BFR / Flight Training Plans / IPC workflow (+/- with advanced avionics)

[Marc_B]

Curious if any of you have come up with structured must work on procedures, EPs, or have specific workflows (for the CFI/CFII's in the group) that you find are 1) more challenging for most pilots, 2) don't seem to get worked out enough, or 3) are basic things that should be trained frequently.  This would be super helpful not just in general, but specifically where you've found that advanced avionics have been a hurdle.  Hopefully this can be a constructive thread where we all share issues you've seen on BFR's/IPC's, learning point, and suggestion for improvement.  I'm sure that most of the pilots active on MooneySpace are a cut above your general aviation pilot.  Perhaps we can all share ideas for tasks to work on, how to structure these into our routine flying, and how to exercise the legs we don't use enough.

I try to occasionally go out and work on things like approaches, commercial maneuvers, steep turns, etc.  But some of these seem like they many not be highlighting weaknesses, introducing new procedures or requests I might find in other areas, or exercising muscle memory for all the emergency procedures that might need to be ingrained.

What tasks do you all feel don't get worked enough, but would help decrease accidents or improve safety and how would you recommend working on them?  Ideal format would be identified deficiency, set up for exercise, and how often to include this in your flights??

Ideas?

[midlifeflyer]

I have a short list of “GPS Tasks Pilot Don’t Know How to Do” I pull out for recurrent and avionics transition training and IPCs.

[Vance Harral]

In the realm of "advanced avionics", I practice a couple of philosophies with instrument students/clients.  It's not a list of specific tasks, but rather a set of concepts that go like this:

1) If a client demonstrates any reasonable degree of basic instrument proficiency, then I'm allowed to fail anything I want, at any time, provided I can do so safely and legally in simulated conditions.  I make no argument that said failures are "realistic", because that's not really the point.  What I'm trying to do is build systems knowledge (in some cases my own as well as the client's!); and to build general strength and confidence when things stop operating as expected.  For example, I'm aware that a simultaneous power-down of two G5s/GI-275s at the same time is unlikely, but I don't care - I'll fail 'em simultaneously anyway to see how the client responds.  Do they make good use of the AV-20 they installed "just in case"?  Do they use Foreflight to display attitude from a Stratux/Stratus/Sentry on their iPad?  Do they revert to needle/ball/airspeed?  Any of those are reasonable.  What I don't want to see is them saying they'd troubleshoot why the G5s are dead while hand-flying in IMC, and/or complaining that "this would never happen in real life".  Similarly, I'll pull a GAD29 breaker such that the navigator can't talk to the ADI/HSI, even though it's very unlikely that device would fail by itself.  I want to see if the client recognizes they don't have lateral/vertical indicators (or if they actually still do, it turns out this depends on how the devices are wired and whether it's a GPS vs. ground-based approach), and what they do about it.  And of course I fail individual ADIs/HSIs, autopilots, and the primary GNS/GTN/IFD navigator.

2) I'm allowed to ask for any kind of navigation procedures I want, regardless of how likely it is one would have to use them in real life; particularly if I've failed other nav equipment per (1) above.  VOR approach?  Yes.  VOR/DME if you have DME installed?  Yep.  ADF approach?  If you've got a working one and we can find an approach, then yes.  Steering the ownship icon back and forth across the course line on a geo-referenced approach plate in Foreflight?  Absolutely I'll do this, if the client has said or even hinted they'd do so in an emergency.  The point of this is not to convince the client to maintain proficiency with "old" or "alternative" equipment.  It's to put them in an uncomfortable situation, and in a lot cases, force them to realize that their backup nav solution isn't actually viable, because they don't really know how to use it.   This sometimes leads to a post-flight learning along the lines of, "If my XXX gizmo fails, I will declare an emergency and seek VMC conditions"; rather than "I will attempt to use my backup nav solution to fly an approach".

