the 3hours IFR requirement for PPL

S

scarybus320

Pre-Flight
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
44
Location
nor-cal
Display Name
Display name:
scarybus320
what to expect for the 3 hours of training requirements? i was told to wear a hood and fly with instruments. I will be flying on a citabria with a single VOR and a build in GPS

on the checkride, do I have to fly simulated IFR flying?
 
It's flight by reference to instruments in simulated IMC (i.e. hood/foggles). It is not IFR or even simulated IFR - you aren't expected to know or follow all the many instrument flight rules. Check the PTS for what will be required on the checkride. Off the top of my head, I think it includes straight and level, climbs and descents, turns to headings (i.e. vectors) and unusual attitude recovery. You may be expected to do some basic radionavigation under the hood as well, but nobody will ask you to fly an approach. That said, practicing an ILS or LPV approach with your instructor might not be a bad idea if your aircraft is suitably equipped (you don't say which type of GPS, and many single VOR receivers will also receive ILS signals).
 
scarybus320 said:
what to expect for the 3 hours of training requirements? i was told to wear a hood and fly with instruments. I will be flying on a citabria with a single VOR and a build in GPS

on the checkride, do I have to fly simulated IFR flying?
Click to expand...

For me at least, if we were a sufficiently far away from the home airport, my CFI would whip out the foggles and give me headings and altitudes until we got back home. Every now and then, we'd do stalls, steep turns and unusual attitudes with the foggles on.
 
Instrument training at the private level is focused on being able to acheive straight and level flight and maintain it on instruments, and to be able to make a 180 degree turn.

All of this is to keep you from grief if you encounter inadvertent IMC. There's no partial-panel training required, or any coverage of the IFR rules.

In my syllabus, we do:
straight and level by reference to the instruments.
Unusual attitude recoveries by reference to the instruments
Turns to headings while maintaining altitude by reference to instruments
Climbs and descents while maintaing heading by reference to instruments.

Note that in these exercises the pilot is generally dealing with only one axis at a time - pitch or roll, as opposed to "real" instrument work where the IFR student does both at the same time, and to much tighter tolerances.
 
FAR 61.109 requires three hours of FLIGHT training, not instrument training, for the private certificate. When the time comes for your instrument rating you will be looking at 61.65, which does require instrument training.

Bob Gardner
 
I had a Citabria student without the gyro instruments (no AI or HI......and no VOR also)... the examiner had no problem with this on the checkride. If i recall, the only instrument maneuver he did was get on a North or South heading where the mag compass is more sensitive to changes and do a straight descent. The private instrument training is only about survival for accidental flight into IMC anyway. During training though we did some work in an airplane equipped with the gyro instruments.
 
I have 1.1 done of instrument training so far. It was basically what was stated above, straight and level, turns to headings at 15* bank 2 min turns, climbs & descents. We also did some climbing and descending turns & have shot the ILS a couple times to 500 agl. In the next 1.9 of it we're supposed to do imminent stalls (power on & power off.)
 
I'm not too sure how one can do simulated instrument flight in a Citabria unless the instructor/safety pilot sits up front. I'm not sure you have adequate forward visibility from the back seat to visually clear in front of the plane, although I have little experience in type and am willing to be corrected.

As for what you should expect, it's pretty much laid out in the PP PTS (Area IX - Basic Instrument Maneuvers) -- the four fundamentals, intercepting and tracking an electronic nav course to a station (usually VOR, although GPS will do), and recovery from unusual attitudes. If possible, doing this while working with ATC is a good idea. Some instructors may do a little more, such as demonstrating an instrument approach for emergency use only, but it's not required.
 
thanks for the feedbacks and i should go ask my instructor for a syllabus for the 3hours of training with simulated instruments , the citabria doesn't have AI or HI, but it's eligible for checkride, and there are people at the FBO done it every year.
also, i don't know what type of build in gps it is, as it's the one came from the manufacturer in 2007. looks crap but better than nothing.
 
I am currently flying both, and I can tell you that unless the student is very large, the back seat of the Citabria has at lease as much visibility as a round engine, open cockpit biplane. With two people up front I can see straight ahead in my Waco. With just one, I am constantly moving the airplane around. In the Citabria you are close enough to the front seater to move your head a little and you see just fine. But in light of this conversation, I can see none of the instruments normally, and the airspeed or altimeter only with lots of gyration and only one at a time. The others not at all.

I have been trying to figure out how to do the basic instrument training. (No nav instrument at all, so will need a handheld.)

