If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Instrument Checkride passed (Long)
Took & passed my checkride (first try) yesterday. Here's the extended
narrative. Paragraphs enclosed in [] are explanatory for the non-aviators who will recieve this. [Ah, well, why don't I start out with talking about what the "instrument rating" is all about. You can think of it as, basically, an "adendum" tacked onto a pilot's licence that gives you additional priveleges - namely, the ability to fly in weather conditions below "VFR" minimums. All aviation is carried out under one of two sets of regulations - VFR (visual flight rules) and IFR (instrument flight rules). Upon becoming a pilot, you've got the skills and the right to operate under the former, but not the latter - that's what the instrument rating is for. The instrument rating makes flying a much more practical endeavor as you're not nearly as much a slave to the weather when you're capable of flying by reference to instruments only. It also makes you a statistically safer pilot across the board, if statistics mean anything.] [And now, a bit about the "checkride". This is the "practical test" by which an FAA "designated examineer" (DE) is authorized to issue an instrument rating upon successful completion. "Practical test" means both an oral (ground question & answer) session as well as a flight test. My instrument checkride lasted a total of about 3 1/2 hours, which is typical. A prereq to taking the checkride, in addition to having logged the 40 hours of instrument flying (simulated or actual) that's required, is having passed the FAA's written test, which I did back in December.] My ride was scheduled for 1PM at MWC. I'd been asked in advance to plan a cross-country IFR flight of at least 200nm; I chose Crystal, MN (MIC), as it met the requirements and is a destination I've flown to VFR in the past. I also planned for a fuel stop at La Crosse (LSE), as with me and the examineer's 220lb, there was room for only 19 gallons in my 152. I showed up at the airport at 12:30 to finish up my nav logs and get a weather briefing, and the examineer was already there, having arrived in his Bonanza. I gave him my paperwork (8710 form, written test results, logbook) and his payment and told him I'd need a few minutes to finish up. After getting my briefing, which correlated well with the somewhat earlier weather reports I'd planned the flight based on, I decided it would be a definite "go" if the flight were for real, and decided I was ready for the oral. He began by asking me to go through the flight, which I did. I explained why I chose the route (airways) and altitude (wind) that I did, and explained the reasons for the alternates I'd chosen, even though they actually were not required. [The regs require you to file an alternate airport if weather at your destination at ETA is below certain minimums.] He then got into the "what-if" failure/emergency scenaries I was expecting - lost comm, vacuum failure, icing. He seemed satisfied with my answers. By this point his demeanor had pretty much changed from "formal" to "friendly/informal", and I had a good feeling about the oral and the ride. [The most challenging and involved area of instrument flying, in terms of knowledge and flying skill, is the "instrument approach procedure" (IAP). The purpose of such a procedure is to allow one to descend from the enroute structure and make an approach to a runway, by reference to instruments only, with no outside references, to a point very near the threshold of a runway from which the transition to visual references can be made, if possible, followed by a landing.] [Each individual IAP is completely custom to a particular airport, runway, and means of navigation. They are described on charts known as "plates" that contain all the information necessary to fly the approach - the navigation aids used, their frequencies, headings, altitudes, times, communication frequencies, landing minimums (visibility and ceiling), and "missed approach" instructions - what you do when arrive at the decision point and are not able to continue to a landing due to inadequate visual references or other reasons. Each one is a work of art, IMO.] We talked about approaches for quite a bit (no surprise there). He got out a couple plates and asked me many questions about them, all of which I answered with no problem. He talked quite a bit about making the go-missed decision - how to determine if the required visibility is met, mainly. He brought up some nuances I hadn't fully considered before, such as the fact that pilot visiblity can overrule reported RVR values. I did know some fairly obscure things such as the rules regarding ILS approach lighting systems (the lights allow you to descend to 100' AGL but no lower unless you have the red lights, or part of the runway structure itself), which seemed to impress him. Talking about VOR-A (or -B, etc.) approaches, I won brownie points by knowing the answer to this question: Why might an IAP be designated -A (no straight-in minimums given) when the course is within 30 degrees of the landing runway? The answer is that, in that case, the MDA puts you too high to execute a straight-in landing "at a normal rate of descent". My instructor had happened to discuss that topic with me a few weeks prior - the DE said I was the only checkride applicant he'd ever had that got that one right. Cool. We then talked about attitude instrument flight for awhile; he asked about primary/secondary instrument in various flight conditions, and I answered all of that correctly. I think that was about it. A few more topics were touched upon, but they were more informal chatting than any sort of grilling. I came away really impressed with the DE's knowledge - he'd shown me different sides of a number of topics. He obviously knew instrument flight inside and out. (I suppose that's logical for a DE.) He then told me what we'd be doing on the flight, to a level of detail that surprised me. He gave me all three approaches we'd be flying, and the hold, with the disclaimer that the plans *might* change - as it turned out, they didn't. All the approaches were ones I'd done before - the VOR-A and ILS 10 at UES (Waukesha) and the LOC 15 back into Timmy - although all but the first involved using feeder routes that I'd never used before, including intercepting the localizer backcourse for the full ILS 10 UES. We drove out to my hangar; I'd previously preflighted. As we climbed into my 152, I apologized for owning such a cramped airplane and he apologized for being so fat, as he put it. I made sure to use every checklist, even the pre-engine-start, religiously, as I, uh, always do. He told me he'd be playing ATC and that he'd have a mock clearance for me to copy. I did, and readback correctly, and he told me to proceed direct Badger (BAE), which was the first fix on my flight plan, up to 3000' msl. [Holding patterns are another part of instrument flying - as the name implies, the purpose is simply kill time, by flying in a circle, for traffic separation, to wait out weather below minimums, etc. There isn't a ton to it - you need to know how to enter the hold, which is a function of the heading you're approaching it from, how to properly correct for wind drift (important in almost every aspect of aviation), and how to correct your timing to produce inbound legs of standard length (one minute unless otherwise specified). The first thing we did was hold at BAE, R90 - meaning a very obvious direct entry, approaching almost due west. It turns out I completely lucked out on the winds - they were almost non-existent. After dealing with 30-40 knot winds aloft the last few times out, this was a nice change. Unfortunately, I made my first and only real mistake on the ride in this hold. Since holding can be so simple, almost boring, I let my mind wander a bit on the 2nd outbound leg, and was thinking ahead to the VOR-A approach and the published missed there - I looked down at the chart, which I'd put on the yoke clip ahead of time. The hold for the published missed is at BAE on the 270 radial. You can probably guess what happened - that extra clutter in my head caused me to basically lose situational awareness for a few seconds. I was in the middle of the turn inbound and I simply stopped, on a 180 heading, half way through! Man, that was just awful. I recovered quickly but I could have blown it right there, and how stupidly! Thoroughly ****ed at myslef, I decided to keep my mind on what I was doing, at all times, no matter how simple, and vowed no more stupid mistakes (or any mistakes). After the 2nd turn of the hold he had me call UES tower and request the two practice approaches, starting with the full ILS 10, and told me to fly the BAE R212 feeder route to the outer marker. The ILS was uneventful. As I noted, the calm winds today made things so easy, frankly. I had flown this ILS with a 40-knot tailwind a couple days earlier; today, it was all standard numbers, airspeed nearly equal to groundspeed, only the slightest crab necessary, and no bouncing all over the place once I got low, as I'd gotten accustomed to lately. Easy. Down to decision height and then the published missed, back to BAE. I turned for the parallel entry for the hold and then he covered my attitude indicator and asked me to close my eyes and put my head in my lap. [This part of the checkride is designed to test your skill in "partial-panel" instrument flying. Two of the main gyroscopic flight instruments in most light aircraft are powered by an engine-driven vacuum pump, and the reliability of these units is something less than steller in general. Losing vacuum in IFR conditions is a full-on emergency because you lose these instruments - the attitude indicator and the directional gyro, which gives you your heading. When flying partial-panel, you must rely more heavily on indications from other instruments to augment your knowledge of the aircraft's attitude and heading. This information does exist via other instruments, but it's less direct and less readily available. Partial-panel instrument flying is challenging.] [The exercise the DE was giving me here is unusual-attitude recovery - a situation you may very well find yourself in when you realize you've lost your gyros! The DE puts the aircraft in a "crazy" flight attitude, gives you the controls, and evaluates you on your ability to recover. Any intervention necessary from the examineer in this exercise deemed necessary for safety is a guaranteed failure of the checkride.] He gave me only one UA - with him yelling "recover, recover, recover!", I open my eyes, take the yoke, and note the altimeter unwinding, the VSI pegged downward, and the airspeed well into the yelling range. I simultaneously level the wings and pull the power, then gently recover. Done. My eyes *did* go to the covered AI, initially, though - I'd actually never done an UA recovery partial-panel before! (My CFI was present for the debrief after the ride and it turned out he didn't know they were a part of the ride - the PTS is not clear on this.) After this, he has me intercept the BAE R333 outbound for the full UES VOR-A approach, partial-panel. Now, a couple words about this - it turns out that this particular DE covers only the AI for the partial-panel approach - his concern being that looking up at the compass if the DG is covered makes "cheating" a concern. Now, I'd practiced PP approaches with no DG and never once did I have any inclination to try to "cheat" by looking outside, but he has that concern and he's the DE. There's no doubt that the PP approach is easier when you have your DG, but I'm quite confident I could have done it without as well, as I'd done so on several occasions. This approach, again, was, pretty much flawless, and should have been given the conditions. I was able to hold alt within 25 ft or so and keep the needle extremely close to centered all the way in. Missed back to the north, intercept the BAE R61 feeding route for the MWC LOC 15, he has me call tower and ask for a circle to 22. At this point, I know that I have the ride in the bad unless I do something exceedingly stupid. [A word about the "circle to land" manuever. Sometimes, you execute an instrument approach to one runway but must land on another, usually due to the wind conditions. The circle-to-land manuever is tricky because you are doing a lot of manuevering at a very low altitude. On the checkride, you have an altitude tolerance of +100, -0 ft (which goes for every instrument approach minimum descent altitude or decision altitude), so you must be very careful to maintain that range while circling, as well as stay within the maximum distance allowed from the end of any runway, which is a function of your approach speed and for me is 1.3 miles. The tolerance of -0 is there because descending below MDA while circling can easily result in hitting something, which is bad, and climbing is also unacceptable because on a real approach in instrument conditions that could easily put you back in the clouds, and if that happens you must immediately discontinue the circle and execute the missed approach.] The DE decided to mess with my head on the circle. I had been expecting such a "distraction", but for some reason at this point I in fact did not recognize it as a planned "distraction", and instead of asking him nicely to shut his pie-hole until we landed, proceeded to answer his questions as best I could. "Where are we going to land?" "Uh.. the runway". "Where will the mains touchdown?" "I'm shooting for the numbers". "Do you think you should use full flaps with this wind." "Sure.. why not?" Ok, I think I was catching on now. On the rollout, he asked me why I missed the numbers. "Well, I was just a bit high on final." I knew he was messing with me now. "But instrument flying is all about precision, isn't it?" "Yes, sir, but I forgot how to land." He cracked up and gave me a "good job", telling me that I had the ticket unless I managed to hit his Bonanza on the ramp. [Instrument students do typically let their landing skills slip a bit, as there generally isn't much landing going on. We already know how to land airplanes; we practice approaches to the missed approach point, as it's the approach that's being practiced. Also, I'd had an engine modification done 6 weeks ago, and because the engine was still in break-in, pattern practice (landings) wasn't a good idea.] So, that's about it! He took my nice plastic certificate and gave me a crappy temporary paper one instead, but since it says "Instrument Airplane" at the bottom, I'll take it! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Congratulations!!!