3) I'm allowed to throw any simulated ATC curveball I want during instrument procedures, regardless of how realistic it is.  Unexpected hold?  Yep.  Last minute change in which approach to fly?  Yep.  Slam dunk approach from above the glideslope?  I'm your huckleberry.  Request to "keep your speed up"?  I'll do so with my best faux east coast accent.  If you request vectors to final, I'll tell you to expect it, then clear you to an IAF or IF instead.  If you load the full procedure from an IAF, I'll be sure to vector you onto final instead.  You're probably getting the theme here.  I don't particularly care how "realistic" any of this is, I'm just trying to force the client to work harder, faster, and - in most cases - realize the stress level of doing so is dramatically influenced by how good they are with button-ology.  It's a powerful motivator to get them to work with a nav trainer on the ground to get better.

That's my take on it, but I'm likely one of the lesser experienced CFIIs here on the forum.  Looking forward to what others have to say.

[Marc_B]

Certainly I can understand the role of unexpected failures to simulate the randomness of emergencies.  But I wonder if there would be a good way to build a solid framework of ADMs and aviation prior to poking holes to highlight the weaknesses.  Personally I don't think that private, instrument or commercial ratings go though emergency procedures and failures enough for them to be deeply engrained.  Probably military and airline pilots get much more of this than your typical GA pilot ever will.

@Vance Harral have you gotten a sense for what background and prior training the pilots who do well with this have?

Or maybe a process of identifying weaknesses and then building a prescription for improvement?  Basically building with the idea that we're not only trying to make pilots think, but we're trying to make them build better muscle memory and more appropriate reactions each time.  i.e. engine failure on take off needing to push the nose forward to prevent stalling...

My point is, outside of the BFR, IPC or a new rating, the education is up to the pilot to improve.  What type of exercises can we prescribe to work on with friends, while solo, with an instructor...to help them improve, highlight and work on weaknesses, and continue on a progression of safety?  The problem with ground AATD/BATD with advanced avionics is that most of them are very basic with steam gauges and usually the "advanced ones" are centered only around the G1000.

I'd love to see a flight simulation center (hello Cessna Flight Center, Gleim, King Schools), come up with a weekend flight course that is customizable to your avionics (or as closely as they can get) that has a curriculum of training.  How amazing of a PPP/BFR/IPC adjunct would that be!

[Vance Harral]

2 hours ago, Marc_B said:

@Vance Harral have you gotten a sense for what background and prior training the pilots who do well with this have?

It mostly seems to boil down to experience, as experience tends to mitigate the adrenaline rush when presented with an even slightly abnormal situation.  Pilots with lots of hours seem to do better, pilots with fewer hours get more flustered.  My guess is that less experienced pilots are more overwhelmed with the idea of switching to "Plan B", particularly when it involves telling ATC (real or simulated) they need special accommodations to get re-situated.  Note that "experience" doesn't necessarily mean piloting experience.  There can be positive transfer from other jobs that involve managing complex systems: anesthesiologist, power plant operator, fireman, etc.

Having said that, it certainly it helps to be a engineering nerd type (like me).  Ideally the client has studied the the block diagram of their avionics installation - there's a good article advocating for this at https://www.ifr-magazine.com/avionics/avionics-systems-issues/.  But even if they haven't, nerd types almost immediately "get it" when I say something like, "the magnetometer that senses heading information is in your wing, and there's a long communications wire that runs from it to your HSI.  It snakes through a lot of twists and turns in the wing and fuselage, maybe it came unsecured and then got cut".  Folks without this background just know there's a "computer" driving the TV screen in front of them, and tend to assume its a single, integrated thing; and that if one piece of information it displays starts acting up, that the whole thing might be unreliable.

2 hours ago, Marc_B said:

Or maybe a process of identifying weaknesses and then building a prescription for improvement?

That's what I'm trying to accomplish.  I fail things I think the client might be overly dependent on.  If that causes a conflagration, we make a plan to learn not to rely so much on that particular device.  Or, if they simply can't live without it, I point out they really need to buy a second iPad/install a second GTN650/etc.

 

2 hours ago, Marc_B said:

I'd love to see a flight simulation center (hello Cessna Flight Center, Gleim, King Schools), come up with a weekend flight course that is customizable to your avionics (or as closely as they can get) that has a curriculum of training.  How amazing of a PPP/BFR/IPC adjunct would that be!

