Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I use ?

Roy N5804F wrote:
Now after flying the aircraft for quite a few IFR training flight plans I am
reasonably sharp in using the new equipment in IMC and flying with it "in
the system".
I am pretty ok using the Century IIB to fly coupled approaches with the
KX170B and coupled VOR radial intercepts.
So with or without the roll steering equipment I am reasonably comfortable
using any or all of the equipment available.

Now comes my question, what will I be allowed to use on my instrument
checkride ?
I am assuming that the examiner will want the 530 switched off at some stage
for at least one ILS approach, while using the KX170B + GS Indicator ?

Thanks
Roy

Note that the new Instrument PTS *requires* the use of the autopilot (if
installed an operable) during one of the non-precision approaches. The
PTS also says that 'the applicant must demonstrate GPS approach
proficiency when asked' - which pretty much all but requires you to do a
GPS approach. Apparently a common failure point these days on
instrument checkrides is improper use of the GPS during a GPS approach
(GPS not in approach mode, etc.).

This is copied directly from the instrument PTS:

"The applicant is expected to utilize an autopilot and/or flight
management system (FMS), if properly installed, during the instrument
practical test to assist in the management of the aircraft. The examiner
is expected to test the applicant’s knowledge of the systems that are
installed and operative during the oral and flight portions of the
practical test. The applicant will be required to demonstrate the use of
the autopilot and/or FMS during one of the nonprecision approaches.
If the practical test is conducted in the aircraft, and the aircraft has
an operable and properly installed GPS, the applicant must demonstrate
GPS approach proficiency when asked. If the applicant has contracted for
training in an approved course that includes GPS training in the system
that is installed in the airplane/simulator/FTD and the
airplane/simulator/FTD used for the checking/testing has the same system
properly installed and operable, the applicant must demonstrate GPS
approach proficiency. When a practical test is conducted for a 14 CFR
part 135 operator, the operator’s approved training program is the
controlling authority."


- Ray

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 12:57:17 GMT, "Roy N5804F"
wrote:


I have started another thread to get a consensus of opinion about what
navigation equipment I will be allowed to use on my instrument check ride.

Recently I installed in the Archer a complete new Garmin left stack
including the GNS530.
I kept one of the old KX170B's [repositioned] and its glideslope indicator
so that I have dual ILS & VOR systems.
I also kept the Flybuddy Loran which I intend to replace with a slide in GPS
replacement to act as another backup.
The ADF went to a new home via eBay.
The aircraft has a Century IIB AP which is now interfaced with a new GDC31
roll steering unit to the 530.
So just like magic, the bird now flies any programmed route that is active
in the 530 including handling horizontal guidance for the missed approach.

Now after flying the aircraft for quite a few IFR training flight plans I am
reasonably sharp in using the new equipment in IMC and flying with it "in
the system".
I am pretty ok using the Century IIB to fly coupled approaches with the
KX170B and coupled VOR radial intercepts.
So with or without the roll steering equipment I am reasonably comfortable
using any or all of the equipment available.

Now comes my question, what will I be allowed to use on my instrument
checkride ?
I am assuming that the examiner will want the 530 switched off at some stage
for at least one ILS approach, while using the KX170B + GS Indicator ?

I think this is pretty much up to the examiner.

On my checkride, I was allowed the full use of the radio panel the
entire flight. In my case, Garmin 295, KX155 + GS, KX170 + LOC, ADF,
LORAN, DME.

I have a wing-leveler type AP, and was never requested to use it, nor
did I ask to use it.

-Nathan

Any nav gear in the plane you can be expected to be ASKED to use it,
conversely any NAV gear you have in the plane can be unexpectedly failed
by the DE and you will need to resort to other options.

Nathan Young wrote:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 12:57:17 GMT, "Roy N5804F"
wrote:


I have started another thread to get a consensus of opinion about what
navigation equipment I will be allowed to use on my instrument check ride.