(Now, keeping current will be your task.) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Contratulations, Paul! Very nice narrative, too. I'm starting my studying,
and you've mentioned many useful points. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Congratulations Paul... Unfortunately, you can not be a member of our
busted a checkride club... Too bad.. There are some really distinguished members in there!! :-0 Seriously though, great job!! Jon Kraus PP-ASEL-IA '79 Mooney 201 4443H Paul Folbrecht wrote: Took & passed my checkride (first try) yesterday. Here's the extended narrative. Paragraphs enclosed in [] are explanatory for the non-aviators who will recieve this. [Ah, well, why don't I start out with talking about what the "instrument rating" is all about. You can think of it as, basically, an "adendum" tacked onto a pilot's licence that gives you additional priveleges - namely, the ability to fly in weather conditions below "VFR" minimums. All aviation is carried out under one of two sets of regulations - VFR (visual flight rules) and IFR (instrument flight rules). Upon becoming a pilot, you've got the skills and the right to operate under the former, but not the latter - that's what the instrument rating is for. The instrument rating makes flying a much more practical endeavor as you're not nearly as much a slave to the weather when you're capable of flying by reference to instruments only. It also makes you a statistically safer pilot across the board, if statistics mean anything.] [And now, a bit about the "checkride". This is the "practical test" by which an FAA "designated examineer" (DE) is authorized to issue an instrument rating upon successful completion. "Practical test" means both an oral (ground question & answer) session as well as a flight test. My instrument checkride lasted a total of about 3 1/2 hours, which is typical. A prereq to taking the checkride, in addition to having logged the 40 hours of instrument flying (simulated or actual) that's required, is having passed the FAA's written test, which I did back in December.] My ride was scheduled for 1PM at MWC. I'd been asked in advance to plan a cross-country IFR flight of at least 200nm; I chose Crystal, MN (MIC), as it met the requirements and is a destination I've flown to VFR in the past. I also planned for a fuel stop at La Crosse (LSE), as with me and the examineer's 220lb, there was room for only 19 gallons in my 152. I showed up at the airport at 12:30 to finish up my nav logs and get a weather briefing, and the examineer was already there, having arrived in his Bonanza. I gave him my paperwork (8710 form, written test results, logbook) and his payment and told him I'd need a few minutes to finish up. After getting my briefing, which correlated well with the somewhat earlier weather reports I'd planned the flight based on, I decided it would be a definite "go" if the flight were for real, and decided I was ready for the oral. He began by asking me to go through the flight, which I did. I explained why I chose the route (airways) and altitude (wind) that I did, and explained the reasons for the alternates I'd chosen, even though they actually were not required. [The regs require you to file an alternate airport if weather at your destination at ETA is below certain minimums.] He then got into the "what-if" failure/emergency scenaries I was expecting - lost comm, vacuum failure, icing. He seemed satisfied with my answers. By this point his demeanor had pretty much changed from "formal" to "friendly/informal", and I had a good feeling about the oral and the ride. [The most challenging and involved area of instrument flying, in terms of knowledge and flying skill, is the "instrument approach procedure" (IAP). The purpose of such a procedure is to allow one to descend from the enroute structure and make an approach to a runway, by reference to instruments only, with no outside references, to a point very near the threshold of a runway from which the transition to visual references can be made, if possible, followed by a landing.] [Each individual IAP is completely custom to a particular airport, runway, and means of navigation. They are described on charts known as "plates" that contain all the information necessary to fly the approach - the navigation aids used, their frequencies, headings, altitudes, times, communication frequencies, landing minimums (visibility and ceiling), and "missed approach" instructions - what you do when arrive at the decision point and are not able to continue to a landing due to inadequate visual references or other reasons. Each one is a work of art, IMO.] We talked about approaches for quite a bit (no surprise there). He got out a couple plates and asked me many questions about them, all of which I answered with no problem. He talked quite a bit about making the go-missed decision - how to determine if the required visibility is met, mainly. He brought up some nuances I hadn't fully considered before, such as the fact that pilot visiblity can overrule reported RVR values. I did know some fairly obscure things such as the rules regarding ILS approach lighting systems (the lights allow you to descend to 100' AGL but no lower unless you have the red lights, or part of the runway structure itself), which seemed to impress him. Talking about VOR-A (or -B, etc.) approaches, I won brownie points by knowing the answer to this question: Why might an IAP be designated -A (no straight-in minimums given) when the course is within 30 degrees of the landing runway? The answer is that, in that case, the MDA puts you too high to execute a straight-in landing "at a normal rate of descent". My instructor had happened to discuss that topic with me a few weeks prior - the DE said I was the only checkride applicant he'd ever had that got that one right. Cool. We then talked about attitude instrument flight for awhile; he asked about primary/secondary instrument in various flight conditions, and I answered all of that correctly. I think that was about it. A few more topics were touched upon, but they were more informal chatting than any sort of grilling. I came away really impressed with the DE's knowledge - he'd shown me different sides of a number of topics. He obviously knew instrument flight inside and out. (I suppose that's logical for a DE.) He then told me what we'd be doing on the flight, to a level of detail that surprised me. He gave me all three approaches we'd be flying, and the hold, with the disclaimer that the plans *might* change - as it turned out, they didn't. All the approaches were ones I'd done before - the VOR-A and ILS 10 at UES (Waukesha) and the LOC 15 back into Timmy - although all but the first involved using feeder routes that I'd never used before, including intercepting the localizer backcourse for the full ILS 10 UES. We drove out to my hangar; I'd previously preflighted. As we climbed into my 152, I apologized for owning such a cramped airplane and he apologized for being so fat, as he put it. I made sure to use every checklist, even the pre-engine-start, religiously, as I, uh, always do. He told me he'd be playing ATC and that he'd have a mock clearance for me to copy. I did, and readback correctly, and he told me to proceed direct Badger (BAE), which was the first fix on my flight plan, up to 3000' msl. [Holding patterns are another part of instrument flying - as the name implies, the purpose is simply kill time, by flying in a circle, for traffic separation, to wait out weather below minimums, etc. There isn't a ton to it - you need to know how to enter the hold, which is a function of the heading you're approaching it from, how to properly correct for wind drift (important in almost every aspect of aviation), and how to correct your timing to produce inbound legs of standard length (one minute unless otherwise specified). The first thing we did was hold at BAE, R90 - meaning a very obvious direct entry, approaching almost due west. It turns out I completely lucked out on the winds - they were almost non-existent. After dealing with 30-40 knot winds aloft the last few times out, this was a nice change. Unfortunately, I made my first and only real mistake on the ride in this hold. Since holding can be so simple, almost boring, I let my mind wander a bit on the 2nd outbound leg, and was thinking ahead to the VOR-A approach and the published missed there - I looked down at the chart, which I'd put on the yoke clip ahead of time. The hold for the published missed is at BAE on the 270 radial. You can probably guess what happened - that extra clutter in my head caused me to basically lose situational awareness for a few seconds. I was in the middle of the turn inbound and I simply stopped, on a 180 heading, half way through! Man, that was just awful. I recovered quickly but I could have blown it right there, and how stupidly! Thoroughly ****ed at myslef, I decided to keep my mind on what I was doing, at all times, no matter how simple, and vowed no more stupid mistakes (or any mistakes). After the 2nd turn of the hold he had me call UES tower and request the two practice approaches, starting with the full ILS 10, and told me to fly the BAE R212 feeder route to the outer marker. The ILS was uneventful. As I noted, the calm winds today made things so easy, frankly. I had flown this ILS with a 40-knot tailwind a couple days earlier; today, it was all standard numbers, airspeed nearly equal to groundspeed, only the slightest crab necessary, and no bouncing all over the place once I got low, as I'd gotten accustomed to lately. Easy. Down to decision height and then the published missed, back to BAE. I turned for the parallel entry for the hold and then he covered my attitude indicator and asked me to close my eyes and put my head in my lap. [This part of the checkride is designed to test your skill in "partial-panel" instrument flying. Two of the main gyroscopic flight instruments in most light aircraft are powered by an engine-driven vacuum pump, and the reliability of these units is something less than steller in general. Losing vacuum in IFR conditions is a full-on emergency because you lose these instruments - the attitude indicator and the directional gyro, which gives you your heading. When flying partial-panel, you must rely more heavily on indications from other instruments to augment your knowledge of the aircraft's attitude and heading. This information does exist via other instruments, but it's less direct and less readily available. Partial-panel instrument flying is challenging.] [The exercise the DE was giving me here is unusual-attitude recovery - a situation you may very well find yourself in when you realize you've lost your gyros! The DE puts the aircraft in a "crazy" flight attitude, gives you the controls, and evaluates you on your ability to recover. Any intervention necessary from the examineer in this exercise deemed necessary for safety is a guaranteed failure of the checkride.] He gave me only one UA - with him yelling "recover, recover, recover!", I open my eyes, take the yoke, and note the altimeter unwinding, the VSI pegged downward, and the airspeed well into the yelling range. I simultaneously level the wings and pull the power, then gently recover. Done. My