That would be the holy grail, but it's a very tall order in the modern era.  As you point out, AATD panels are highly customizable, but also very expensive, so the local flight school that has an AATD typically has just a couple of panel variations, that only match (maybe) their own airplanes.  Garmin is on the right track with their latest PC-based avionics simulator, which allows you to build and simulate a custom avionics cockpit model, see https://www8.garmin.com/support/download_details.jsp?id=12373.  But that system only simulates Garmin products, of course, and only the later/higher end ones at that (no option for GNS navigators, no G5/GI-275).  It's also not a flight simulator, just an avionics systems simulator.  And it doesn't have any capacity for simulating failures.

This challenge gets somewhat back into my rant in the other thread, about "new" avionics.  There were multiple, competing suppliers of NAV/COMs fifty years ago, but there was effectively a universal standard interface to them: VHF frequencies and OBS bearings.  Training in one airplane or simulator was highly transferable to another.  That's no longer true today.  People started talking about this in the G1000 era, but it's only gotten worse.  Knowing your way around a G1000 is only slightly helpful if you sit down in front of a G500/G3X/GTN setup.  You're in better shape to fly behind a G3X/G3XTouch if you've flown with G5s/GI-275s, but you should still plan on hours and hours of training (not necessarily involving actual flight in the airplane) to get up to speed.  And all that Garmin experience is almost completely useless in an Avidyne or Dynon-equipped platform.  You might not think this is a big deal at first, if you only fly one airplane.  But when you get together with your buddies at the airport pancake breakfast - or here on Mooneyspace - you can't necessarily help each other out with question about panels and procedures because you don't have the same stuff.  Worst of all, even when you think you have the same stuff, a true nerd like me will come along and point out that you're not both running the same firmware version in your gizmo, and therefore will see slightly different behavior than your buddy.

If I were pie-in-the-sky daydreaming, I might put together an open source project, and try to convince all the avionics manufacturers to interface their training simulators into that project, which in turn would interface to Xplane and/or Pepar3D and/or Redbird.  It sure would be nice.  But that's a tough enough engineering challenge, and that's the easy part.  Convincing the manufacturers to participate would require an exceptionally skilled businessman/politician.

[Sue Bon]

18 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

In the realm of "advanced avionics", I practice a couple of philosophies with instrument students/clients.  It's not a list of specific tasks, but rather a set of concepts that go like this:

1) If a client demonstrates any reasonable degree of basic instrument proficiency, then I'm allowed to fail anything I want, at any time, provided I can do so safely and legally in simulated conditions.  I make no argument that said failures are "realistic", because that's not really the point.  What I'm trying to do is build systems knowledge (in some cases my own as well as the client's!); and to build general strength and confidence when things stop operating as expected.  For example, I'm aware that a simultaneous power-down of two G5s/GI-275s at the same time is unlikely, but I don't care - I'll fail 'em simultaneously anyway to see how the client responds.  Do they make good use of the AV-20 they installed "just in case"?  Do they use Foreflight to display attitude from a Stratux/Stratus/Sentry on their iPad?  Do they revert to needle/ball/airspeed?  Any of those are reasonable.  What I don't want to see is them saying they'd troubleshoot why the G5s are dead while hand-flying in IMC, and/or complaining that "this would never happen in real life".  Similarly, I'll pull a GAD29 breaker such that the navigator can't talk to the ADI/HSI, even though it's very unlikely that device would fail by itself.  I want to see if the client recognizes they don't have lateral/vertical indicators (or if they actually still do, it turns out this depends on how the devices are wired and whether it's a GPS vs. ground-based approach), and what they do about it.  And of course I fail individual ADIs/HSIs, autopilots, and the primary GNS/GTN/IFD navigator.

