) I have no doubt that I was better prepared to execute the 180 in actual than anyone who had done only simulated instrument time. Have you ever gotten the leans under the hood? How successfully do most folks with no additional instrument training get that 180 done? IMHO, that's why the files are still full of VFR into IMC accidents. With no training in actual, and no experience with the leans, the irresistible urge to do what your head tells you is probably going to win out.

As for the three hours not being enough, and all the rest... Damn straight. Just my opinion that actual can be valuable at almost any stage of training.

 

[ScottM]

When I was a primary student my CFI did show me how to do a few rudimentry approaches. He taught this at the end of the three hours (I actually ended up with 5 instrument hours) to demonstrate what to do if I had to do something like this because of WX. We also did some work in marginal VFR and out over a big lake on a moonless night. this was all doe to get you ready for the bad things that could happen.

Good thing too. While still afairly new and VFR only pilot I was coming back on a night XC. The forecast was for clear below 12k until after midnight then 4-6k BKN to OVC. Conditions in the Chicago area when I left were clear.

As I approached the SW part of Chciago I thought it strange that all I could see was a glow from the lights and not much else. I could see below me and kept checking that view when all of a suddent the gound disappered and I realizdd the reason I could not see the ligths of Chicago was because clouds had moved in sooner than forecast. I was right over a Class D airport. I tried calling them but the tower had just closed. So I turned out west toward DeKalb which I could see and started a decent. After decending about 1500 feet I got below the clouds that were behind me and I could see Chicago again, and even my home airport so I turned and flew home.

 

[PoAdeleted5]

deleted.