Recently I installed in the Archer a complete new Garmin left stack
including the GNS530.
I kept one of the old KX170B's [repositioned] and its glideslope indicator
so that I have dual ILS & VOR systems.
I also kept the Flybuddy Loran which I intend to replace with a slide in GPS
replacement to act as another backup.
The ADF went to a new home via eBay.
The aircraft has a Century IIB AP which is now interfaced with a new GDC31
roll steering unit to the 530.
So just like magic, the bird now flies any programmed route that is active
in the 530 including handling horizontal guidance for the missed approach.

Now after flying the aircraft for quite a few IFR training flight plans I am
reasonably sharp in using the new equipment in IMC and flying with it "in
the system".
I am pretty ok using the Century IIB to fly coupled approaches with the
KX170B and coupled VOR radial intercepts.
So with or without the roll steering equipment I am reasonably comfortable
using any or all of the equipment available.

Now comes my question, what will I be allowed to use on my instrument
checkride ?
I am assuming that the examiner will want the 530 switched off at some stage
for at least one ILS approach, while using the KX170B + GS Indicator ?


I think this is pretty much up to the examiner.

On my checkride, I was allowed the full use of the radio panel the
entire flight. In my case, Garmin 295, KX155 + GS, KX170 + LOC, ADF,
LORAN, DME.

I have a wing-leveler type AP, and was never requested to use it, nor
did I ask to use it.

-Nathan

Tom, et al,
I'm not advocating against autopilots at all, but I am
suggesting that the student should not learn to rely on an autopilot. A
check ride should test the student's ability to handle emergency
situations. If the student can handle the emergency by demonstrating
proper understanding, technique, and execution of the procedures you can
rest assured he or she can handle the tasks when everything is spinning
properly.

I would be surprised if it took more than an hour in the
aircraft to demonstrate the proper procedures for using an autopilot,
hence my statement about it taking more than an hour. An autopilot is
one of those things where a lot of classroom work and mockup work can be
done to really reduce the time spent in the aircraft.

I have never been in favor of a student making extensive use of
autopilots during training because it relieves them of a lot of the
multitasking work. Practicing workload management when things aren't all
there to help the student is one of the benefits of having an instructor
in the other seat. Learning instrument flying by spending more than just
a little time coupled to the box is not the best use of the student's
time or the instructor's skills.

I don't agree with Germany's regulations on single-pilot IFR
operations, but those decisions are often made for political
expediencies. Single-pilot IFR is not an unmanageable task if the pilot
understands his or her limitations, the limitations of the equipment
being used, and has a reasonable set of personal minimums. Taking these
decisions away from the pilot by mandating use of a 2-axis autopilot may
be popular, but should not be necessary.

Demonstrating that a student can fly a typically one-hour check
ride by hand is not a macho task. There will typically not be more than
one or two holds, three or four approaches, and some partial panel
unusual attitudes. Although a typical instrument flight won't involve
all of these elements in a one-hour period, this scenario is still very
real world.


-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Borchert ]
Posted At: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 8:26 AM
Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
Conversation: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use
?
Subject: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use ?

Jim,

If the instructor
spent more than an hour on showing how the autopilot coupling system
works, then something is wrong.

I think you got that wrong. What could be better than to learn about
autopilot use from an instructor. Would you prefer to have the student
figure it out on his own? Why?

Students aren't encouraged to use
coupled autopilots during training are they?

As I said: The FAA's attitude on that has changed, and rightly so,
IMHO. They adapt to the fact that more and more GA planes have
autopilots, and that many accidents could be prevented if only the
pilots knew how to use them beyond "hold the plane straight and level"
mode. The Kennedy accident comes to mind as a perfect example.

So, to answer your question: Yes, in a current training environment,
students are encouraged to ALSO use coupled autopilots during
training,
if the aircraft is so equipped. I said "also", as in: in addition to
hand flying. The FAA requires you to be able to use all eqipment in
the
aircraft and the PTS calls for a focus on autopilot usage if the plane
is so equipped.

IFR flying is not a macho contest about who can fly in the soup with
the fewest instruments...