2) I'm allowed to ask for any kind of navigation procedures I want, regardless of how likely it is one would have to use them in real life; particularly if I've failed other nav equipment per (1) above.  VOR approach?  Yes.  VOR/DME if you have DME installed?  Yep.  ADF approach?  If you've got a working one and we can find an approach, then yes.  Steering the ownship icon back and forth across the course line on a geo-referenced approach plate in Foreflight?  Absolutely I'll do this, if the client has said or even hinted they'd do so in an emergency.  The point of this is not to convince the client to maintain proficiency with "old" or "alternative" equipment.  It's to put them in an uncomfortable situation, and in a lot cases, force them to realize that their backup nav solution isn't actually viable, because they don't really know how to use it.   This sometimes leads to a post-flight learning along the lines of, "If my XXX gizmo fails, I will declare an emergency and seek VMC conditions"; rather than "I will attempt to use my backup nav solution to fly an approach".

3) I'm allowed to throw any simulated ATC curveball I want during instrument procedures, regardless of how realistic it is.  Unexpected hold?  Yep.  Last minute change in which approach to fly?  Yep.  Slam dunk approach from above the glideslope?  I'm your huckleberry.  Request to "keep your speed up"?  I'll do so with my best faux east coast accent.  If you request vectors to final, I'll tell you to expect it, then clear you to an IAF or IF instead.  If you load the full procedure from an IAF, I'll be sure to vector you onto final instead.  You're probably getting the theme here.  I don't particularly care how "realistic" any of this is, I'm just trying to force the client to work harder, faster, and - in most cases - realize the stress level of doing so is dramatically influenced by how good they are with button-ology.  It's a powerful motivator to get them to work with a nav trainer on the ground to get better.

That's my take on it, but I'm likely one of the lesser experienced CFIIs here on the forum.  Looking forward to what others have to say.

OMG, you sound exactly like my Examiner on my last check ride! They're not allowed to pull circuit breakers, but even without that, he put me through the wringer! It was the toughest check ride I've had yet...

[Yetti]

Practicing stalls is dumb.    You are teaching the wrong muscle memory.   Who has heard "hear that beeping keep pulling back" from an instructor.   That is wrong wrong wrong.   When you hear the beep you need to be pushing forward on the yoke.

That said the one thing that should be included is: up high configure for take off.    Then have the instructor set power to idle.    Practice till the push over is immediate and relatively exact angle to best glide.

[donkaye]

Regarding basic flying skills, I think one of the most important skills that should be practiced would be soft field takeoffs.  Perfecting this skill would help prevent many go around accidents and get the pilot comfortable with operating in the critical low speed portion of the aircraft's envelope.  It would also help in getting rid of "locked and frozen right leg" when it comes to rudder control (or lack thereof).  From experience I'd say 100% of the people I ask to do a soft field takeoff can't do one properly in a Mooney.

Another area that should be practiced would be precision flight control.  I find that most people don't really understand the relationship between pitch and power and which should be primary in any given situation.

And then there is landing practice.  While most people I fly with can make "safe" landings, nearly 100% don't fly them with any observed structure (at any rate the way I want them to be flown).

Avionics training needs to be individually tailored to each aircraft configuration and none are the same nowadays.

[Yetti]

Building on Don's statement.   Flying around at 21/21 is great practice.    It is a totally different feel to the airplane, little more mushy,  But it is the same feel as when you are landing.  When you are landing, you are only in this state for 30 seconds to a minute.    Doing it for a long time builds the muscle memory.

[midlifeflyer]

23 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

In the realm of "advanced avionics", I practice a couple of philosophies with instrument students/clients.  It's not a list of specific tasks, but rather a set of concepts that go like this:

1) If a client demonstrates any reasonable degree of basic instrument proficiency, then I'm allowed to fail anything I want, at any time, provided I can do so safely and legally in simulated conditions.  I make no argument that said failures are "realistic", because that's not really the point.  What I'm trying to do is build systems knowledge (in some cases my own as well as the client's!); and to build general strength and confidence when things stop operating as expected.  For example, I'm aware that a simultaneous power-down of two G5s/GI-275s at the same time is unlikely, but I don't care - I'll fail 'em simultaneously anyway to see how the client responds.  Do they make good use of the AV-20 they installed "just in case"?  Do they use Foreflight to display attitude from a Stratux/Stratus/Sentry on their iPad?  Do they revert to needle/ball/airspeed?  Any of those are reasonable.  What I don't want to see is them saying they'd troubleshoot why the G5s are dead while hand-flying in IMC, and/or complaining that "this would never happen in real life".  Similarly, I'll pull a GAD29 breaker such that the navigator can't talk to the ADI/HSI, even though it's very unlikely that device would fail by itself.  I want to see if the client recognizes they don't have lateral/vertical indicators (or if they actually still do, it turns out this depends on how the devices are wired and whether it's a GPS vs. ground-based approach), and what they do about it.  And of course I fail individual ADIs/HSIs, autopilots, and the primary GNS/GTN/IFD navigator.

2) I'm allowed to ask for any kind of navigation procedures I want, regardless of how likely it is one would have to use them in real life; particularly if I've failed other nav equipment per (1) above.  VOR approach?  Yes.  VOR/DME if you have DME installed?  Yep.  ADF approach?  If you've got a working one and we can find an approach, then yes.  Steering the ownship icon back and forth across the course line on a geo-referenced approach plate in Foreflight?  Absolutely I'll do this, if the client has said or even hinted they'd do so in an emergency.  The point of this is not to convince the client to maintain proficiency with "old" or "alternative" equipment.  It's to put them in an uncomfortable situation, and in a lot cases, force them to realize that their backup nav solution isn't actually viable, because they don't really know how to use it.   This sometimes leads to a post-flight learning along the lines of, "If my XXX gizmo fails, I will declare an emergency and seek VMC conditions"; rather than "I will attempt to use my backup nav solution to fly an approach".

3) I'm allowed to throw any simulated ATC curveball I want during instrument procedures, regardless of how realistic it is.  Unexpected hold?  Yep.  Last minute change in which approach to fly?  Yep.  Slam dunk approach from above the glideslope?  I'm your huckleberry.  Request to "keep your speed up"?  I'll do so with my best faux east coast accent.  If you request vectors to final, I'll tell you to expect it, then clear you to an IAF or IF instead.  If you load the full procedure from an IAF, I'll be sure to vector you onto final instead.  You're probably getting the theme here.  I don't particularly care how "realistic" any of this is, I'm just trying to force the client to work harder, faster, and - in most cases - realize the stress level of doing so is dramatically influenced by how good they are with button-ology.  It's a powerful motivator to get them to work with a nav trainer on the ground to get better.

That's my take on it, but I'm likely one of the lesser experienced CFIIs here on the forum.  Looking forward to what others have to say.

I didn’t see anything unrealistic in your #3.

[Vance Harral]

30 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

I didn’t see anything unrealistic in your #3.

The usual "not realistic" complaint about ATC stuff is from people who say they're never going to fly anywhere "busy".  No Class B or C, and only the sleepiest of towered airports.  It is indeed true that you're unlikely to get that kind of stuff flying from, say, Platte Valley, CO to Sidney, NE; but I don't care.  Still good to practice button-ology under stress anyway.

[Hank]

1 hour ago, Vance Harral said:

The usual "not realistic" complaint about ATC stuff is from people who say they're never going to fly anywhere "busy".  No Class B or C, and only the sleepiest of towered airports.  It is indeed true that you're unlikely to get that kind of stuff flying from, say, Platte Valley, CO to Sidney, NE; but I don't care.  Still good to practice button-ology under stress anyway.

The only busy airspace I would like to fly in is Atlanta, but for the last 17 years all I've ever heard is "remain outside the Bravo," although this has morphed into "stay out of the Bravo" all of the time the last several years.

From time to time, I do visit airports under the Bravo, but not very often.

On the other hand, back in May, Charlotte Approach vectored me over the field, the exact route that I want to do in Atlanta but am never permitted.

[Vance Harral]

Stories like that remind me to be grateful that Denver TRACON is pretty accommodating of VFR traffic. They do steer you away from KDEN itself, but you can usually get clearance through the outer rings. I do get “remain clear” during pushes, and sometimes when I’m trying to coach a student pilot through the process and I can sorta tell they just don’t want to deal with them. But in general, Denver Approach treats us bugsmashers well. 
 

