Ask a Flight Instructor

Archive for the ‘Instrument’ Category

Here is a great question that I received recently from Brian wondering if he should choose an aircraft equipped with a G1000 or an aircraft with traditional instruments for his primary training.  His question:

I’m trying to decide between doing flight training in an airplane with a G1000 cockpit versus an airplane with the traditional mechanical gauges. The cost is similar so I’ve taken that out of the equation. Do you think it’s wise to go with the more traditional gauges or the glass cockpit? I do plan to do instrument training after I get my private certificate and/or get the additional glass cockpit training. So, I feel that using the glass cockpit might be a cost cutting measure.

Before I get started with my answer, let me make something very clear, I love using the G1000.  I think it is a fantastic tool in the hands of a properly TRAINED pilot.  The problem with the G1000 isn’t the product however, it is with the training required to properly use it.

If you have ever used, or even seen a G1000, you’ll agree that the G1000 is a VERY  capable system.  There isn’t a lot it can’t do.  There is so much information available to the pilot in terms of weather, charts, maps, etc. In fact there are volumes of books, manuals, DVDs and online and offline classes dedicated to becoming familiar with the different functions and features of these glass cockpits.  (One of our “resident” flight instructors, Max Trescott, has written such a book, The G1000 Glass Cockpit Handbook.)

And that is the problem.

Primary flight training should be focused on learning well, the primary pilot skills necessary for the basic pilot certificate (Private, Recreational, etc.)  The problem with using the G1000 during primary flight training is that all those features of the G1000 actually become a hindrance to training because the training now becomes focused on learning the tool and not obtaining the objective of the actual flight lesson.

My advice?  If you can choose, choose the aircraft with the basic flight instruments for your primary flight training.   Take the time to learn good stick & rudder skills and pilotage (that means without GPS).  Once you understand and know the basics, then you can advance to an aircraft with a more capable avionics package for your instrument rating.  Sure, you may spend a couple more hours and a few more dollars getting up to speed with the G1000, but you just can’t put a price tag on learning the basics of flying (just ask Capt. Sullenberger).

Todd asked the following:

“Hi, When entering a holding pattern via a radial intercept that routes you directly over the holding fix (exactly outbound on the inbound radial) should the pilot perform a teardrop or parallel entry? It seems as though either would be doable. Is one better than the other and if so…why?”

Great question Todd. I don’t know that I’ve ever read why one is better than the other, but believe it or not I have had this discussion with Doug Stewart, who I always call “04″ when we talk (he calls me “08″). Doug’s the 2004 National CFI of the Year and a very smart guy. Anyone living in the northeast and looking for top-notch instrument instruction should contact him through his www.dsflight.com Web site.

Doug and I agree that when you have a choice of a teardrop entry or a parallel entry, that the teardrop is preferred. In fact, Doug likes teardrop entries so much, he does them even when FAA recommendations suggest a parallel entry. Here’s why. A teardrop entry will intercept the inbound holding course much sooner than a parallel entry. This gives you additional time to estimate any wind correction angle needed to track the holding course. You’ll want that information when you turn outbound, as most people recommend that when flying outbound you apply 3 times the amount of correction angle you required when flying inbound.

With modern moving maps and glass cockpit systems like the Garmin G1000, it’s easy to predict where you’ll intercept the holding course and whether you’ll become established before you reach the holding fix. With a parallel entry, you usually won’t become established until just about the time you reach the holding fix and need to fly outbound again. In the dark ages (e.g. before GPSs and moving maps became popular about 10 years ago), when using a parallel entry, pilots couldn’t tell for sure whether they’d even intercept the holding course before they reached the holding fix. Many a time, I failed to intercept the holding course before it was time to turn outbound again. But with a teardrop entry, that almost never happened, since you’d intercept the holding course long before you reached the holding fix.

On the other hand, people sometimes have trouble calculating the heading that they need to fly outbound to begin a teardrop entry. In that case, if the hold is coming up fast and you’re not able to figure it out, a parallel entry may be simpler, since it’s easy to figure out the initial heading to fly. Of course, I’m sure you know that there’s no regulatory requirement to fly a particular hold entry. As long as you do your maneuvering on the holding side of the hold, you can enter the hold in any way you choose.

I love the question I got recently from Rob who asks:

Paul, What is the origin of the instrument airway routing system and how are the alpha-numerical descriptions based for them?

I liked this question becuase I knew immeadiately after reading it that I didn’t have a clue what the answer was going to be (which isn’t that rare) and that finding the answer was going to be fun, I was right.