eyes *did* go to the covered AI, initially, though - I'd actually never done an UA recovery partial-panel before! (My CFI was present for the debrief after the ride and it turned out he didn't know they were a part of the ride - the PTS is not clear on this.) After this, he has me intercept the BAE R333 outbound for the full UES VOR-A approach, partial-panel. Now, a couple words about this - it turns out that this particular DE covers only the AI for the partial-panel approach - his concern being that looking up at the compass if the DG is covered makes "cheating" a concern. Now, I'd practiced PP approaches with no DG and never once did I have any inclination to try to "cheat" by looking outside, but he has that concern and he's the DE. There's no doubt that the PP approach is easier when you have your DG, but I'm quite confident I could have done it without as well, as I'd done so on several occasions. This approach, again, was, pretty much flawless, and should have been given the conditions. I was able to hold alt within 25 ft or so and keep the needle extremely close to centered all the way in. Missed back to the north, intercept the BAE R61 feeding route for the MWC LOC 15, he has me call tower and ask for a circle to 22. At this point, I know that I have the ride in the bad unless I do something exceedingly stupid. [A word about the "circle to land" manuever. Sometimes, you execute an instrument approach to one runway but must land on another, usually due to the wind conditions. The circle-to-land manuever is tricky because you are doing a lot of manuevering at a very low altitude. On the checkride, you have an altitude tolerance of +100, -0 ft (which goes for every instrument approach minimum descent altitude or decision altitude), so you must be very careful to maintain that range while circling, as well as stay within the maximum distance allowed from the end of any runway, which is a function of your approach speed and for me is 1.3 miles. The tolerance of -0 is there because descending below MDA while circling can easily result in hitting something, which is bad, and climbing is also unacceptable because on a real approach in instrument conditions that could easily put you back in the clouds, and if that happens you must immediately discontinue the circle and execute the missed approach.] The DE decided to mess with my head on the circle. I had been expecting such a "distraction", but for some reason at this point I in fact did not recognize it as a planned "distraction", and instead of asking him nicely to shut his pie-hole until we landed, proceeded to answer his questions as best I could. "Where are we going to land?" "Uh.. the runway". "Where will the mains touchdown?" "I'm shooting for the numbers". "Do you think you should use full flaps with this wind." "Sure.. why not?" Ok, I think I was catching on now. On the rollout, he asked me why I missed the numbers. "Well, I was just a bit high on final." I knew he was messing with me now. "But instrument flying is all about precision, isn't it?" "Yes, sir, but I forgot how to land." He cracked up and gave me a "good job", telling me that I had the ticket unless I managed to hit his Bonanza on the ramp. [Instrument students do typically let their landing skills slip a bit, as there generally isn't much landing going on. We already know how to land airplanes; we practice approaches to the missed approach point, as it's the approach that's being practiced. Also, I'd had an engine modification done 6 weeks ago, and because the engine was still in break-in, pattern practice (landings) wasn't a good idea.] So, that's about it! He took my nice plastic certificate and gave me a crappy temporary paper one instead, but since it says "Instrument Airplane" at the bottom, I'll take it! |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Congrats Paul, glad to see you had a good checkride. Was your DE Keith
Myers? Jim "Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message ... Took & passed my checkride (first try) yesterday. Here's the extended narrative. Paragraphs enclosed in [] are explanatory for the non-aviators who will recieve this. [Ah, well, why don't I start out with talking about what the "instrument rating" is all about. You can think of it as, basically, an "adendum" tacked onto a pilot's licence that gives you additional priveleges - namely, the ability to fly in weather conditions below "VFR" minimums. All aviation is carried out under one of two sets of regulations - VFR (visual flight rules) and IFR (instrument flight rules). Upon becoming a pilot, you've got the skills and the right to operate under the former, but not the latter - that's what the instrument rating is for. The instrument rating makes flying a much more practical endeavor as you're not nearly as much a slave to the weather when you're capable of flying by reference to instruments only. It also makes you a statistically safer pilot across the board, if statistics mean anything.] [And now, a bit about the "checkride". This is the "practical test" by which an FAA "designated examineer" (DE) is authorized to issue an instrument rating upon successful completion. "Practical test" means both an oral (ground question & answer) session as well as a flight test. My instrument checkride lasted a total of about 3 1/2 hours, which is typical. A prereq to taking the checkride, in addition to having logged the 40 hours of instrument flying (simulated or actual) that's required, is having passed the FAA's written test, which I did back in December.] My ride was scheduled for 1PM at MWC. I'd been asked in advance to plan a cross-country IFR flight of at least 200nm; I chose Crystal, MN (MIC), as it met the requirements and is a destination I've flown to VFR in the past. I also planned for a fuel stop at La Crosse (LSE), as with me and the examineer's 220lb, there was room for only 19 gallons in my 152. I showed up at the airport at 12:30 to finish up my nav logs and get a weather briefing, and the examineer was already there, having arrived in his Bonanza. I gave him my paperwork (8710 form, written test results, logbook) and his payment and told him I'd need a few minutes to finish up. After getting my briefing, which correlated well with the somewhat earlier weather reports I'd planned the flight based on, I decided it would be a definite "go" if the flight were for real, and decided I was ready for the oral. He began by asking me to go through the flight, which I did. I explained why I chose the route (airways) and altitude (wind) that I did, and explained the reasons for the alternates I'd chosen, even though they actually were not required. [The regs require you to file an alternate airport if weather at your destination at ETA is below certain minimums.] He then got into the "what-if" failure/emergency scenaries I was expecting - lost comm, vacuum failure, icing. He seemed satisfied with my answers. By this point his demeanor had pretty much changed from "formal" to "friendly/informal", and I had a good feeling about the oral and the ride. [The most challenging and involved area of instrument flying, in terms of knowledge and flying skill, is the "instrument approach procedure" (IAP). The purpose of such a procedure is to allow one to descend from the enroute structure and make an approach to a runway, by reference to instruments only, with no outside references, to a point very near the threshold of a runway from which the transition to visual references can be made, if possible, followed by a landing.] [Each individual IAP is completely custom to a particular airport, runway, and means of navigation. They are described on charts known as "plates" that contain all the information necessary to fly the approach - the navigation aids used, their frequencies, headings, altitudes, times, communication frequencies, landing minimums (visibility and ceiling), and "missed approach" instructions - what you do when arrive at the decision point and are not able to continue to a landing due to inadequate visual references or other reasons. Each one is a work of art, IMO.] We talked about approaches for quite a bit (no surprise there). He got out a couple plates and asked me many questions about them, all of which I answered with no problem. He talked quite a bit about making the go-missed decision - how to determine if the required visibility is met, mainly. He brought up some nuances I hadn't fully considered before, such as the fact that pilot visiblity can overrule reported RVR values. I did know some fairly obscure things such as the rules regarding ILS approach lighting systems (the lights allow you to descend to 100' AGL but no lower unless you have the red lights, or part of the runway structure itself), which seemed to impress him. Talking about VOR-A (or -B, etc.) approaches, I won brownie points by knowing the answer to this question: Why might an IAP be designated -A (no straight-in minimums given) when the course is within 30 degrees of the landing runway? The answer is that, in that case, the MDA puts you too high to execute a straight-in landing "at a normal rate of descent". My instructor had happened to discuss that topic with me a few weeks prior - the DE said I was the only checkride applicant he'd ever had that got that one right. Cool. We then talked about attitude instrument flight for awhile; he asked about primary/secondary instrument in various flight conditions, and I answered all of that correctly. I think that was about it. A few more topics were touched upon, but they were more informal chatting than any sort of grilling. I came away really impressed with the DE's knowledge - he'd shown me different sides of a number of topics. He obviously knew instrument flight inside and out. (I suppose that's logical for a DE.) He then told me what we'd be doing on the flight, to a level of detail that surprised me. He gave me all three approaches we'd be flying, and the hold, with the disclaimer that the plans *might* change - as it turned out, they didn't. All the approaches were ones I'd done before - the VOR-A and ILS 10 at UES (Waukesha) and the LOC 15 back into Timmy - although all but the first involved using feeder routes that I'd never used before, including intercepting the localizer backcourse for the full ILS 10 UES. We drove out to my hangar; I'd previously preflighted. As we climbed into my 152, I apologized for owning such a cramped airplane and he apologized for being so fat, as he put it. I made sure to use every checklist, even the pre-engine-start, religiously, as I, uh, always do. He told me he'd be playing ATC and that he'd have a mock clearance for me to copy. I did, and readback correctly, and he told me to proceed direct Badger (BAE), which was the first fix on my flight plan, up to 3000' msl. [Holding patterns are another part of instrument flying - as the name implies, the purpose is simply kill time, by flying in a circle, for traffic separation, to wait out weather below minimums, etc. There isn't a ton to it - you need to know how to enter the hold, which is a function of the heading you're approaching it from, how to properly correct for wind drift (important in almost every aspect of aviation), and how to correct your timing to produce