Ron Levy said:
I'm not too sure how one can do simulated instrument flight in a Citabria unless the instructor/safety pilot sits up front. I'm not sure you have adequate forward visibility from the back seat to visually clear in front of the plane, although I have little experience in type and am willing to be corrected.
Click to expand...
 
scarybus320 said:
thanks for the feedbacks and i should go ask my instructor for a syllabus for the 3hours of training with simulated instruments , the citabria doesn't have AI or HI, but it's eligible for checkride, and there are people at the FBO done it every year.
Click to expand...
Nothing says you must have an AI or HI in the plane to do the PP practical test, but it does mean you'll be doing the instrument tasks including the unusual attitudes "partial panel" -- timed turns, needle/ball/airspeed, etc. Harder, but by no means impossible.
also, i don't know what type of build in gps it is, as it's the one came from the manufacturer in 2007. looks crap but better than nothing.
Click to expand...
You said it has a VOR in it, so the examiner will probably have you use that for the electronic nav subtask, but you still have to know the GPS well enough to do that with the GPS in case s/he asks for it.
 
ebetancourt said:
I am currently flying both, and I can tell you that unless the student is very large, the back seat of the Citabria has at lease as much visibility as a round engine, open cockpit biplane. With two people up front I can see straight ahead in my Waco. With just one, I am constantly moving the airplane around. In the Citabria you are close enough to the front seater to move your head a little and you see just fine.
Click to expand...
My tandem back seat experience is pretty much all in the Cub, T-34, and RF-4C, and I would not be happy as a safety pilot in the back of any of those due to forward visibility restrictions. I imagine it's very type-specific. Of course, the latter two have flight instruments in the back seat, so you can do your instrument work from the back with the safety pilot up front.
I have been trying to figure out how to do the basic instrument training. (No nav instrument at all, so will need a handheld.)
Click to expand...
There is no clear direction to examiners allowing the use of a handheld for this subtask, nor any clear prohibition. Be sure you ask the examiner ahead of time if it's OK, because the answer may vary between examiners.
 
TMetzinger said:
Instrument training at the private level is focused on being able to acheive straight and level flight and maintain it on instruments, and to be able to make a 180 degree turn.

All of this is to keep you from grief if you encounter inadvertent IMC. There's no partial-panel training required, or any coverage of the IFR rules.
Click to expand...
Actually, the flight training by reference to instruments is not, and never has been, an attempt at "saving your bacon" by being able to "make a 180".

Flight by reference to instruments (not instrument training), as required in 61.109 is explained in detail in the Airplane Flying Handbook, starting on Page 3-3 under Integrated Flight Instruction. On Page 3-4, bottom paragraph, it actually says, "The use of integrated flight instruction does not, and is not intended to prepare pilots for flight in IMC."

Integrated flight instruction means that the instructor uses the flight instruments along with the outside visual references during the initial demonstration and practice of all the maneuvers required for solo.

Putting the hood on for 5 or 10 minutes at a time during the hour or so of demnstration and practice so that the student can focus entirely 100% on controlling the instruments for the basic four fundamental flight maneuvers- straight and level, turns, climbs, and descents.

The purpose of the training is to get more precise and be in better control during visual flight by learning to read, understand, and respond to instrument indications during your normal visual maneuvers.

Being able to make that 180 out of the clouds is just an extra on the side, but it is not the intent, nor should it be the focus.
 
My instructor had me shooting an ILS on our second flight by ref. to instruments. There's only so much stand alone basic attitude instrument flying one can do on a 3 Hr requirement before it gets boring...I typically cover the basics, unususal attitudes, and lots of VOR tracking. Get's them more proficient on radio navigation and makes it more interesting for both of us.
 
nosehair said:
Actually, the flight training by reference to instruments is not, and never has been, an attempt at "saving your bacon" by being able to "make a 180".

Flight by reference to instruments (not instrument training), as required in 61.109 is explained in detail in the Airplane Flying Handbook, starting on Page 3-3 under Integrated Flight Instruction. On Page 3-4, bottom paragraph, it actually says, "The use of integrated flight instruction does not, and is not intended to prepare pilots for flight in IMC."

Integrated flight instruction means that the instructor uses the flight instruments along with the outside visual references during the initial demonstration and practice of all the maneuvers required for solo.

Putting the hood on for 5 or 10 minutes at a time during the hour or so of demnstration and practice so that the student can focus entirely 100% on controlling the instruments for the basic four fundamental flight maneuvers- straight and level, turns, climbs, and descents.

The purpose of the training is to get more precise and be in better control during visual flight by learning to read, understand, and respond to instrument indications during your normal visual maneuvers.

Being able to make that 180 out of the clouds is just an extra on the side, but it is not the intent, nor should it be the focus.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with everything you've stated here. You are linking the FAR requirements to the concept of "Integrated Flight Instruction", when they did not come out simulataneously.

I don't disagree with integrated instruction at all, mind you.
 
Integrated flight instruction is about combining and comparing visual and instrument references, and has nothing whatsoever with the required training in flight solely by reference to the instruments. That training is indeed intended as an emergency life-saving tool. If you go way, way back to when those requirements were introduced (unfortunately not available on the internet), you'll see that was the thinking back then.
 
