IFR Pattern work

[GeeBee]

You can have fun doing doing it. I do this one for a cognitive and memory test

[toto]

36 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

The few BATD's I've seen have FAA letters requiring approaches to minimums if used for IFR currency.

Interesting. The letters of authorization I’ve seen are very simple - they just say essentially “this thing meets the requirements of a BATD.”

[RLCarter]

Down here, approach will let you do “Local IFR”, give them the list of airports and approaches, holds or intercepts…. You can do it under VFR or IFR. We generally depart KTXW, approach into KHRL, approach into KBRO, if it’s not too busy shoot the Back Course back at KHRL, approach at KMFE and the VOR-A  back into KTXW… 1-1/2 hrs maybe 2

[kortopates]

2 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

I'm pretty sure they need a different departure and destination if you're going to file IFR.  If I'm just going up for approaches, I put something to that effect in the remarks.  There are some approaches that ATC doesn't allow for repeated approaches, like Newport, OR.  It's on the coast, non-towered, and great for getting bad weather, but I assume they don't allow it because of the Coast Guard station.  I've never found it written down anywhere, but I've been told that by ATC a couple times when I've tried.

The few BATD's I've seen have FAA letters requiring approaches to minimums if used for IFR currency.

Negative, you can file IFR to the airport of departure just as easily as you could file from a different to airport to the airport of landing. In the air you can always ask for multiple approaches but that's up to them to grant.  

On the approaches to minimums, I believe your referring to InFO15012 - what constitutes an approach for logging. The Redbird LOA doesn't go into that kind of detail about logging simulator time - more focused on what kind of training it can be used for.

Edited June 19, 2023 by kortopates

[RobertGary1]

11 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

I assume you only ask for flight following in VFR if you have a Safety Pilot and Foggles on.

If it’s vfr you have to have a safety pilot 

[kortopates]

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

You can have fun doing doing it. I do this one for a cognitive and memory test

Wish I could read the approach title.

But I think I get it, lots of step down fixes. Which makes it perfect for demonstrating VNAV with all the altitude constraints in the flight plan before the FAF (where VNAV ends).

[midlifeflyer]

13 hours ago, GeeBee said:

I bought a Redbird TD2 sim, FAA approved, 10K all in with all the bells and whistles. I practice any time I want, no safety pilot required, I remain current and have fun practicing everywhere from Anchorage to Zimbabwe. I can simulate any weather including heavy icing. I love doing the LDA to KTVL in snow at dusk, especially if I go missed. Equally fun is the approach to VNKT, Katmandu, Nepal.

 

My club has a TD2. I love it and use it to maintain bare legal currency and work on things like tightening my scan and flying procedures at unfamiliar airports. But between lack of avionics fidelity,  lack of ATC (unless you've connected to PilotEdge or equivalent), and the psychological aspect of knowing you are safely on the ground, it's proficiency use can be limited. 

[midlifeflyer]

9 hours ago, toto said:

Interesting. The letters of authorization I’ve seen are very simple - they just say essentially “this thing meets the requirements of a BATD.”

Example if one. This is the Redbird TD2 and Elite PI-135 BATDs.

https://files.redbirdflight.net/hubfs/Signed 07-19-2021 Redbird TD-TD2 BATD Revision LOA.pdf.
https://support.flyelite.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Elite-PI-121126135-BATD-revised-LOA-signed-09-25-2014.pdf

Most of the ones I've seen are like it  

 

[GeeBee]

30 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

My club has a TD2. I love it and use it to maintain bare legal currency and work on things like tightening my scan and flying procedures at unfamiliar airports. But between lack of avionics fidelity,  lack of ATC (unless you've connected to PilotEdge or equivalent), and the psychological aspect of knowing you are safely on the ground, it's proficiency use can be limited. 

Mine is the glass TD2 which emulates the G1000 which I have. So avionics fidelity is quite good.  It basically is a 182RG which does not emulate the performance of my Ovation, but that is OK. Having less performance makes you work a little harder in the mountains.

[GeeBee]

8 hours ago, kortopates said:

Wish I could read the approach title.

But I think I get it, lots of step down fixes. Which makes it perfect for demonstrating VNAV with all the altitude constraints in the flight plan before the FAF (where VNAV ends).

I am sorry I messed up the screen shot. It is Khathmandu, Nepal VOR-DME Rwy 2. You are correct, it is an exercise in the importance of step downs, proper programming and autopilot use. I usually write down the fixes and restraints on a sticky note single pilot. Back in 1992 a Pakistan Airways A310 messed up the fixes, flew the entire procedure 1000' low and struck the mountain at the 10 DME fix. A few months later a Thai Airways A300 botched the missed and hit the side of the mountain to the north. In that one, there was one additional death a week after the crash when a British accident investigator died due to altitude sickness. It is an unforgiving approach in the world's most unforgiving terrain. 

