Question:
Great! Congrats on your success! Watch out…I’m right behind ya…. Should be there in 3-4 weeks… I’ll be posting an update to rec.aviation.student… Best wishes…and happy cloud flying! –Don
Response:
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. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 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
Response:
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.
Response:
Thangyouverymuch! I was really pissed 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
Then you are invited to join our "Flunked a Checkride" Club… Welcome!! Jon Kraus PP-ASEL-IA ‘79 Mooney 201 4443H – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 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 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 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 pissed at myslef, I decided to keep my mind on what I was doing, at all times, no
... read more »
Response:
Then you are invited to join our "Flunked a Checkride" Club... Welcome!! Jon Kraus PP-ASEL-IA '79 Mooney 201 4443H - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - 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 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 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 pissed 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
... read more »
Response:
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
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 - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - 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 pissed 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
... read more »
Response:
Congrats Paul, glad to see you had a good checkride. Was your DE Keith Myers? Jim
- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - 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 pissed 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
... read more »
Response:
Congratulations!!! (Now, keeping current will be your task.)
Response:
Contratulations, Paul! Very nice narrative, too. I'm starting my studying, and you've mentioned many useful points.
Response:
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 - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - 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 pissed 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
... read more »
Response:
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 pissed 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
… read more »
Response:
Anyway, I stand behind you all when it comes to take a taxi to the hotel. It is just about 15 minutes from the airport, and will only cost about 10-13 USD from the airport to the hotel. Then you can work out the papers, get the barbados drivers licens and stuff next morning. Leif Arild Norway 
— — =—– Good Flights! Cecil PP-ASEL-IA Student – CP-ASEL Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond! Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things." – Antoine de Saint-Exupery – "We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet" – Cecil Day Lewis – – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 