I have a couple of email addresses at the FAA that I like to use for questions just like this one and I was AMAZED at how fast the FAA responded with a very complete answer for Rob’s question.  I was thinking about editing their email but I’ll just leave it  as is in it’s entirety:

The origin of airways can be traced back to the Air Commerce Act of 1926. Airways evolved over the years as new NAVAID technology and instrument flying procedures were developed (For more info, see http://www.faa.gov/about/history/chronolog_history/).

Here’s where we are today:

All airways are established through rulemaking procedures under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 71. Rulemaking action to establish or modify routes is the responsibility of the Airspace & Rules Group at FAA HQ. Route numbers are also assigned by the Airspace & Rules Group.

Part 71 was modified in 2003 to adopt the ICAO term “Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes” as an overall term to identify the U.S. domestic route structure. Specifically, in Part 71, the term “ATS Route” means: Jet routes, RNAV routes, VOR Federal airways, and colored Federal airways (i.e., LF/MF routes).

General information about establishing routes is contained in FAA Order 7400.2, “Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.” The descriptions of all U.S. domestic ATS routes are published in FAA Order 7400.9, “Airspace Designations and Reporting Points.” These publications can be viewed on the internet at:

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/

The numbering system used varies depending on the type of route.

• For VOR Federal airways (V) and Jet Routes (J), a one to three digit number from 1 – 999, is assigned (V-3, J-591, etc). Even numbers are assigned for routes that extend generally east-west and odd numbers for routes that extend generally north-south. For a new route, the number selection is somewhat random — although we check the National Airspace System Database to make sure the number is not already in use.
• For colored Federal airways (LF/MF), the color names “Amber, Blue, Green and Red” are used followed by a one or two digit number (A-2, G-18,etc). The color indicates the route alignment. Routes that extend generally east-west are designated as Green or Red. Routes the extend generally north-south are designated as Amber or Blue. Note: There are still about 49 colored Federal airways in the system (primarily in Alaska).
• For RNAV routes, the U.S. uses designators (T and Q) and number sets that were assigned for our use by ICAO. The FAA decided to use the T designator for low altitude RNAV routes and the Q designator for high altitude RNAV routes.
• Low altitude RNAV routes (below 18,000′ MSL): “T” plus a number from 200 – 500. – - High altitude RNAV routes (at & above 18,000; MSL): “Q” plus a number from 1 – 499. Note: The same “even number for E-W” / “odd number for N-S,” as is used for V & J routes above, also applies to RNAV routes.

Note: Offshore Oceanic ATS routes are outside U.S. domestic airspace and are not covered under Part 71and are not processed by the Airspace & Rules Group.

What happens if you lose radio communications while arriving at Seattle Int’l (SEA)?

That is the essence of the question asked recently by Michael, a private pilot working on his instrument rating.   Michael, you have just asked a very good question….and one that honestly doesn’t have a good answer.

To try and provide some understanding of what should a pilot do if faced with such a circumstance, I have produced a very short lost communications video tutorial.

I encourage you to watch, and comment with your suggestions and feedback.  What would you do?

Mike has a great question, one that is often brought up at the start of instrument training:

When given a heading by ATC, is it magnetic, true, or something else?

Whenever you are working with an air traffic control facility, any radar vectors they give you will be turns to magnetic headings only. This simplifies things, both on the ground and in the air, and means you don’t have to do math in the cockpit. It would be especially challenging over long distances, particularly east-west, as magnetic variation can change quite a bit. The only time you’ll typically encounter any kind of true headings will be during the planning phase of your flight.

Your question brings up another area of confusion that I see fairly often, especially in glass cockpits or in aircraft with GPS that provides ground track information: only use your ground track when you’re doing some kind of radio navigation! I can’t count the number of times we’ve gotten a vector and my student follows up by asking if we should fly a ground track of 340°.

So remember, if you get a vector, fly the magnetic heading. And don’t forget to update your heading indicator to your compass every 10 minutes or so!

Footnote: Blake makes a great point in the comments. Canada’s Northern Domestic Airspace, which includes the North Pole, contains such high amounts of deviation that all headings and tracks are requested in True, rather than the highly inaccurate Magnetic. Thanks, Blake!

Just received another good question from Todd who asks:

I passed my IFR written and failed the checkride. The written expires in a few days. Is it extended until I re-take the flight test?

Well Todd, I might have some bad news for you.  Your practical test must be completed within 24 calendar months of the completion of your written test.