inbound legs of standard length (one minute unless otherwise specified). The first thing we did was hold at BAE, R90 - meaning a very obvious direct entry, approaching almost due west. It turns out I completely lucked out on the winds - they were almost non-existent. After dealing with 30-40 knot winds aloft the last few times out, this was a nice change. Unfortunately, I made my first and only real mistake on the ride in this hold. Since holding can be so simple, almost boring, I let my mind wander a bit on the 2nd outbound leg, and was thinking ahead to the VOR-A approach and the published missed there - I looked down at the chart, which I'd put on the yoke clip ahead of time. The hold for the published missed is at BAE on the 270 radial. You can probably guess what happened - that extra clutter in my head caused me to basically lose situational awareness for a few seconds. I was in the middle of the turn inbound and I simply stopped, on a 180 heading, half way through! Man, that was just awful. I recovered quickly but I could have blown it right there, and how stupidly! Thoroughly ****ed at myslef, I decided to keep my mind on what I was doing, at all times, no matter how simple, and vowed no more stupid mistakes (or any mistakes). After the 2nd turn of the hold he had me call UES tower and request the two practice approaches, starting with the full ILS 10, and told me to fly the BAE R212 feeder route to the outer marker. The ILS was uneventful. As I noted, the calm winds today made things so easy, frankly. I had flown this ILS with a 40-knot tailwind a couple days earlier; today, it was all standard numbers, airspeed nearly equal to groundspeed, only the slightest crab necessary, and no bouncing all over the place once I got low, as I'd gotten accustomed to lately. Easy. Down to decision height and then the published missed, back to BAE. I turned for the parallel entry for the hold and then he covered my attitude indicator and asked me to close my eyes and put my head in my lap. [This part of the checkride is designed to test your skill in "partial-panel" instrument flying. Two of the main gyroscopic flight instruments in most light aircraft are powered by an engine-driven vacuum pump, and the reliability of these units is something less than steller in general. Losing vacuum in IFR conditions is a full-on emergency because you lose these instruments - the attitude indicator and the directional gyro, which gives you your heading. When flying partial-panel, you must rely more heavily on indications from other instruments to augment your knowledge of the aircraft's attitude and heading. This information does exist via other instruments, but it's less direct and less readily available. Partial-panel instrument flying is challenging.] [The exercise the DE was giving me here is unusual-attitude recovery - a situation you may very well find yourself in when you realize you've lost your gyros! The DE puts the aircraft in a "crazy" flight attitude, gives you the controls, and evaluates you on your ability to recover. Any intervention necessary from the examineer in this exercise deemed necessary for safety is a guaranteed failure of the checkride.] He gave me only one UA - with him yelling "recover, recover, recover!", I open my eyes, take the yoke, and note the altimeter unwinding, the VSI pegged downward, and the airspeed well into the yelling range. I simultaneously level the wings and pull the power, then gently recover. Done. My eyes *did* go to the covered AI, initially, though - I'd actually never done an UA recovery partial-panel before! (My CFI was present for the debrief after the ride and it turned out he didn't know they were a part of the ride - the PTS is not clear on this.) After this, he has me intercept the BAE R333 outbound for the full UES VOR-A approach, partial-panel. Now, a couple words about this - it turns out that this particular DE covers only the AI for the partial-panel approach - his concern being that looking up at the compass if the DG is covered makes "cheating" a concern. Now, I'd practiced PP approaches with no DG and never once did I have any inclination to try to "cheat" by looking outside, but he has that concern and he's the DE. There's no doubt that the PP approach is easier when you have your DG, but I'm quite confident I could have done it without as well, as I'd done so on several occasions. This approach, again, was, pretty much flawless, and should have been given the conditions. I was able to hold alt within 25 ft or so and keep the needle extremely close to centered all the way in. Missed back to the north, intercept the BAE R61 feeding route for the MWC LOC 15, he has me call tower and ask for a circle to 22. At this point, I know that I have the ride in the bad unless I do something exceedingly stupid. [A word about the "circle to land" manuever. Sometimes, you execute an instrument approach to one runway but must land on another, usually due to the wind conditions. The circle-to-land manuever is tricky because you are doing a lot of manuevering at a very low altitude. On the checkride, you have an altitude tolerance of +100, -0 ft (which goes for every instrument approach minimum descent altitude or decision altitude), so you must be very careful to maintain that range while circling, as well as stay within the maximum distance allowed from the end of any runway, which is a function of your approach speed and for me is 1.3 miles. The tolerance of -0 is there because descending below MDA while circling can easily result in hitting something, which is bad, and climbing is also unacceptable because on a real approach in instrument conditions that could easily put you back in the clouds, and if that happens you must immediately discontinue the circle and execute the missed approach.] The DE decided to mess with my head on the circle. I had been expecting such a "distraction", but for some reason at this point I in fact did not recognize it as a planned "distraction", and instead of asking him nicely to shut his pie-hole until we landed, proceeded to answer his questions as best I could. "Where are we going to land?" "Uh.. the runway". "Where will the mains touchdown?" "I'm shooting for the numbers". "Do you think you should use full flaps with this wind." "Sure.. why not?" Ok, I think I was catching on now. On the rollout, he asked me why I missed the numbers. "Well, I was just a bit high on final." I knew he was messing with me now. "But instrument flying is all about precision, isn't it?" "Yes, sir, but I forgot how to land." He cracked up and gave me a "good job", telling me that I had the ticket unless I managed to hit his Bonanza on the ramp. [Instrument students do typically let their landing skills slip a bit, as there generally isn't much landing going on. We already know how to land airplanes; we practice approaches to the missed approach point, as it's the approach that's being practiced. Also, I'd had an engine modification done 6 weeks ago, and because the engine was still in break-in, pattern practice (landings) wasn't a good idea.] So, that's about it! He took my nice plastic certificate and gave me a crappy temporary paper one instead, but since it says "Instrument Airplane" at the bottom, I'll take it! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Paul,
Congrats! You must have really been on it to pass the first time. I too am the somewhat dubious recipient of a pink slip, but passed the second time! Cheers, Alan Pendley PP - ASEL - IA Commercial Student Hawthorne Muni, CA '75 Cardinal RG N2770V KHHR ========== "Jon Kraus" wrote in message ... Congratulations Paul... Unfortunately, you can not be a member of our busted a checkride club... Too bad.. There are some really distinguished members in there!! :-0 Seriously though, great job!! Jon Kraus PP-ASEL-IA '79 Mooney 201 4443H Paul Folbrecht wrote: Took & passed my checkride (first try) yesterday. Here's the extended narrative. Paragraphs enclosed in [] are explanatory for the non-aviators who will recieve this. [Ah, well, why don't I start out with talking about what the "instrument rating" is all about. You can think of it as, basically, an "adendum" tacked onto a pilot's licence that gives you additional priveleges - namely, the ability to fly in weather conditions below "VFR" minimums. All aviation is carried out under one of two sets of regulations - VFR (visual flight rules) and IFR (instrument flight rules). Upon becoming a pilot, you've got the skills and the right to operate under the former, but not the latter - that's what the instrument rating is for. The instrument rating makes flying a much more practical endeavor as you're not nearly as much a slave to the weather when you're capable of flying by reference to instruments only. It also makes you a statistically safer pilot across the board, if statistics mean anything.] [And now, a bit about the "checkride". This is the "practical test" by which an FAA "designated examineer" (DE) is authorized to issue an instrument rating upon successful completion. "Practical test" means both an oral (ground question & answer) session as well as a flight test. My instrument checkride lasted a total of about 3 1/2 hours, which is typical. A prereq to taking the checkride, in addition to having logged the 40 hours of instrument flying (simulated or actual) that's required, is having passed the FAA's written test, which I did back in December.] My ride was scheduled for 1PM at MWC. I'd been asked in advance to plan a cross-country IFR flight of at least 200nm; I chose Crystal, MN (MIC), as it met the requirements and is a destination I've flown to VFR in the past. I also planned for a fuel stop at La Crosse (LSE), as with me and the examineer's 220lb, there was room for only 19 gallons in my 152. I showed up at the airport at 12:30 to finish up my nav logs and get a weather briefing, and the examineer was already there, having arrived in his Bonanza. I gave him my paperwork (8710 form, written test results, logbook) and his payment and told him I'd need a few minutes to finish up. After getting my briefing, which correlated well with the somewhat earlier weather reports I'd planned the flight based on, I decided it would be a definite "go" if the flight were for real, and decided I was ready for the oral. He began by asking me to go through the flight, which I did. I explained why I chose the route (airways) and altitude (wind) that I did, and explained the reasons for the alternates I'd chosen, even though they actually were not required. [The regs require you to file an alternate airport if weather at your destination at ETA is below certain minimums.] He then got into the "what-if" failure/emergency scenaries I was expecting - lost comm, vacuum failure, icing. He seemed satisfied with my answers. By this point his demeanor had pretty much changed from "formal" to "friendly/informal", and I had a good feeling about the oral and the ride. [The most challenging and involved area of instrument flying, in terms of knowledge and flying skill, is the "instrument approach procedure" (IAP). The purpose of such a procedure is to allow one to descend from the enroute structure and make an approach to a runway, by reference to instruments only, with no