FWIW, here in Germany, single pilot IFR requires an operational
two-axis autopilot. One of the few country-specific regulations here
that make sense to me.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Autopilots do not take a degree in astrophysics to operate. That being
said, I also made the point that an hour or so of instruction "in the
aircraft" should be sufficient.

I believe the DE will expect the candidate to demonstrate knowledge of
all of the systems on board. I also think the student should not spend a
great deal of time during training "in the aircraft" coupled to an
autopilot. The purpose of autopilots is to reduce cockpit workload.
Students should experience their highest level of cockpit workload
during training, and should not be using the autopilot for much at all
once they have demonstrated they understand its operation.

It is a whole lot easier to learn how to use an autopilot than to learn
how to manage the cockpit workload after it breaks in the soup. That's
my only point.


-----Original Message-----
From: Hamish Reid ]
Posted At: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 9:33 AM
Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
Conversation: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use
?
Subject: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use ?

In article 000401c713bf$cfcd0670$8202a8c0@omnibook6100,
"Jim Carter" wrote:

Do they still require single VOR holds be demonstrated? I'd expect
the
autopilot to be declared INOP as soon as the prop turns; it isn't
required equipment for IFR operations on a Dakota.

It may not be required equipment, but if you turn up for the checkride
with one installed and not INOP, I'll bet the DE will ask to see you
use
it. My own checkride (a few years ago) was done in a spiffy new 172SP
with IFR GPS and coupled autopilot, and you can be damn sure the DE
made
me do a coupled approach with it (GPS approach, actually) and show
that
I knew all the failure modes and how to cope with them as well as how
to
use the various AP modes. Since my instructor had spent some time
showing me this and encouraging me to fly with it coupled (as well as
uncoupled, of course), I was well-prepared.

If the instructor
spent more than an hour on showing how the autopilot coupling system
works, then something is wrong. Students aren't encouraged to use
coupled autopilots during training are they?

I'd hope so... Nowadays I fly mostly AP-installed aircraft and am damn
thankful my instructor stressed its use.

Hamish

Nathan Young wrote in
:

I think this is pretty much up to the examiner.

On my checkride, I was allowed the full use of the radio panel the
entire flight. In my case, Garmin 295, KX155 + GS, KX170 + LOC, ADF,
LORAN, DME.

Pleasantly surprised you were allowed to use the Garmin 295 since it's not
certified for IFR flight. To me, it's a great supplement for situational
awareness, which I'd suspect your examiner felt the same way for he / she
to allow you to use it?

I didn't have an ADF in my plane, just ILS and DME, so all I could do at
the time was ILS, LOC and VOR approaches.

In my check ride, I was asked to do a VOR, ILS and a back course localizer
approach. My partial panel was a VOR approach in which my DE allowed
(encouraged) the use of my VFR Garmin for assistance in the ground track.

Allen

Jim Carter writes:

Demonstrating that a student can fly a typically one-hour check
ride by hand is not a macho task. There will typically not be more than
one or two holds, three or four approaches, and some partial panel
unusual attitudes. Although a typical instrument flight won't involve
all of these elements in a one-hour period, this scenario is still very
real world.

One could argue that any IFR flight without an operational autopilot
is an emergency, in which case the only type of IFR flight that one
would need to verify without autopilot would be landing at the nearest
airport. Although it apparently is not done this way in most
jurisdictions now, I can see the logic in doing so. Essentially it
would amount to little more than increasing the number of functional
instruments required for IFR flight.

I don't personally agree with legislating this, but basing testing on
this assumption isn't necessarily unreasonable.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mxsmanic ]
Posted At: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 6:23 PM
Posted To: rec.aviation.ifr
Conversation: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use
?
Subject: Instrument Check Ride - What navigation equipment can I
use ?

Jim Carter writes:

Demonstrating that a student can fly a typically one-hour check
ride by hand is not a macho task. There will typically not be more
than
one or two holds, three or four approaches, and some partial panel
unusual attitudes. Although a typical instrument flight won't
involve
all of these elements in a one-hour period, this scenario is still
very
real world.