TMetzinger said:
You are linking the FAR requirements to the concept of "Integrated Flight Instruction", when they did not come out simulataneously.
Click to expand...
Hmm..not 100% sure, but it seems the FAR requirement for "hood time" for the PP applicant came out about the same time as the Integrated Flight Instruction concept came out.

I do know the first FAR requirement, which was not for 3 hours, but "some" time, came out in the late 50s, right before I soloed in '61.
I remember reading about the concept in '63 when I got my first CFI.

But, of course, nobody was really doing it.
And it seems to still be a foreign concept.

Read the book, guys. The chapter on Attitude Instrument Flying is Introduced with the Integrated concept.

This idea is still not being applied as intended. It is still being handed down as if it is IFR emergency training - which I also agree with. I agree with the follow-up training beyond the integrated instruction concept and into emergency IMC procedures, which do show up on the PTS as radio nav and ATC procedures.

Also, as I quoted, it specifically says, "Not for the purpose of Instrument Training to Fly into Clouds."

The Big Woo here is that most flight instructors cannot stand to do 3 whole hours of Basic Instruments - and neither can a new student. So..break it up into .3 sessions 10 times during the whole training program.

It is a disservice to wait and try to "knock it out" in 2 or 3 sessions. As if it is a separate thing, like nite or prep for instruments in the advanced stage.
 
nosehair said:
The Big Woo here is that most flight instructors cannot stand to do 3 whole hours of Basic Instruments - and neither can a new student. So..break it up into .3 sessions 10 times during the whole training program.

It is a disservice to wait and try to "knock it out" in 2 or 3 sessions. As if it is a separate thing, like nite or prep for instruments in the advanced stage.
Click to expand...
Concur.
 
nosehair said:
Hmm..not 100% sure, but it seems the FAR requirement for "hood time" for the PP applicant came out about the same time as the Integrated Flight Instruction concept came out.

I do know the first FAR requirement, which was not for 3 hours, but "some" time, came out in the late 50s, right before I soloed in '61.
I remember reading about the concept in '63 when I got my first CFI.

But, of course, nobody was really doing it.
And it seems to still be a foreign concept.

Read the book, guys. The chapter on Attitude Instrument Flying is Introduced with the Integrated concept.

This idea is still not being applied as intended. It is still being handed down as if it is IFR emergency training - which I also agree with. I agree with the follow-up training beyond the integrated instruction concept and into emergency IMC procedures, which do show up on the PTS as radio nav and ATC procedures.

Also, as I quoted, it specifically says, "Not for the purpose of Instrument Training to Fly into Clouds."

The Big Woo here is that most flight instructors cannot stand to do 3 whole hours of Basic Instruments - and neither can a new student. So..break it up into .3 sessions 10 times during the whole training program.

It is a disservice to wait and try to "knock it out" in 2 or 3 sessions. As if it is a separate thing, like nite or prep for instruments in the advanced stage.
Click to expand...
I've seen it done both ways and breaking it up definately has it's advantages; however, alot of instructors (myslef included...assuming I get the job I'm trying to get:wink2:) are teaching in a 141 environment (something I have no experience in, yet..) that requires you follow the syllabus, which typically follows the get it done in 2 1.5 flights approach.
 
I've also seen some excellent literature lately questioning whether the automatic 180 is the best course of action if you encounter inadvertent IMC.
 
GCA319 said:
I've seen it done both ways and breaking it up definately has it's advantages; however, alot of instructors (myslef included...assuming I get the job I'm trying to get:wink2:) are teaching in a 141 environment (something I have no experience in, yet..) that requires you follow the syllabus, which typically follows the get it done in 2 1.5 flights approach.
Click to expand...
Ah, another BIG misconception promoted by busy flight instructors more interested in their own experience/scheduling requirements.

Each FAA approved flight school program is individually approved and may vary quite a bit, provided they meet all Part 141 requirements.

Most schools use prepared programs already approved, such as Jeppesen, a well known pilot training and materials company.

The Jeppesen Private Pilot syllabus has .2 hood time scattered about in a few of the pre-solo lessons, and a few .3 or so scattered around in x/c and check ride prep.

Many 141 instructors think, or want you to think, (for scheduling convenience) that most of the training must be done in a specific 1, 2, 3 fashion, when it really is not that way.

Real flight training cannot occur in that rigid method. There must be a level of flexibility, and all 141 programs that I know of provide that flex. An instructor can vary the lessons as long as he stays within a stage.

Meaning, no x/c before solo, and like that. Each course (usually) is divided in 3 stages; pre-solo, x/c, checkride prep.
Other than that common sense lesson planning, most 141 programs allow sufficient flex for most students and situations.

As I said, each school has it's own approved program, but be sure to read the program and not just follow what other instructors tell you .

A good 141 program allows as much flex as any 61.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top