From: geoff@peck.com (Geoff Peck)
Subject: Re: Getting the IFR ticket
Organization: Geoffrey G. Peck, Consultant, San Jose CA
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 23:55:27 GMT

Lots of good questions and comments, you all, on getting the IFR rating.
I haven't generally "advertised" this, but I do have an (electronically
available) handout for propsective instrument students.  If you send me
e-mail, I'll send you a copy.  No, I won't post it.

However, I will answer some questions here...

In article <75762@apple.apple.COM> richard@Apple.COM (a flying squirrel)
asks:
> 1. In this age of computers, most of my briefings/filings have been via
> DUAT.  Is WX map reading becoming a thing of the past?  Waiting for a
> briefer at the Oakland FSS can be a nightmare if it gets anywhere near
> IMC around here.

Sadly, yes.  A weather map can convey a lot of information rapidly.  If you
get a chance to do an in-person weather briefing -- you're on a long
cross-country and happen to be at an FSS, for example, take a look at the
charts.  Those rusty chart-reading skills will come back if you made an
effort to learn the stuff in the first place.  Alternatively, if you have a
FAX machine and don't mind spending a few dollars, several commercial
services now offer weather maps by FAX.  If you have a complex, long
flight, the few dollars spent on weather maps are probably quite
worthwhile.  For a relatively local flight in less-than-complex conditions,
save your dollars.

> 2. Related to #1, above: how receptive are examiners towards flight
> and WX info coming from DUAT?  The weather, NOTAMs, etc, are all the
> same data feed as the FSS specialists would read to you.  Is it better/
> worse that I am interpreting the information, as opposed to a NWS-trained
> phone jockey?

Some examiners in this area now simply hand you a printed DUATS briefing
for your route of flight.  The briefing may either be today's or may be for
a day on which there was "interesting" weather.  Naturally, they don't give
you the plain language translation...

I think that it's very good that you're learning to interpret the "raw"
data.  Remember that briefers, even when you do elect to speak with them on
the phone, are supposed to be limited in the amount of "interpretation" of
conditions which they can do.  One of the most important skills an IFR
pilot must learn is to be able to understand the weather and make a
go/no-go decision -- one which is significantly more difficult than the
equivalent for a VFR pilot.  Oh, yes.  That same decision-making process
may also be required _in_flight_ when, for example, you get an update
briefing from Flight Watch.  Then it's called a "stop/continue" decision.

> 3. Are my feelings of frustration and worthlessness normal?  :^)  Every
> time I think I have everything under control, my CFII points out something
> that I have screwed up.  My division of attention seems to need the most
> work.  Any individual task is easy, putting them all together is proving
> difficult.

Yes, this is completely normal.  There are two things going on here.
First, you're _already_ a pilot.  You know you know (and I know you know
you know, and...) how to fly an airplane.  The trouble is, it just doesn't
seem to be working with that dang hood on, and with the instructor asking
you to look down at those hieroglyphs, er, charts, while you attempt to
keep the oily side down.

A large part of the IFR training is essentially a gradual transfer of
tasks and of control from the instructor to the student.  At first, the
student has his or her hands full simply doing a full-panel scan and flying
the airplane.  Then, when that gets easy, the instructor can do things like
asking you to use a VOR, giving you partial panel, or asking you to look at
written directions.  When each of these separately gets easy, then they get
put together in combinations.  Then directions get replaced by real charts
and plates.  Then ATC communications gets added.  And so on.  If you're
getting everything thrown at you at once, you will feel very frustrated --
and you won't learn.  Back down, learn to do a few things well and then go
forward again.

Also, A good CFII won't always point out only things which go wrong -- he
or she will point out those things which are going _right_ and then
suggest that you might fix those things which are going wrong by doing X.
(Or maybe X and Y.)

> 4. Is time in actual time well spent?  We've encountered some great WX
> so far; however, it's a _very_ intense condition to learn under.

Yes.  However, it's probably not appropriate until you've gotten the basic
attitude instrument flying well "under your belt".

> 5. Since I am doing my rating with an instructor and his airplane, I 
> do not have any reasonable access to a simulator.  Would spending some
> time in one be beneficial, or is actual in-the-air time a better
> use of my resources? 

IMHO (and net.opinion varies widely here), most certificated GA simulators
are useful only in a very small portion of the instrument curriculum --
possibly for a few hours total at best.  The savings in time won't be more
than a few hours, and, well, in the airplane, you're flying an airplane!
The object of the rating is to learn how to fly an airplane, not how to fly
a simulator.  That having been said, the places a simulator might be useful
are:  (1) developing your initial scan patterns and (2) working through
procedures such as NDB approaches where a fair amount of headwork is
required.  I can think of a few students where it might have been helpful
to have a simulator for (1), but I've never felt the need for one with (2).
Exceptionally clear pencil-and-paper explanations plus, if required, an
in-flight demonstration with the instructor flying, are usually sufficient
for (2).

Good skill, and enjoy!

						Geoff
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.ifr