outside references, to a point very near the threshold of a runway from which the transition to visual references can be made, if possible, followed by a landing.] [Each individual IAP is completely custom to a particular airport, runway, and means of navigation. They are described on charts known as "plates" that contain all the information necessary to fly the approach - the navigation aids used, their frequencies, headings, altitudes, times, communication frequencies, landing minimums (visibility and ceiling), and "missed approach" instructions - what you do when arrive at the decision point and are not able to continue to a landing due to inadequate visual references or other reasons. Each one is a work of art, IMO.] We talked about approaches for quite a bit (no surprise there). He got out a couple plates and asked me many questions about them, all of which I answered with no problem. He talked quite a bit about making the go-missed decision - how to determine if the required visibility is met, mainly. He brought up some nuances I hadn't fully considered before, such as the fact that pilot visiblity can overrule reported RVR values. I did know some fairly obscure things such as the rules regarding ILS approach lighting systems (the lights allow you to descend to 100' AGL but no lower unless you have the red lights, or part of the runway structure itself), which seemed to impress him. Talking about VOR-A (or -B, etc.) approaches, I won brownie points by knowing the answer to this question: Why might an IAP be designated -A (no straight-in minimums given) when the course is within 30 degrees of the landing runway? The answer is that, in that case, the MDA puts you too high to execute a straight-in landing "at a normal rate of descent". My instructor had happened to discuss that topic with me a few weeks prior - the DE said I was the only checkride applicant he'd ever had that got that one right. Cool. We then talked about attitude instrument flight for awhile; he asked about primary/secondary instrument in various flight conditions, and I answered all of that correctly. I think that was about it. A few more topics were touched upon, but they were more informal chatting than any sort of grilling. I came away really impressed with the DE's knowledge - he'd shown me different sides of a number of topics. He obviously knew instrument flight inside and out. (I suppose that's logical for a DE.) He then told me what we'd be doing on the flight, to a level of detail that surprised me. He gave me all three approaches we'd be flying, and the hold, with the disclaimer that the plans *might* change - as it turned out, they didn't. All the approaches were ones I'd done before - the VOR-A and ILS 10 at UES (Waukesha) and the LOC 15 back into Timmy - although all but the first involved using feeder routes that I'd never used before, including intercepting the localizer backcourse for the full ILS 10 UES. We drove out to my hangar; I'd previously preflighted. As we climbed into my 152, I apologized for owning such a cramped airplane and he apologized for being so fat, as he put it. I made sure to use every checklist, even the pre-engine-start, religiously, as I, uh, always do. He told me he'd be playing ATC and that he'd have a mock clearance for me to copy. I did, and readback correctly, and he told me to proceed direct Badger (BAE), which was the first fix on my flight plan, up to 3000' msl. [Holding patterns are another part of instrument flying - as the name implies, the purpose is simply kill time, by flying in a circle, for traffic separation, to wait out weather below minimums, etc. There isn't a ton to it - you need to know how to enter the hold, which is a function of the heading you're approaching it from, how to properly correct for wind drift (important in almost every aspect of aviation), and how to correct your timing to produce inbound legs of standard length (one minute unless otherwise specified). The first thing we did was hold at BAE, R90 - meaning a very obvious direct entry, approaching almost due west. It turns out I completely lucked out on the winds - they were almost non-existent. After dealing with 30-40 knot winds aloft the last few times out, this was a nice change. Unfortunately, I made my first and only real mistake on the ride in this hold. Since holding can be so simple, almost boring, I let my mind wander a bit on the 2nd outbound leg, and was thinking ahead to the VOR-A approach and the published missed there - I looked down at the chart, which I'd put on the yoke clip ahead of time. The hold for the published missed is at BAE on the 270 radial. You can probably guess what happened - that extra clutter in my head caused me to basically lose situational awareness for a few seconds. I was in the middle of the turn inbound and I simply stopped, on a 180 heading, half way through! Man, that was just awful. I recovered quickly but I could have blown it right there, and how stupidly! Thoroughly ****ed at myslef, I decided to keep my mind on what I was doing, at all times, no matter how simple, and vowed no more stupid mistakes (or any mistakes). After the 2nd turn of the hold he had me call UES tower and request the two practice approaches, starting with the full ILS 10, and told me to fly the BAE R212 feeder route to the outer marker. The ILS was uneventful. As I noted, the calm winds today made things so easy, frankly. I had flown this ILS with a 40-knot tailwind a couple days earlier; today, it was all standard numbers, airspeed nearly equal to groundspeed, only the slightest crab necessary, and no bouncing all over the place once I got low, as I'd gotten accustomed to lately. Easy. Down to decision height and then the published missed, back to BAE. I turned for the parallel entry for the hold and then he covered my attitude indicator and asked me to close my eyes and put my head in my lap. [This part of the checkride is designed to test your skill in "partial-panel" instrument flying. Two of the main gyroscopic flight instruments in most light aircraft are powered by an engine-driven vacuum pump, and the reliability of these units is something less than steller in general. Losing vacuum in IFR conditions is a full-on emergency because you lose these instruments - the attitude indicator and the directional gyro, which gives you your heading. When flying partial-panel, you must rely more heavily on indications from other instruments to augment your knowledge of the aircraft's attitude and heading. This information does exist via other instruments, but it's less direct and less readily available. Partial-panel instrument flying is challenging.] [The exercise the DE was giving me here is unusual-attitude recovery - a situation you may very well find yourself in when you realize you've lost your gyros! The DE puts the aircraft in a "crazy" flight attitude, gives you the controls, and evaluates you on your ability to recover. Any intervention necessary from the examineer in this exercise deemed necessary for safety is a guaranteed failure of the checkride.] He gave me only one UA - with him yelling "recover, recover, recover!", I open my eyes, take the yoke, and note the altimeter unwinding, the VSI pegged downward, and the airspeed well into the yelling range. I simultaneously level the wings and pull the power, then gently recover. Done. My eyes *did* go to the covered AI, initially, though - I'd actually never done an UA recovery partial-panel before! (My CFI was present for the debrief after the ride and it turned out he didn't know they were a part of the ride - the PTS is not clear on this.) After this, he has me intercept the BAE R333 outbound for the full UES VOR-A approach, partial-panel. Now, a couple words about this - it turns out that this particular DE covers only the AI for the partial-panel approach - his concern being that looking up at the compass if the DG is covered makes "cheating" a concern. Now, I'd practiced PP approaches with no DG and never once did I have any inclination to try to "cheat" by looking outside, but he has that concern and he's the DE. There's no doubt that the PP approach is easier when you have your DG, but I'm quite confident I could have done it without as well, as I'd done so on several occasions. This approach, again, was, pretty much flawless, and should have been given the conditions. I was able to hold alt within 25 ft or so and keep the needle extremely close to centered all the way in. Missed back to the north, intercept the BAE R61 feeding route for the MWC LOC 15, he has me call tower and ask for a circle to 22. At this point, I know that I have the ride in the bad unless I do something exceedingly stupid. [A word about the "circle to land" manuever. Sometimes, you execute an instrument approach to one runway but must land on another, usually due to the wind conditions. The circle-to-land manuever is tricky because you are doing a lot of manuevering at a very low altitude. On the checkride, you have an altitude tolerance of +100, -0 ft (which goes for every instrument approach minimum descent altitude or decision altitude), so you must be very careful to maintain that range while circling, as well as stay within the maximum distance allowed from the end of any runway, which is a function of your approach speed and for me is 1.3 miles. The tolerance of -0 is there because descending below MDA while circling can easily result in hitting something, which is bad, and climbing is also unacceptable because on a real approach in instrument conditions that could easily put you back in the clouds, and if that happens you must immediately discontinue the circle and execute the missed approach.] The DE decided to mess with my head on the circle. I had been expecting such a "distraction", but for some reason at this point I in fact did not recognize it as a planned "distraction", and instead of asking him nicely to shut his pie-hole until we landed, proceeded to answer his questions as best I could. "Where are we going to land?" "Uh.. the runway". "Where will the mains touchdown?" "I'm shooting for the numbers". "Do you think you should use full flaps with this wind." "Sure.. why not?" Ok, I think I was catching on now. On the rollout, he asked me why I missed the numbers. "Well, I was just a bit high on final." I knew he was messing with me now. "But instrument flying is all about precision, isn't it?" "Yes, sir, but I forgot how to land." He cracked up and gave me a "good job", telling me that I had the ticket unless I managed to hit his Bonanza on the ramp. [Instrument students do typically let their landing skills slip a bit, as there generally isn't much landing going on. We already know how to land airplanes; we practice approaches to the missed approach point, as it's the approach that's being practiced. Also, I'd had an engine modification done 6 weeks ago, and because the engine was still in break-in, pattern practice (landings) wasn't a good idea.] So, that's about it! He took my nice plastic certificate and gave me a crappy temporary paper one instead, but since it says "Instrument Airplane" at the bottom, I'll take it! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Then you are invited to join our "Flunked a Checkride" Club... Welcome!!