I looked through the Designated Pilot Examiners’ Handbook, the Practical Test Standards and of course the FARs looking for an exception for you but couldn’t find anything to help you out. The only exception that I did find for this rule is found in 61.39(b) which allows an applicant to take the ATP practical with an expired written so long as he or she is employed by a 121, 125, or 135 carrier (with some further requirements).

The same FAR (61.39) makes it pretty clear when that the knowledge (written) test is to be done:

Pass the required knowledge test within the 24-calendar-month period preceding the month the applicant completes the practical test, if a knowledge test is required;

So hurry up and complete your practical before your written expires!  Once you get that instrument rating be sure to…

Fly Safe!

Here’s the question Paul just sent me:

Special VFR at night requires, amongst other things, that the pilot be IFR-rated. But it strikes me that there is no requirement for the pilot to be IFR-current – is that true? Seems dangerous to me.

Well, Paul (great name by the way).  I agree with you that it would be VERY dangerous for any pilot who is not IFR current to operate under Special VFR at night.  Fortunatetly, I believe that the regulations do require that recent instrument flight experience be met as per 61.57.   Let’s look at the two requirements for Special VFR at night.

1) Pilot

According to 14 CFR 91.157 Special VFR operations at night (in airplanes) requires that “The person being granted the ATC clearance meets the applicable requirements for instrument flight under part 61 of this chapter.”

So let’s look at the instrument flight requirements under part 61 which, in summary says that in order to act as PIC of an aircraft on an instrument flight plan you must:

a) Hold an appropriate instrument rating on your pilot certificate and

b) Meet the recent instrument experience requirements of 61.57(c) (6 approaches, intercepting and tracking)

2) Airplane

The aircraft must be equipped for instrument flight as required by 91.205(d)

So…

Again, this is just my interpretation, but I do think that 91.157 is requiring that a pilot who receives an ATC clearance for Special VFR at night be fully IFR rated, equipped and current.  The reason being of course is that there is a greater chance at night of a Special VFR clearance turning into a full blown IFR flight plan.  If the FAA did not require the pilot to be instrument current, than they would have no provision for enforcement action when a pilot illegally operated on a IFR flight plan.

I hope this helps answer your question.  Thanks again for asking and always…

Fly Safe!

I love getting questions from readers and my favorite questions are the ones I don’t already know.  Such as the question I received lately from Jon regarding the max altitude on Tango routes:

Hi Paul. I’ve always wondered. On the Jacksonville sectional here in Florida we got a few T-Airways where the MAA is 15 000 feet. Now, the only reason I know of for a MAA restriction on an airway is because you can get several VORs on the same frequency etc, however, since this is a GPS airway, I don’t understand why an MAA would exist. Any ideas?

Well, this took a little digging but I found the answer! The first thing we need to do is understand why T-routes (pronounced “tango routes”) were established and how they help you.

Tango routes were established by the FAA at the request of AOPA in order to help pilots navigate around or through busy terminal areas.  RNAV (GPS) was utilized because using ground based NAVAIDS for these routes would have resulted in some seriously inefficient flying.  The FAA used RNAV to develop a point-to-point low altitude route system and designated this route structure, Tango Routes.  Tango routes enable the GPS equipped pilot to efficiently fly around or through busy terminal Class B and C areas.  They also help to reduce controller workload by being able to assign these routes to appropriately equipped pilots instead of having to provide manually intensive radar vectoring.  Here is an example of a t-route from an enroute chart (graphics courtsey of skyvector.com)

So now to answer our question, why do T-routes have a Maximum Authorized Altitude (MAA)? The reason is not because of radio reception or being able to get multiple frequencies but because of the airspace and the agency that controls the airspace above the route.

For instance, let’s take a look at our example from above.  In this case our MAA is 15,000 feet. Why?

Well, it might be for a couple reasons:

1) A T-route by definition in a low-altitude route.  It is designed to assist those pilots who are flying in some busy terminal areas who wish to stay out of the way.

2) The controlling agency above.  Because Tango routes are primarily terminal (in that they don’t involve the ARTCC centers) it might be that Jacksonville Center starts at 16,000 feet and in order to provide seperation to the airliner traffic above they limit the MAA on the T-route to 15,000.

3) The airspace above.  T-routes can also be designed to keep pilots out of a Class B airspace.  While that may not be the reason in our example, this can also be a limiting factor for the MAA on a T-route.

The important thing to remember is that to fly a t-route you will have to have an instrument rating, on a instrument flight plan and be IFR GPS equipped.   With all that control, all you really have to worry about is maintaining your assigned altitude.