Interestingly, the Redbird TD2 is very sensitive to mixture just like a real airplane in high altitude situations. On these high altitude approaches if you don't lean properly, you won't have enough engine power to fly the approach and especially the missed.

[Pinecone]

20 hours ago, DonMuncy said:

It is not even necessary to file a flight plan. Around the DFW area I just contact the approach control sector I happen to be in, and request a practice approach to whatever airport I desire. They don't mind at all. Just tell them which approach you want to use, whether you want to land, do a missed or whatever. 

This is what I do for practice when VFR to one of the local towered fields.    Although one, KFDK, is fine with just calling tower and telling them what you are doing.

I normally tell them the 2 or 3 approaches I want to shoot, so they have an idea.

If I am IFR for a $100 hamburger with another pilot, I tend to shoot at least one approach at the lunch stop, so I see new approaches.

 

The FBO at my home field has an ALSIM.  I did much of my IPC using it, with a 1.3 in actual airplane to do the two landings required.

I have not used it since, but it is an option if I get close to currency cutoffs.  Right now, I am current to the end of July.  One more approach and good to the end of August.  

[toto]

1 hour ago, midlifeflyer said:

Example if one. This is the Redbird TD2 and Elite PI-135 BATDs.

https://files.redbirdflight.net/hubfs/Signed 07-19-2021 Redbird TD-TD2 BATD Revision LOA.pdf.
https://support.flyelite.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Elite-PI-121126135-BATD-revised-LOA-signed-09-25-2014.pdf

Most of the ones I've seen are like it  

 

Yep, these are exactly like the ones I’ve seen. I may be missing something obvious, but do these letters specify that an approach must be to minimums in order to be logged?

[midlifeflyer]

5 hours ago, GeeBee said:

Mine is the glass TD2 which emulates the G1000 which I have. So avionics fidelity is quite good.  It basically is a 182RG which does not emulate the performance of my Ovation, but that is OK. Having less performance makes you work a little harder in the mountains.

Yeah? OK. Do this. It happens ever day. See how the TD2 G1000 handles it. I don't know where you are so I'll give you an approach but feel free to use any like it. 

You are south of  KTTA say around FAY and loaded one of the instrument approaches to Runway 3. Select IKTOW as the  IAF. I think the HILO at OKTOW gets loaded automatically, but if it asks, say yes. As you approach IKTOW, ATC says, "Cross IKTOW at 2100. Cleared straight [name of] Approach. 

Before you do it answer the question - What would you do in a real G1000? 

[jaylw314]

14 hours ago, kortopates said:

Negative, you can file IFR to the airport of departure just as easily as you could file from a different to airport to the airport of landing. In the air you can always ask for multiple approaches but that's up to them to grant.  

On the approaches to minimums, I believe your referring to InFO15012 - what constitutes an approach for logging. The Redbird LOA doesn't go into that kind of detail about logging simulator time - more focused on what kind of training it can be used for.

I wonder if there was a change to the system in the last few years, because when I filed by phone in the past to do practice approaches at my home airport, the controller said he needed some destination separate from the departure just so it'll go through.

That's interesting about the Redbird letter, the local EAA has an old Elite simulator and just got a Redbird FMX simulator, and the FAA ATD letter from both specifically states that requirement about approaches to minimums being a requirement for IFR currency.  I just figured the FAA used a stock letter, but maybe there are different agreements.

Edited June 19, 2023 by jaylw314

[midlifeflyer]

4 hours ago, toto said:

Yep, these are exactly like the ones I’ve seen. I may be missing something obvious, but do these letters specify that an approach must be to minimums in order to be logged?

No, but the FAA does as other references have pointed out. It's all about the regulatory language, "in actual weather conditions, or under simulated conditions using a view-limiting device." The question that was raised decades ago was, "how much 'actual weather conditions, or under simulated conditions using a view-limiting device' is required?" The FAA has answered it multiple times, with the InFO linked earlier being( so far) the final answer.

If you are curious about the history, Go to my old FAQ page and follow it  to "Instrument Procedures and Currency" > "How much Actual is required..."

[toto]

6 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

My club has a TD2. I love it and use it to maintain bare legal currency and work on things like tightening my scan and flying procedures at unfamiliar airports. But between lack of avionics fidelity,  lack of ATC (unless you've connected to PilotEdge or equivalent), and the psychological aspect of knowing you are safely on the ground, it's proficiency use can be limited. 

I use the local one for currency as well. It’s basically a generic Cessna panel with a 530. 