Sorry you don’t have the same luck in Atlanta, but at least they have the courtesy to tell you to remain clear. I’m told that Chicago TRACON just simply doesn’t answer calls from VFR traffic.   Unsure if that’s just a rumor, I’ve never tried to gain entry there. 

[dzeleski]

13 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

I’m told that Chicago TRACON just simply doesn’t answer calls from VFR traffic.   Unsure if that’s just a rumor, I’ve never tried to gain entry there. 

They wont even allow IFR traffic to transit through. I laughed at the controller when they told me that "Must be nice" is what I said to them. I now just fly across the pond when I need to get to WI. Flying in NY and out of NY airspace has thrown me every possible curve ball. At this point nothing bothers me besides getting 3 full reroutes in a row

Meanwhile in NY, directly over JFK:

Or directly over LGA:


Or over NYC itself:

[N201MKTurbo]

So @natdm did a tour of the lakeshore VFR the other day, Well night anyway. I guess the night shift is more accommodating. 

I haven't been in Chicago airspace for a few years, but They always seem to send you out to the middle of the lake no matter what I file for. Even going to Midway VFR from the west, they seem to vector you out over the lake.

[exM20K]

On 8/20/2024 at 2:40 PM, Marc_B said:

Ideas

I try to practice the SFO techniques Nate Jaros @Buster1 describes in his book Engine Out Survival Tactics quarterly.

I’m still trying to connect with @mike_elliott to try it with foggles and using SVT down to 200 & 1/4.  
-dan

[natdm]

2 hours ago, dzeleski said:

They wont even allow IFR traffic to transit through. I laughed at the controller when they told me that "Must be nice" is what I said to them. I now just fly across the pond when I need to get to WI. Flying in NY and out of NY airspace has thrown me every possible curve ball. At this point nothing bothers me besides getting 3 full reroutes in a row

 

@Vance Harral - @N201MKTurbo is right. I dropped in at about 9PM and they were super chill. Here's the route: https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/N226C/history/20240808/0258Z/06C/06C

I just radio'd in, said I was over the Northbrook VOR and requested southbound, then northbound, along the VFR corridor at 1500 or lower. They were chill the whole ways and gave me notams when I was headed back to Schamburg for REIL's out. They also had a DA40 on flight-following that even at 60% power, I was overtaking. 

[midlifeflyer]

16 hours ago, Vance Harral said:

Stories like that remind me to be grateful that Denver TRACON is pretty accommodating of VFR traffic. They do steer you away from KDEN itself, but you can usually get clearance through the outer rings. I do get “remain clear” during pushes, and sometimes when I’m trying to coach a student pilot through the process and I can sorta tell they just don’t want to deal with them. But in general, Denver Approach treats us bugsmashers well. 
 

Sorry you don’t have the same luck in Atlanta, but at least they have the courtesy to tell you to remain clear. I’m told that Chicago TRACON just simply doesn’t answer calls from VFR traffic.   Unsure if that’s just a rumor, I’ve never tried to gain entry there. 

Denver TRACON is one of the best. For that matter, so is the Tower.

[Pinecone]

On 8/20/2024 at 4:10 PM, midlifeflyer said:

I have a short list of “GPS Tasks Pilot Don’t Know How to Do” I pull out for recurrent and avionics transition training and IPCs.

Would you share that list?

[Pinecone]

On 8/20/2024 at 6:05 PM, Marc_B said:

I'd love to see a flight simulation center (hello Cessna Flight Center, Gleim, King Schools), come up with a weekend flight course that is customizable to your avionics (or as closely as they can get) that has a curriculum of training.  How amazing of a PPP/BFR/IPC adjunct would that be!

Garmin does this for G3X plus x50XI nav with GFC-500 auto pilot.  Or with G500Txi.  Or G1000.

Instructor lead courses with hands on with a training kiosk.

