While we were flying to the VOR, he shoved some approach plates under my nose and asked me what type of holding pattern entries I would fly for them given my current heading (I gave him the right answers). I slowed the plane down one vector before intercept and when I got the vector for intercept I was pretty stable and was able to turn on to the localizer with the needle centered in the doughnut. Intercepting the glide slope, I waited till I had the glide slope centered then pulled power for descent and kept one dot above the glide slope. I did lose the localizer briefly out to 2-3 dots, but a couple of quick, minute heading changes, brought it back to one dot and that's about where it stayed when I hit DH+80'. (I could hear him saying, "don't wait for DH, you'll bust through it for sure".)
At that point, I applied power for a missed approach, and the plane descended to DH +50' then gained a positive rate of climb as I continued to clean it up. We headed back to the VOR for the missed approach hold and then requested the NDB approach. The ADF was already set up to the NDB (which is the LOM on the ILS), so all I had to do was to set the VOR for an intersection as a backup to NDB station passage as the stepdown fix. So far I had down everything textbook, I was ahead of the plane, and I wasn't getting flustered.
As we were vectored to the approach course, we were cleared direct to the NDB and cleared for the approach. The direct course we were on was within 5-8 degrees of the approach course and within 4 miles of the NDB, so I then made a pragmatic decision and used the time and a few quick heading changes (all within +/-5 degrees) to set up my bracket and crab for the approach course rather than strictly maintain the direct course. We passed over the station as I began the descent with the wind correction angle already cranked in. I held it close enough to what it should have been that the examiner actually told me that he thought the ADF was off a bit and to look up and see why (we were 1000' north of centerline despite the steady course).
Again we were out on the missed and the examiner requested the VOR approach at POC. Wait a minute POC? I thought it was CCB. Did I hear wrong or did he spring this on me? We were climbing and getting vectors to intercept the approach course as I reached toward the back seat to try and find my Jepps. Fly the plane first, hold attitude and heading.
I finally got a hold of it and pulled it into my lap, almost knocking the examiner's headphones off :-). I forced myself to slow down and continue scanning the panel, while I flipped through looking for the approach plate. I finally got to it and succeeded in getting it out and up on the yoke clip without any significant deviations. I quickly dialed in the VOR's and OBS's and ID'd them as we got a vector to intercept.
Once set up, the pace slowed down again and the approach went off very easily. He called off the approach just before the VOR (one mile short of the airport). A brief bit of airwork and some more partial panel work, which was anticlimactic (I think he had decided that I really knew what I was doing - little realizing how sloppy I had been just before), and he told me to take off my hood and head for CCB.
I knew I had passed, but he hadn't said so yet. (Oh, please, don't let me screw up a VFR landing after all these hours of IFR!) I landed safely and, as we taxied to transient parking and stopped, he reached over to shake my hand, I had passed my IFR checkride.
During the debrief, the only two things he mentioned were: 1) I began my left turn on the NDB missed approach late, which calls for a climb on runway heading to 1400' then a left turn whereas I had delayed to 1700' before I began the turn, and 2) I have a tendency to bracket the turn indicator for a standard rate turn (roll-in, roll-out, roll-in, roll-out) - the natural result of paying more attention to the turn indicator rather than the attitude indicator. (Of course this is not a good practice, that will require improvement on my part; but at the same time, I have to give some credit to my lack of emphasis on the attitude indicator with doing well correspondingly on partial panel work and partial panel approaches.)
Summary
Would I recommend PIC? Well here's sort of an answer. It's not for everybody, I'm glad I got my rating, I'm not sure *I* would do it again this way. Not because PIC didn't do their job as promised - they obviously did. But despite the minor miracle of taking a 100 hour pilot and getting him IFR rated in 10 days, this pilot almost burned out. On the morning of the tenth day, I almost didn't care whether I passed or failed. Fortunately, I pulled it together for the afternoon of the tenth day.
Is there something special about the course? I'm not sure, but I'm inclined to say not. The material was straightforward and is out of most IFR books. I think the two most important factors were the instructor himself and the effective use of a simulator. I don't know what the other PIC instructors are like, but mine clearly loved flying and was a great pilot and teacher. The simulator is also a great help for pilots who might have trouble visualizing some of the more complex procedures: entering a hold, intercepting and holding an NDB bearing, flying a DME arc, etc; giving them lots of chances and repetition. For some other pilots, like myself, who are lucky enough to find that easy, more time might have to be spent in the plane because their flying skills aren't commensurate with their navigation/visualization skills.