Jon Kraus PP-ASEL-IA '79 Mooney 201 4443H Alan Pendley wrote: Paul, Congrats! You must have really been on it to pass the first time. I too am the somewhat dubious recipient of a pink slip, but passed the second time! Cheers, Alan Pendley PP - ASEL - IA Commercial Student Hawthorne Muni, CA '75 Cardinal RG N2770V KHHR ========== "Jon Kraus" wrote in message ... Congratulations Paul... Unfortunately, you can not be a member of our busted a checkride club... Too bad.. There are some really distinguished members in there!! :-0 Seriously though, great job!! Jon Kraus PP-ASEL-IA '79 Mooney 201 4443H Paul Folbrecht wrote: Took & passed my checkride (first try) yesterday. Here's the extended narrative. Paragraphs enclosed in [] are explanatory for the non-aviators who will recieve this. [Ah, well, why don't I start out with talking about what the "instrument rating" is all about. You can think of it as, basically, an "adendum" tacked onto a pilot's licence that gives you additional priveleges - namely, the ability to fly in weather conditions below "VFR" minimums. All aviation is carried out under one of two sets of regulations - VFR (visual flight rules) and IFR (instrument flight rules). Upon becoming a pilot, you've got the skills and the right to operate under the former, but not the latter - that's what the instrument rating is for. The instrument rating makes flying a much more practical endeavor as you're not nearly as much a slave to the weather when you're capable of flying by reference to instruments only. It also makes you a statistically safer pilot across the board, if statistics mean anything.] [And now, a bit about the "checkride". This is the "practical test" by which an FAA "designated examineer" (DE) is authorized to issue an instrument rating upon successful completion. "Practical test" means both an oral (ground question & answer) session as well as a flight test. My instrument checkride lasted a total of about 3 1/2 hours, which is typical. A prereq to taking the checkride, in addition to having logged the 40 hours of instrument flying (simulated or actual) that's required, is having passed the FAA's written test, which I did back in December.] My ride was scheduled for 1PM at MWC. I'd been asked in advance to plan a cross-country IFR flight of at least 200nm; I chose Crystal, MN (MIC), as it met the requirements and is a destination I've flown to VFR in the past. I also planned for a fuel stop at La Crosse (LSE), as with me and the examineer's 220lb, there was room for only 19 gallons in my 152. I showed up at the airport at 12:30 to finish up my nav logs and get a weather briefing, and the examineer was already there, having arrived in his Bonanza. I gave him my paperwork (8710 form, written test results, logbook) and his payment and told him I'd need a few minutes to finish up. After getting my briefing, which correlated well with the somewhat earlier weather reports I'd planned the flight based on, I decided it would be a definite "go" if the flight were for real, and decided I was ready for the oral. He began by asking me to go through the flight, which I did. I explained why I chose the route (airways) and altitude (wind) that I did, and explained the reasons for the alternates I'd chosen, even though they actually were not required. [The regs require you to file an alternate airport if weather at your destination at ETA is below certain minimums.] He then got into the "what-if" failure/emergency scenaries I was expecting - lost comm, vacuum failure, icing. He seemed satisfied with my answers. By this point his demeanor had pretty much changed from "formal" to "friendly/informal", and I had a good feeling about the oral and the ride. [The most challenging and involved area of instrument flying, in terms of knowledge and flying skill, is the "instrument approach procedure" (IAP). The purpose of such a procedure is to allow one to descend from the enroute structure and make an approach to a runway, by reference to instruments only, with no outside references, to a point very near the threshold of a runway from which the transition to visual references can be made, if possible, followed by a landing.] [Each individual IAP is completely custom to a particular airport, runway, and means of navigation. They are described on charts known as "plates" that contain all the information necessary to fly the approach - the navigation aids used, their frequencies, headings, altitudes, times, communication frequencies, landing minimums (visibility and ceiling), and "missed approach" instructions - what you do when arrive at the decision point and are not able to continue to a landing due to inadequate visual references or other reasons. Each one is a work of art, IMO.] We talked about approaches for quite a bit (no surprise there). He got out a couple plates and asked me many questions about them, all of which I answered with no problem. He talked quite a bit about making the go-missed decision - how to determine if the required visibility is met, mainly. He brought up some nuances I hadn't fully considered before, such as the fact that pilot visiblity can overrule reported RVR values. I did know some fairly obscure things such as the rules regarding ILS approach lighting systems (the lights allow you to descend to 100' AGL but no lower unless you have the red lights, or part of the runway structure itself), which seemed to impress him. Talking about VOR-A (or -B, etc.) approaches, I won brownie points by knowing the answer to this question: Why might an IAP be designated -A (no straight-in minimums given) when the course is within 30 degrees of the landing runway? The answer is that, in that case, the MDA puts you too high to execute a straight-in landing "at a normal rate of descent". My instructor had happened to discuss that topic with me a few weeks prior - the DE said I was the only checkride applicant he'd ever had that got that one right. Cool. We then talked about attitude instrument flight for awhile; he asked about primary/secondary instrument in various flight conditions, and I answered all of that correctly. I think that was about it. A few more topics were touched upon, but they were more informal chatting than any sort of grilling. I came away really impressed with the DE's knowledge - he'd shown me different sides of a number of topics. He obviously knew instrument flight inside and out. (I suppose that's logical for a DE.) He then told me what we'd be doing on the flight, to a level of detail that surprised me. He gave me all three approaches we'd be flying, and the hold, with the disclaimer that the plans *might* change - as it turned out, they didn't. All the approaches were ones I'd done before - the VOR-A and ILS 10 at UES (Waukesha) and the LOC 15 back into Timmy - although all but the first involved using feeder routes that I'd never used before, including intercepting the localizer backcourse for the full ILS 10 UES. We drove out to my hangar; I'd previously preflighted. As we climbed into my 152, I apologized for owning such a cramped airplane and he apologized for being so fat, as he put it. I made sure to use every checklist, even the pre-engine-start, religiously, as I, uh, always do. He told me he'd be playing ATC and that he'd have a mock clearance for me to copy. I did, and readback correctly, and he told me to proceed direct Badger (BAE), which was the first fix on my flight plan, up to 3000' msl. [Holding patterns are another part of instrument flying - as the name implies, the purpose is simply kill time, by flying in a circle, for traffic separation, to wait out weather below minimums, etc. There isn't a ton to it - you need to know how to enter the hold, which is a function of the heading you're approaching it from, how to properly correct for wind drift (important in almost every aspect of aviation), and how to correct your timing to produce inbound legs of standard length (one minute unless otherwise specified). The first thing we did was hold at BAE, R90 - meaning a very obvious direct entry, approaching almost due west. It turns out I completely lucked out on the winds - they were almost non-existent. After dealing with 30-40 knot winds aloft the last few times out, this was a nice change. Unfortunately, I made my first and only real mistake on the ride in this hold. Since holding can be so simple, almost boring, I let my mind wander a bit on the 2nd outbound leg, and was thinking ahead to the VOR-A approach and the published missed there - I looked down at the chart, which I'd put on the yoke clip ahead of time. The hold for the published missed is at BAE on the 270 radial. You can probably guess what happened - that extra clutter in my head caused me to basically lose situational awareness for a few seconds. I was in the middle of the turn inbound and I simply stopped, on a 180 heading, half way through! Man, that was just awful. I recovered quickly but I could have blown it right there, and how stupidly! Thoroughly ****ed at myslef, I decided to keep my mind on what I was doing, at all times, no matter how simple, and vowed no more stupid mistakes (or any mistakes). After the 2nd turn of the hold he had me call UES tower and request the two practice approaches, starting with the full ILS 10, and told me to fly the BAE R212 feeder route to the outer marker. The ILS was uneventful. As I noted, the calm winds today made things so easy, frankly. I had flown this ILS with a 40-knot tailwind a couple days earlier; today, it was all standard numbers, airspeed nearly equal to groundspeed, only the slightest crab necessary, and no bouncing all over the place once I got low, as I'd gotten accustomed to lately. Easy. Down to decision height and then the published missed, back to BAE. I turned for the parallel entry for the hold and then he covered my attitude indicator and asked me to close my eyes and put my head in my lap. [This part of the checkride is designed to test your skill in "partial-panel" instrument flying. Two of the main gyroscopic flight instruments in most light aircraft are powered by an engine-driven vacuum pump, and the reliability of these units is something less than steller in general. Losing vacuum in IFR conditions is a full-on emergency because you lose these instruments - the attitude indicator and the directional gyro, which gives you your heading. When flying partial-panel, you must rely more heavily on indications from other instruments to augment your knowledge of the aircraft's attitude and heading. This information does exist via other instruments, but it's less direct and less readily available. Partial-panel instrument flying is challenging.] [The exercise the DE was giving me here is unusual-attitude recovery - a situation you may very well find