One could argue that any IFR flight without an operational autopilot
is an emergency, in which case the only type of IFR flight that one
would need to verify without autopilot would be landing at the nearest
airport. Although it apparently is not done this way in most
jurisdictions now, I can see the logic in doing so.


One could argue that posting opinions of IFR requirements should require
significant real, IFR experience too.

It amuses me that so much of what was done 30 years ago, with less
accurate technical toys is today seen as macho and Herculean. Single nav
radio holds? Full ADF approach? Cross country without a moving map or
GPS? Single-engine, night IFR? There are way too many opinions about the
lack of safety of these practices by people who have little or no
experience with them.

Of course everyone must know their personal and equipment limitations. I
just have a problem with setting the limits based on the least competent
-- sort of like my problem with our public schools teaching to the
lowest common denominator rather than expecting excellence as the
standard.

I'm really going to upset the apple cart now when I suggest that landing
at the nearest airport isn't always the best choice in any situation.
Even with a blown piston or swallowed valve, the engine can often get
you someplace better than the closest airport. It always makes more
sense to plan and execute a solution rather than just jumping to
conclusions based on what the least skilled have decided we should do.

An autopilot may be on someone's personal list of minimum equipment for
IFR, but that doesn't mean it should be a mandate for all of us.



--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Jim Carter writes:

It amuses me that so much of what was done 30 years ago, with less
accurate technical toys is today seen as macho and Herculean. Single nav
radio holds? Full ADF approach? Cross country without a moving map or
GPS? Single-engine, night IFR? There are way too many opinions about the
lack of safety of these practices by people who have little or no
experience with them.

It's not so much that they are unsafe as that they are unnecessary.

Maybe you could fly a 747 across the country with just a compass and a
map. I don't see any technical obstacle to it offhand. But would you
really want to, when there are so many technical aids to safe
navigation? If all the fancy gadgets fail, is it better to cancel the
flight until the gadgets are fixed, or press on with just the compass?

People lived with simpler instrumentation. But more of them died,
too. Why take the risk?

Indeed, you don't really _need_ IFR. People used to fly without it.
They used to fly without ATC. A lot of the time they survived.
Sometimes they didn't. The current opinion, though, is that the
losses were unacceptably high in those days, and so the risks that
were accepted then cannot be accepted now.

I'm really going to upset the apple cart now when I suggest that landing
at the nearest airport isn't always the best choice in any situation.
Even with a blown piston or swallowed valve, the engine can often get
you someplace better than the closest airport.

Better in what sense? With a failing engine, how could a distant
airport be better than a nearby airport? A lot of pilots die because
they want someplace "better" than the nearest airport, and then their
luck runs out before they find that ideal spot.

It always makes more sense to plan and execute a solution rather
than just jumping to conclusions based on what the least skilled
have decided we should do.

I try to follow the path of least risk. Or more specifically, I try
to manage the risk/benefit ratio. It's hard to see the benefit of
staying in the air with a bad engine. What's wrong with landing and
fixing the problem?

An autopilot may be on someone's personal list of minimum equipment for
IFR, but that doesn't mean it should be a mandate for all of us.

I don't think anyone should be compelled to use an autopilot if he's
flyingon his own. However, I would want an autopilot for IFR flight,
otherwise--at least in my estimation--the aircraft really isn't
suitable for IFR flight.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jim Carter writes:


Demonstrating that a student can fly a typically one-hour check
ride by hand is not a macho task. There will typically not be more than
one or two holds, three or four approaches, and some partial panel
unusual attitudes. Although a typical instrument flight won't involve
all of these elements in a one-hour period, this scenario is still very
real world.


One could argue that any IFR flight without an operational autopilot
is an emergency, in which case the only type of IFR flight that one
would need to verify without autopilot would be landing at the nearest
airport. Although it apparently is not done this way in most
jurisdictions now, I can see the logic in doing so. Essentially it
would amount to little more than increasing the number of functional
instruments required for IFR flight.

Sure, ignorant people make all sorts of stupid arguments.

Matt