I know that Redbird has some configuration options for different aircraft and avionics, but it’s always been outside my price range. If a local flight school went out of business and would sell one for half price, I might get one. The utility that @GeeBee sees with a relatively similar panel is definitely greater than the simple currency approach I’m using it for. 

That said, I do appreciate the ability to simulate weather that I wouldn’t do a currency flight in. And to be honest, I always find view-limiting devices a pretty awful proxy for actual IMC. I think the TD2 with simulated weather is better than a blue sky day with foggles for basic currency. But neither is a good replacement for experience in actual IMC. 

[toto]

5 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

No, but the FAA does as other references have pointed out. It's all about the regulatory language, "in actual weather conditions, or under simulated conditions using a view-limiting device." The question that was raised decades ago was, "how much 'actual weather conditions, or under simulated conditions using a view-limiting device' is required?" The FAA has answered it multiple times, with the InFO linked earlier being( so far) the final answer.

If you are curious about the history, Go to my old FAQ page and follow it  to "Instrument Procedures and Currency" > "How much Actual is required..."

No argument on the regs. I was just curious about the LoA since I’ve never seen one with that language. 

[midlifeflyer]

14 minutes ago, toto said:

No argument on the regs. I was just curious about the LoA since I’ve never seen one with that language. 

It may be because there have been questions raised about the interplay between the LOA on the one hand and regs and requirements on the other. Another great one is for AATDs which say they can be used for IPCs - the LOA doesn't say, "except for circling approaches." But the ACS does. 

[midlifeflyer]

27 minutes ago, toto said:

I use the local one for currency as well. It’s basically a generic Cessna panel with a 530. 

I know that Redbird has some configuration options for different aircraft and avionics, but it’s always been outside my price range. If a local flight school went out of business and would sell one for half price, I might get one. The utility that @GeeBee sees with a relatively similar panel is definitely greater than the simple currency approach I’m using it for. 

That said, I do appreciate the ability to simulate weather that I wouldn’t do a currency flight in. And to be honest, I always find view-limiting devices a pretty awful proxy for actual IMC. I think the TD2 with simulated weather is better than a blue sky day with foggles for basic currency. But neither is a good replacement for experience in actual IMC. 

I agree completely. 

Our club TD2 is also a "cessna" that can be configured as a 172, 172RG, 182, and 182RG.  We can do either "G1000" or an analog panel with a  GTN and the only "KAP140" in existence that has full internal GPSS capability. We have three real DA40s. One has a KAP140 and some members were using the analog one to get familiar - boy were they surprised when the tried to let the AP fly around a hold in the real airplane ). 

Me, personally, I love having access to a mythical 182RG/G1000. 

[kortopates]

2 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

I wonder if there was a change to the system in the last few years, because when I filed by phone in the past to do practice approaches at my home airport, the controller said he needed some destination separate from the departure just so it'll go through.

That's interesting about the Redbird letter, the local EAA has an old Elite simulator and just got a Redbird FMX simulator, and the FAA ATD letter from both specifically states that requirement about approaches to minimums being a requirement for IFR currency.  I just figured the FAA used a stock letter, but maybe there are different agreements.

Oh sorry, If you calling Leidos or even filing on the internet to 1800WxBrief.com their system will not allow a round-robing flight plan. The way to do this is to ask your ground or clearance delivery for an IFR clearance to your field. That's the way to do it and not uncommon. That way you can do an IFR departure, if applicable, and then onto the approach you want.

Adding a copy of the Redbird LOA for the TD/TD2's BATD but the other model AATD LOA is pretty much identical except for models and BATD vs AATD. I teach on the TD2's at the college. Redbird LD SD FMX MCX AATD Revision LOA.pdf 

Edited June 19, 2023 by kortopates

[hammdo]

Here is a flight I filed to practice approaches. I added the IAF (to avoid a STAR from the FAA computer) and put the note in the remarks - TRNG MULT APCH. Did multiple RNAV18 approaches.

Regional Approach was very accommodating…

 

[RobertGary1]

33 minutes ago, kortopates said:

Oh sorry, If you calling Leidos or even filing on the internet to 1800WxBrief.com their system will not allow a round-robing flight plan. The way to do this is to ask your ground or clearance delivery for an IFR clearance to your field. That's the way to do it and not uncommon. That way you can do an IFR departure, if applicable, and then onto the approach you want.

Adding a copy of the Redbird LOA for the TD/TD2's BATD but the other model AATD LOA is pretty much identical except for models and BATD vs AATD. I teach on the TD2's at the college. Redbird LD SD FMX MCX AATD Revision LOA.pdf 

Around here you’ll just get a big no and told to call back after you have a flight plan on file. But I just file to the map