 

[Marc_B]

@Pinecone I attended the Garmin onsite course for the TXi/Xi this spring.  Great reps on standard stuff.  But not really any reps on EPs, what things look like when they fail (I was surprised at this one), and not much about some of the more nuanced aspects of VNAV and transitions to approaches (especially ILS). 

I had about 6 months in my current panel when I attended, and almost 2 years with legacy G500/GTNs, so most of the tasks being taught were basic, but a few different ways to do things and a few things that I haven't done before, i.e. building user waypoints through a MOA based on Radial/distance and radial/radial created waypoints.  I also don't frequently change the course on the direct to field so it was good to learn about that. But I think that if you are getting one of those panels put in and don't have any experience, it's a definite must do. 

Plus it was cool to tour Garmin aviation and I always love flying into MKC (took me right over MCI heading east then turned south towards the city for a straight in to MKC.  Highly recommended!  (plus had to stop by Jack Stack for some BBQ).

But the Garmin kiosks just run on autopilot and only work on knobology.  Would be sweet to have a full sim like a Redbird, but that was adaptable to the equipment you use...that you could check out time at your local flight school. 

I've thought about putting together a RealSimGear avionics package based on my aircraft but would probably be 6AMU+ (all in, avionics, computer, yoke, etc.) and I think at that point it would be better to have someone (CFI/II) walk you though scenarios, equipment failures, complicated approaches, etc. in order to really make it a TRAINING experience.  6AMU is quite a bit of fuel with a CFI/II in the right seat!

On 8/22/2024 at 9:46 AM, exM20K said:

I try to practice the SFO techniques Nate Jaros

That book was one of the drivers for me getting my commercial...my thinking is that if I can get myself over an airport, there is no reason I shouldn't be able to set her down safely...but without the reps and experience it was more of a "hope" than a skill!  Good reminder to add that in routinely so that muscle memory doesn't atrophy!

On 8/22/2024 at 10:33 AM, midlifeflyer said:

Denver TRACON is one of the best.

I find that they are pretty easy to deal with as well...I frequently fly to Centennial and ask to cut the bravo around BJC each time...usually get it direct to APA so I can streamline my descent without worrying about the shelf.  And I finally figured out if I file YOKES (coming in from east) as the waypoint prior to GXY (home base) that they won't give me a reroute STAR that they are going to vector me off after 1-2 waypoints anyways.

[BlueDun]

New York is outstanding. Go through regularly. They are fast but incredibly helpful.

[midlifeflyer]

16 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Would you share that list?

Sure. I do all the time. You may have already seen it elsewhere. That #7 is separate because it’s really one of those tips and tricks rather than an important skill.

 

[midlifeflyer]

14 hours ago, Marc_B said:

l...I frequently fly to Centennial and ask to cut the bravo around BJC each time...usually get it direct to APA

If it’s still like when I was there (based at APA for 20 years), you don’t even have to ask. As soon as you are out of the east-west arrival/departure corridor, they would offer direct APA and approve the frequency change.

[Marc_B]

https://www.eaa.org/eaa/pilots/eaa-pilot-proficiency

I've always wanted to stop by for these at Oshkosh, but haven't had the opportunity.  Has anyone gone to the EAA Pilot Proficiency Center for a session or for more comprehensive training workshops?  If you could choose customized Redbird simulators with this, that would be pretty awesome!

"Our current programming includes:

• Self-guided, one-hour Redbird Pro Simulation Sessions: With your current Redbird Pro App subscription (or 30-day free trial), you can schedule time for a baseline skills assessment and then receive a customized and on-going training plan.
• Customizable IFR and VFR proficiency-based trainings: Trainings can range from two hours in length to multi-day or a full week in length and can be tailored to your group’s training needs.
• Fully-immersive certificate-based training: The ultimate in proficiency training, explore new or additional pilot certifications in a safe, hands-on experience with multi-screen, wrap- around visual panels, realistic controls, and even specific environments. For example, our Sport Pilot Academy for new pilots, which can take you from pedestrian to pilot in three weeks. (More offerings coming in 2023!)"