yourself in when you realize you've lost your gyros! The DE puts the aircraft in a "crazy" flight attitude, gives you the controls, and evaluates you on your ability to recover. Any intervention necessary from the examineer in this exercise deemed necessary for safety is a guaranteed failure of the checkride.] He gave me only one UA - with him yelling "recover, recover, recover!", I open my eyes, take the yoke, and note the altimeter unwinding, the VSI pegged downward, and the airspeed well into the yelling range. I simultaneously level the wings and pull the power, then gently recover. Done. My eyes *did* go to the covered AI, initially, though - I'd actually never done an UA recovery partial-panel before! (My CFI was present for the debrief after the ride and it turned out he didn't know they were a part of the ride - the PTS is not clear on this.) After this, he has me intercept the BAE R333 outbound for the full UES VOR-A approach, partial-panel. Now, a couple words about this - it turns out that this particular DE covers only the AI for the partial-panel approach - his concern being that looking up at the compass if the DG is covered makes "cheating" a concern. Now, I'd practiced PP approaches with no DG and never once did I have any inclination to try to "cheat" by looking outside, but he has that concern and he's the DE. There's no doubt that the PP approach is easier when you have your DG, but I'm quite confident I could have done it without as well, as I'd done so on several occasions. This approach, again, was, pretty much flawless, and should have been given the conditions. I was able to hold alt within 25 ft or so and keep the needle extremely close to centered all the way in. Missed back to the north, intercept the BAE R61 feeding route for the MWC LOC 15, he has me call tower and ask for a circle to 22. At this point, I know that I have the ride in the bad unless I do something exceedingly stupid. [A word about the "circle to land" manuever. Sometimes, you execute an instrument approach to one runway but must land on another, usually due to the wind conditions. The circle-to-land manuever is tricky because you are doing a lot of manuevering at a very low altitude. On the checkride, you have an altitude tolerance of +100, -0 ft (which goes for every instrument approach minimum descent altitude or decision altitude), so you must be very careful to maintain that range while circling, as well as stay within the maximum distance allowed from the end of any runway, which is a function of your approach speed and for me is 1.3 miles. The tolerance of -0 is there because descending below MDA while circling can easily result in hitting something, which is bad, and climbing is also unacceptable because on a real approach in instrument conditions that could easily put you back in the clouds, and if that happens you must immediately discontinue the circle and execute the missed approach.] The DE decided to mess with my head on the circle. I had been expecting such a "distraction", but for some reason at this point I in fact did not recognize it as a planned "distraction", and instead of asking him nicely to shut his pie-hole until we landed, proceeded to answer his questions as best I could. "Where are we going to land?" "Uh.. the runway". "Where will the mains touchdown?" "I'm shooting for the numbers". "Do you think you should use full flaps with this wind." "Sure.. why not?" Ok, I think I was catching on now. On the rollout, he asked me why I missed the numbers. "Well, I was just a bit high on final." I knew he was messing with me now. "But instrument flying is all about precision, isn't it?" "Yes, sir, but I forgot how to land." He cracked up and gave me a "good job", telling me that I had the ticket unless I managed to hit his Bonanza on the ramp. [Instrument students do typically let their landing skills slip a bit, as there generally isn't much landing going on. We already know how to land airplanes; we practice approaches to the missed approach point, as it's the approach that's being practiced. Also, I'd had an engine modification done 6 weeks ago, and because the engine was still in break-in, pattern practice (landings) wasn't a good idea.] So, that's about it! He took my nice plastic certificate and gave me a crappy temporary paper one instead, but since it says "Instrument Airplane" at the bottom, I'll take it! |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Hey, it could have easily gone that way for me too had I been thrown a
lot of turblulence or some other bad luck. Just glad to have it behind me. Thanks for all the 'cograts'. Flew to Midway today (from Milwauke - MWC) IFR, just to do it. VFR weather. Got vectored the whole way (no surprise), east of Chicago - not happy being over the water as far as 3-4 miles out but we got a wonderful view of the city coming back in on the south side. Jon Kraus wrote: Congratulations Paul... Unfortunately, you can not be a member of our busted a checkride club... Too bad.. There are some really distinguished members in there!! :-0 Seriously though, great job!! Jon Kraus PP-ASEL-IA '79 Mooney 201 4443H Paul Folbrecht wrote: |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Chicago loves to send single engine aircraft out of the way, out over
the lake. I fly out of Gary, IN and if I'm eastbound, they always give me initial course of 40 degrees. If I complain, they might amend it to 60. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Thangyouverymuch! I was really ****ed off when I busted the ride, but now I
consider it to be the "Pink Slip of Courage", and quite a distinction to be a member of your esteemed Club!.... Thanks, -Alan ======== "Jon Kraus" wrote in message ... Then you are invited to join our "Flunked a Checkride" Club... Welcome!! Jon Kraus PP-ASEL-IA '79 Mooney 201 4443H Alan Pendley wrote: Paul, Congrats! You must have really been on it to pass the first time. I too am the somewhat dubious recipient of a pink slip, but passed the second time! Cheers, Alan Pendley PP - ASEL - IA Commercial Student Hawthorne Muni, CA '75 Cardinal RG N2770V KHHR ========== "Jon Kraus" wrote in message ... Congratulations Paul... Unfortunately, you can not be a member of our busted a checkride club... Too bad.. There are some really distinguished members in there!! :-0 Seriously though, great job!! Jon Kraus PP-ASEL-IA '79 Mooney 201 4443H Paul Folbrecht wrote: Took & passed my checkride (first try) yesterday. Here's the extended narrative. Paragraphs enclosed in [] are explanatory for the non-aviators who will recieve this. [Ah, well, why don't I start out with talking about what the "instrument rating" is all about. You can think of it as, basically, an "adendum" tacked onto a pilot's licence that gives you additional priveleges - namely, the ability to fly in weather conditions below "VFR" minimums. All aviation is carried out under one of two sets of regulations - VFR (visual flight rules) and IFR (instrument flight rules). Upon becoming a pilot, you've got the skills and the right to operate under the former, but not the latter - that's what the instrument rating is for. The instrument rating makes flying a much more practical endeavor as you're not nearly as much a slave to the weather when you're capable of flying by reference to instruments only. It also makes you a statistically safer pilot across the board, if statistics mean anything.] [And now, a bit about the "checkride". This is the "practical test" by which an FAA "designated examineer" (DE) is authorized to issue an instrument rating upon successful completion. "Practical test" means both an oral (ground question & answer) session as well as a flight test. My instrument checkride lasted a total of about 3 1/2 hours, which is typical. A prereq to taking the checkride, in addition to having logged the 40 hours of instrument flying (simulated or actual) that's required, is having passed the FAA's written test, which I did back in December.] My ride was scheduled for 1PM at MWC. I'd been asked in advance to plan a cross-country IFR flight of at least 200nm; I chose Crystal, MN (MIC), as it met the requirements and is a destination I've flown to VFR in the past. I also planned for a fuel stop at La Crosse (LSE), as with me and the examineer's 220lb, there was room for only 19 gallons in my 152. I showed up at the airport at 12:30 to finish up my nav logs and get a weather briefing, and the examineer was already there, having arrived in his Bonanza. I gave him my paperwork (8710 form, written test results, logbook) and his payment and told him I'd need a few minutes to finish up. After getting my briefing, which correlated well with the somewhat earlier weather reports I'd planned the flight based on, I decided it would be a definite "go" if the flight were for real, and decided I was ready for the oral. He began by asking me to go through the flight, which I did. I explained why I chose the route (airways) and altitude (wind) that I did, and explained the reasons for the alternates I'd chosen, even though they actually were not required. [The regs require you to file an alternate airport if weather at your destination at ETA is below certain minimums.] He then got into the "what-if" failure/emergency scenaries I was expecting - lost comm, vacuum failure, icing. He seemed satisfied with my answers. By this point his demeanor had pretty much changed from "formal" to "friendly/informal", and I had a good feeling about the oral and the ride. [The most challenging and involved area of instrument flying, in terms of knowledge and flying skill, is the "instrument approach procedure" (IAP). The purpose of such a procedure is to allow one to descend from the enroute structure and make an approach to a runway, by reference to instruments only, with no outside references, to a point very near the threshold of a runway from which the transition to visual references can be made, if possible, followed by a landing.] [Each individual IAP is completely custom to a particular airport, runway, and means of navigation. They are described on charts known as "plates" that contain all the information necessary to fly the approach - the navigation aids used, their frequencies, headings, altitudes, times, communication frequencies, landing minimums (visibility and ceiling), and "missed approach" instructions - what you do when arrive at the decision point and are not able to continue to a landing due to inadequate visual references or other reasons. Each one is a work of art, IMO.] We talked about approaches for quite a bit (no surprise there). He got out a couple plates and asked me many questions about them, all of which I answered with no problem. He talked quite a bit about making the go-missed decision - how to determine