One other thing to notice on a T-route is that because it is not dependent on receiveing traditional line-of-sight radio signals the MEA or Minimum Enroute Altitude is a lot lower.  The lower MEAs can be a significant benefit in route planning and avoidance of icing to keep you below the freezing level.

I hope this helps Jon and whether you are flying a V route, J route, Q route, Y route, or T route remember to…

Fly Safe!

Here’s a good question concerning logging of pilot time that I received from Don:

Can one log time as a safety pilot? If so, under what heading, eg, PIC, or a separate category “safety pilot“? Thanks.

First a quick review.

A “safety pilot” is a required flight crew member when another pilot is flying under simulated or actual instrument conditions in order to meet the IFR recency requirements of 14 CFR 61.57.  FAR 61.57 requires that in order to file and fly on a IFR flight plan you have to be instrument current, which means that within the past 6 months you have logged 6 approaches, holding and intercepting and tracking procedures.  If for some reason, those 6 months pass, the pilot has another six month grace period in which he can fly with a safety pilot under simulated instrument conditions in order to become fully instrument current again.  In simulated instrument conditions the pilot wears a view limiting device that blocks the pilot’s view of the outside world so that he can only see the instrument panel (we call them foggles).  This can present a problem for other airplanes as the flying pilot is unable to see where he is going!  The FAA found a solution to this problem by creating the safety pilot.  A safety pilot is simply that, someone who looks out for other airplanes (safety) while the other pilot is flying blind “under the hood”.

Instrument Training Glasses “Foggles”

So how do you log time flown as a safety pilot?

Because you are a required crew member when flying with a pilot under simulated instrument conditions the FAA allows you to log this time as SIC or second-in-command (61.51(g)).   If you agree to be the “acting” PIC you and the other pilot could both record the time as PIC but only when the other pilot is under the hood and the other pilot is the “sole manipulator of the flight controls.”   In order to be the “acting PIC” you will have to make sure that you meet the full PIC requirements for that flight and aircraft, which will include any necessary medical, category, class, type, recency and ratings requirements.

Don’t forget!  If you use a safety pilot to gain instrument currency the FAA requires that you record the name of the safety pilot in your logbook.

As always…fly safe!

I received an outstanding question this afternoon concerning instrument approach visibility minimums from Michael.  His question went something like this:

I’m looking at the RNAV (GPS) Z Runway 31 at McNary Field in Salem, Oregon (SLE) and I can’t make sense of the minimum visibility requirements of the approach.   Why is it that the visibility requirements for the LNAV only are so low?  On this particular approach the required visibility for the LNAV only is 2400 RVR or about a 1/2 mile.  That doesn’t make any sense!  I wouldn’t be able to descend from a MDA of 940 with only 1/2 mile of visibility!  Can you help shed some light on it?

Like I said mentioned before Michael, great question.  Let’s take a look at the RNAV Z RWY 31 approach into SLE.  For those who are interested, you can view a copy of the approach plate from EchoPlate:

Maybe at some point we’ll go over the terms and definitions of this approach plate a little more throughly, but for now, I’m going to try and just answer your question about the confusing visibility requirements.

Why are the visibility requirements so low for the MDA on the LNAV only approach?

The reason is the differences in the physical location of the Missed Approach Point (MAP) between the different approach types authorized for this approach.  Take a look at the MAP for the LNAV only approach and then compare it to the MAP for the LNAV/VNAV approach.   I have highlighted in red the locations of these two different MAPs in the illustration above.  For the LNAV only, the MAP is basically the start of the runway.  If you reach this MAP without having 2400 RVR AND you don’t meet the requirements of 14 CFR 91.175 then you must begin the missed approach procedure.  For the LPV approach and the LNAV/VNAV approach, the MAP corresponds with the DA which is most likely going to be physically further from the runway thus the higher visibility requirements.

Now you bring up an interesting point about the practicality of this approach.  Let’s say you are at a MDA of 940 and suddenly you have the airport environment and the required min. visibility, so you should “chop and drop” in right?  Well, let’s read 91.175 again.  14 CFR 91.175 says that in order to operate below MDA you have to be:

In a position from which a descent to a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers

So it may very well be that you have the required visibility before the MAP and you still have to execute a missed approach simply because you are not in a condition that you’ll be able to make it to the runway surface using safe and normal maneuvers.

I hope this clarifies things for you Michael.  If you have any other questions, feel free to comment on the this post and I’ll do my best to find an answer for you.

If anyone else has questions about the terms used in this explanation, feel free to ask me a question about which term you are confused about.

Thanks again for your question and ….

Fly Safe!