Despite the fact that the one-time bill is hard to swallow ($3250 + airfare/motel [if needed] + plane); I have decided that it is probably less expensive than the slow and steady piece-meal route. But, you must be COMMITTED. This is going to take 10 days of *full-time attention*.
If you have a wife or girlfriend (or husband or boyfriend) they had better understand this and be supportive. You cannot be returning pager calls or thinking about work. Get rested up beforehand (and don't offer to post a daily diary that can cost an extra hour of sleep ;-) ).
My impression is that it is the ideal course for a pilot who has a few hundred or even a few thousand hours under his belt, is very comfortable in the plane, and just needs to focus some time and energy to get their rating. Or perhaps the short version, 3-5 days, for the IFR student who has put in 50 hours of training, 2-300 of total time, but can't quite finish up.
Something Else I Learned
It is probably a good idea to be very comfortable with the plane you intend to use. I made a lot of work for myself with my high-performance plane; the Cessna 172 really was easier to handle and so left more time to manage the approaches. Also, when you get your XC time, don't just work on heading and altitude maintenance, like I did. Work to understand the plane's behavior, responsiveness and performance, as you *change* the operating conditions, not just what you have to do to maintain the operating conditions.
At the same time, don't use your own plane - use somebody else's ;-). The kind of engine cycling that you go through practicing approach after approach is very abusive. As I found out. If you practice with an IFR simulator, practice for real; don't just fly the approach for fun. Fly the approach plate, change the plane configuration as you would in real life, make sure you run through the 5 T's at each appropriate point; do it for real because you want to get the habits ingrained.
While I feel that I really do know what I am doing, I also know first-and how easy it is to lose it when the workload increases in IFR. There was a discussion on one of the newsgroups about the validity of "personal minimums", with some people saying that personal minimums didn't make sense. I.e., if you were rated for IFR, then you should be able to fly to the published minimums. Now that I have been through this and gotten my rating, I agree with the concept of personal minimums. Yes, I can technically fly to published minimums, but my *margin* to overload early on is going to be lower now than it will be with more experience. Thus a progressively decreasing threshold, to increase your initial safety factor, Would I recommend only makes sense as experience is gained.
A Checkride
Had the instrument check ride November 3. It was very thorough, 1.5 hour oral and 1.5 hour practical. Covered all aspects of weather, what types of reports, what they are used for, when they are valid, icing conditions, thunderstorm distance avoidance, etc.
Discussed personal minimums as well as required minimums for ceilings and visibility. Discussed regulations as pertaining to requirements for instrument. rating and what an instrument. rating allows a pilot to do. Reviewed flight plan beginning with route selected as determined by approach (I was taught to plan an IFR route from the arrival to the departure) and ending with current weather conditions. All of the oral went extremely well, I had studied so long that I was able to answer questions that I didn't even realize I knew.... It was becoming second nature!
The practical, however, was a different story. I did the normal preflight and etc. I was taxiing I was advised that clearance was available on request. I advised 'tower' ( the FAA examiner in this case) to standby until I had finished taxiing. Upon holding short I advised 'tower' "ready to copy clearance". But, the clearance I received was nothing even close to what I had 'filed'. Of course I copied the clearance instructions and read them back verbatim - but it was enough of a distraction to get me a bit behind the aircraft, even before taking the runway! (I forgot to put in the ATC frequency. in the second nav - I try to do as much on the ground as possible)
After take-off the next fix is approximately 7 minutes, and that is where the route deviated from what I had filed. Well, during those 7 minutes, I was busy trimming the airplane and flying a 'perfect' path to the first fix (to impress the examiner) that I didn't spend as much time as I should have reviewing the clearance received (it should have been done on the ground!)
So now I am only minutes away from my next fix and receive my handoff to Kansas City Center. Oops! now I have to dial in Center's frequency (because I didn't do it on the ground - taking up precious time now) By the time I finish contacting Center and advising of my altitude, I am over the next fix! This is where the clearance received differed from what was filed.
Continue To Next Page