if the required visibility is met, mainly. He brought up some nuances I hadn't fully considered before, such as the fact that pilot visiblity can overrule reported RVR values. I did know some fairly obscure things such as the rules regarding ILS approach lighting systems (the lights allow you to descend to 100' AGL but no lower unless you have the red lights, or part of the runway structure itself), which seemed to impress him. Talking about VOR-A (or -B, etc.) approaches, I won brownie points by knowing the answer to this question: Why might an IAP be designated -A (no straight-in minimums given) when the course is within 30 degrees of the landing runway? The answer is that, in that case, the MDA puts you too high to execute a straight-in landing "at a normal rate of descent". My instructor had happened to discuss that topic with me a few weeks prior - the DE said I was the only checkride applicant he'd ever had that got that one right. Cool. We then talked about attitude instrument flight for awhile; he asked about primary/secondary instrument in various flight conditions, and I answered all of that correctly. I think that was about it. A few more topics were touched upon, but they were more informal chatting than any sort of grilling. I came away really impressed with the DE's knowledge - he'd shown me different sides of a number of topics. He obviously knew instrument flight inside and out. (I suppose that's logical for a DE.) He then told me what we'd be doing on the flight, to a level of detail that surprised me. He gave me all three approaches we'd be flying, and the hold, with the disclaimer that the plans *might* change - as it turned out, they didn't. All the approaches were ones I'd done before - the VOR-A and ILS 10 at UES (Waukesha) and the LOC 15 back into Timmy - although all but the first involved using feeder routes that I'd never used before, including intercepting the localizer backcourse for the full ILS 10 UES. We drove out to my hangar; I'd previously preflighted. As we climbed into my 152, I apologized for owning such a cramped airplane and he apologized for being so fat, as he put it. I made sure to use every checklist, even the pre-engine-start, religiously, as I, uh, always do. He told me he'd be playing ATC and that he'd have a mock clearance for me to copy. I did, and readback correctly, and he told me to proceed direct Badger (BAE), which was the first fix on my flight plan, up to 3000' msl. [Holding patterns are another part of instrument flying - as the name implies, the purpose is simply kill time, by flying in a circle, for traffic separation, to wait out weather below minimums, etc. There isn't a ton to it - you need to know how to enter the hold, which is a function of the heading you're approaching it from, how to properly correct for wind drift (important in almost every aspect of aviation), and how to correct your timing to produce inbound legs of standard length (one minute unless otherwise specified). The first thing we did was hold at BAE, R90 - meaning a very obvious direct entry, approaching almost due west. It turns out I completely lucked out on the winds - they were almost non-existent. After dealing with 30-40 knot winds aloft the last few times out, this was a nice change. Unfortunately, I made my first and only real mistake on the ride in this hold. Since holding can be so simple, almost boring, I let my mind wander a bit on the 2nd outbound leg, and was thinking ahead to the VOR-A approach and the published missed there - I looked down at the chart, which I'd put on the yoke clip ahead of time. The hold for the published missed is at BAE on the 270 radial. You can probably guess what happened - that extra clutter in my head caused me to basically lose situational awareness for a few seconds. I was in the middle of the turn inbound and I simply stopped, on a 180 heading, half way through! Man, that was just awful. I recovered quickly but I could have blown it right there, and how stupidly! Thoroughly ****ed at myslef, I decided to keep my mind on what I was doing, at all times, no matter how simple, and vowed no more stupid mistakes (or any mistakes). After the 2nd turn of the hold he had me call UES tower and request the two practice approaches, starting with the full ILS 10, and told me to fly the BAE R212 feeder route to the outer marker. The ILS was uneventful. As I noted, the calm winds today made things so easy, frankly. I had flown this ILS with a 40-knot tailwind a couple days earlier; today, it was all standard numbers, airspeed nearly equal to groundspeed, only the slightest crab necessary, and no bouncing all over the place once I got low, as I'd gotten accustomed to lately. Easy. Down to decision height and then the published missed, back to BAE. I turned for the parallel entry for the hold and then he covered my attitude indicator and asked me to close my eyes and put my head in my lap. [This part of the checkride is designed to test your skill in "partial-panel" instrument flying. Two of the main gyroscopic flight instruments in most light aircraft are powered by an engine-driven vacuum pump, and the reliability of these units is something less than steller in general. Losing vacuum in IFR conditions is a full-on emergency because you lose these instruments - the attitude indicator and the directional gyro, which gives you your heading. When flying partial-panel, you must rely more heavily on indications from other instruments to augment your knowledge of the aircraft's attitude and heading. This information does exist via other instruments, but it's less direct and less readily available. Partial-panel instrument flying is challenging.] [The exercise the DE was giving me here is unusual-attitude recovery - a situation you may very well find yourself in when you realize you've lost your gyros! The DE puts the aircraft in a "crazy" flight attitude, gives you the controls, and evaluates you on your ability to recover. Any intervention necessary from the examineer in this exercise deemed necessary for safety is a guaranteed failure of the checkride.] He gave me only one UA - with him yelling "recover, recover, recover!", I open my eyes, take the yoke, and note the altimeter unwinding, the VSI pegged downward, and the airspeed well into the yelling range. I simultaneously level the wings and pull the power, then gently recover. Done. My eyes *did* go to the covered AI, initially, though - I'd actually never done an UA recovery partial-panel before! (My CFI was present for the debrief after the ride and it turned out he didn't know they were a part of the ride - the PTS is not clear on this.) After this, he has me intercept the BAE R333 outbound for the full UES VOR-A approach, partial-panel. Now, a couple words about this - it turns out that this particular DE covers only the AI for the partial-panel approach - his concern being that looking up at the compass if the DG is covered makes "cheating" a concern. Now, I'd practiced PP approaches with no DG and never once did I have any inclination to try to "cheat" by looking outside, but he has that concern and he's the DE. There's no doubt that the PP approach is easier when you have your DG, but I'm quite confident I could have done it without as well, as I'd done so on several occasions. This approach, again, was, pretty much flawless, and should have been given the conditions. I was able to hold alt within 25 ft or so and keep the needle extremely close to centered all the way in. Missed back to the north, intercept the BAE R61 feeding route for the MWC LOC 15, he has me call tower and ask for a circle to 22. At this point, I know that I have the ride in the bad unless I do something exceedingly stupid. [A word about the "circle to land" manuever. Sometimes, you execute an instrument approach to one runway but must land on another, usually due to the wind conditions. The circle-to-land manuever is tricky because you are doing a lot of manuevering at a very low altitude. On the checkride, you have an altitude tolerance of +100, -0 ft (which goes for every instrument approach minimum descent altitude or decision altitude), so you must be very careful to maintain that range while circling, as well as stay within the maximum distance allowed from the end of any runway, which is a function of your approach speed and for me is 1.3 miles. The tolerance of -0 is there because descending below MDA while circling can easily result in hitting something, which is bad, and climbing is also unacceptable because on a real approach in instrument conditions that could easily put you back in the clouds, and if that happens you must immediately discontinue the circle and execute the missed approach.] The DE decided to mess with my head on the circle. I had been expecting such a "distraction", but for some reason at this point I in fact did not recognize it as a planned "distraction", and instead of asking him nicely to shut his pie-hole until we landed, proceeded to answer his questions as best I could. "Where are we going to land?" "Uh.. the runway". "Where will the mains touchdown?" "I'm shooting for the numbers". "Do you think you should use full flaps with this wind." "Sure.. why not?" Ok, I think I was catching on now. On the rollout, he asked me why I missed the numbers. "Well, I was just a bit high on final." I knew he was messing with me now. "But instrument flying is all about precision, isn't it?" "Yes, sir, but I forgot how to land." He cracked up and gave me a "good job", telling me that I had the ticket unless I managed to hit his Bonanza on the ramp. [Instrument students do typically let their landing skills slip a bit, as there generally isn't much landing going on. We already know how to land airplanes; we practice approaches to the missed approach point, as it's the approach that's being practiced. Also, I'd had an engine modification done 6 weeks ago, and because the engine was still in break-in, pattern practice (landings) wasn't a good idea.] So, that's about it! He took my nice plastic certificate and gave me a crappy temporary paper one instead, but since it says "Instrument Airplane" at the bottom, I'll take it! |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Instrument Rating Checkride PASSED (Very Long) | Alan Pendley | Instrument Flight Rules | 24 | December 16th 04 02:16 PM |
Checkride - Passed, but the bubble did burst a bit | Matt Young | Instrument Flight Rules | 18 | November 7th 04 03:57 AM |
Instrument checkride (long) | Vitaly Shmatikov | Instrument Flight Rules | 9 | July 19th 04 06:05 AM |
Logging approaches | Ron Garrison | Instrument Flight Rules | 109 | March 2nd 04 05:54 PM |
Passed my IFR checkride today. | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | February 8th 04 07:04 AM |