Instrument applicants and instructors
Practical guidance based on recurring observations from training and evaluating pilots.
We don’t know what we don’t know—until we do. It is much better to acquire needed information and skills before we need them.
“Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards.” — Vernon Sanders Law
Too often, pilots discover what they don’t know during their FAA checkrides. This resource is intended to help pilots identify information and skills that support safe, proficient flying and successful checkrides.
Much of its value is found in the included links, so it is designed to be used and shared electronically. Please contact Jim if you discover a broken or outdated link or would like to share a different perspective.
Happy landings!
Jim Pitman
Find a topic
36 topics
Each ACS is full of valuable information that can help flight instructors and applicants to complete checkrides successfully. It’s clear that too many pilots do not understand how to properly use these documents. Here are a few of my thoughts and suggestions.
DPE Seth Lake shares many useful suggestions and insights in his podcasts/videos. I highly recommend that all applicants and instructors take the time to watch these videos.
Getting vectored to the final approach course is common in real-life instrument flying. Applicants should understand how to use the ACTIVATE VECTOR-TO-FINAL and ACTIVATE LEG options on modern GPS receivers. There are times when it’s beneficial to use one option versus the other and applicants should know what will happen with each.
Vectors to the ILS approach at CGZ is a good example of when it’s necessary to use one of these options. It’s rare that we are able to do a vector to final at CGZ due to traffic, but when I discover the Stanfield Stack is open (or we are next in line), I will likely vector the applicant to final for their first approach (which is typically the ILS). Here’s how it usually goes: The applicant is about 8 miles northwest of TFD, they have the full ILS approach loaded in the GPS for situational awareness, and everything is looking good. I (as Albuquerque Center) assign headings and altitudes for vectors to final. They proceed to follow the vectors without changing anything in the GPS flight plan. I vector them to final 2 to 4 miles from TFD and clear them for the approach. As we pass TFD inbound on the approach, the GPS sequences to the published hold and keeps TFD as the active GPS waypoint. Since we are using the ILS for navigation (green needles on the G1000), this is not necessarily a problem, but often causes confusion because the GPS is still giving the distance to TFD instead of ROXIE and the MFD shows the hold is active behind us.
The better procedure is to either ACTIVATE VECTOR-TO-FINAL or ACTIVATE LEG (ACT LEG softkey on the G1000 MFD) for TFD to ROXIE. It’s important to note that both of these options will provide GPS distance information to ROXIE, not TFD. With the G1000, this is easily solved by setting one of the bearing pointers to TFD, which also provides distance information.
Applicants should also understand the difference between activating a leg and going direct to a waypoint in the flight plan. More information is available in this 16-minute video.
When ATC is providing radar vectors, they usually tell you the name of the fix they are vectoring you to. It’s a good habit to enter that fix as the active waypoint in your GPS for situational awareness. Also, radar vectors often end with a turn direct to that fix, so it’s beneficial to have it loaded and ready.
Applicants should understand the basics about ADS-B and FIS-B, including where ADS-B Out is required. Here are two good references:
Applicants should be familiar with everything in the Aeronautical Chart User’s Guide - Terminal Procedures Publication (TPP) and the information contained in the first several pages (A1 though I2) of the current TPP. ForeFlight calls this the “Digital Terminal Procedures Supplemental” document.
I’ve observed that proper autopilot usage has been a weak area for most of my checkride applicants. Yes, it’s important to teach new instrument pilots to not depend on the automation, but it’s also important for them to be comfortable using it by the time they get to the checkride.
When the checkride airplane has a working autopilot, the evaluator is expected to test its use. Area of Operation II, task B of the Instrument ACS requires the evaluator to determine that the applicant exhibits satisfactory knowledge, risk management, and skills associated with managing the autopilot. Task IR.V.A.S9 says, “At the discretion of the evaluator, use the autopilot to make appropriate course intercepts, if installed." Appendix 3 further states, "To assist in management of the aircraft during the practical test, the applicant is expected to demonstrate automation management skills by utilizing installed equipment such as autopilot, avionics and systems displays, and/or a flight management system (FMS). The evaluator is expected to test the applicant’s knowledge of the systems that are installed and operative during both the oral and flight portions of the practical test.”
Click HERE for a training aid to help pilots who fly with the Honeywell KAP140 autopilot.
Click HERE for a slide presentation that covers both the KAP140 and GFC700. The GFC700 video referenced above is also a great resource to study.
I’ve noticed that many applicants have not developed a backup plan for charts in case their iPad fails. I have not failed an applicant for not having backup charts, but what if part of the scenario includes the iPad not working (for one of a variety of realistic reasons)? It certainly would not turn out well. Applicants should heed the FAA’s suggestions in AC 91-78. If their chosen backup is a phone with current charts, it would be a good idea to practice flying a few approaches before the checkride while only using the charts on their phone. This article also provides good information and suggestions.
It’s important for applicants to fully engage in their role as the Pilot in Command (PIC). This is a legal responsibility as well as a mindset. Somewhere around two-thirds of the way through training, your flight instructor should regularly pretend to be a passenger. This doesn’t mean they stop teaching. It means they significantly reduce the amount they are helping you. Sometimes just a delay of input is what’s required for the learner to effectively practice being the pilot in command (be sure to clearly pre-brief each scenario and the associated responsibilities). This is important because on the day of your checkride the evaluator is going to be a passenger who is simply observing, not helping or reminding. I sometimes test this by not completely/properly locking my door (a realistic scenario for most new passengers). I want to see the applicant conscientiously check everything as part of their important role as the PIC.
To help ensure completion of the required precision approach, most of the instrument checkrides I’ve conducted have been at Casa Grande and the Stanfield Stack. Just about everyone I’ve observed there has been doing a great job following the AFTW recommended procedures. Thank you everyone. Keep up the great work!
Instructors should do more than just talk about avoiding CFIT with their applicants. I suggest putting the applicant under the hood and then vectoring them toward a mountain or other terrain/obstacles. This is often most effective after practicing unusual attitude recoveries or an emergency procedure that results in the loss of altitude. Vector them right toward the terrain. Let them get close enough to make it interesting and then take the hood off to get the full effect of what was about to happen if they kept going that direction. The lesson is that controllers are human too. They make mistakes. Trust, but verify. This is a powerful lesson that will serve them well throughout their entire flying career. It’s no joking matter. Make it serious. Make it something they lose sleep over and then watch this video together to drive the point home.
A lot of pilots are confused about this. Here’s the answer.
Here are a few of my thoughts related to the proper use of checklists and what the FAA expects to be evaluated on checkrides.
Applicants that come to the checkride with an IFR GPS in their airplane should know the difference between LP, LPV, LNAV/VNAV, LNAV, and LNAV+V approaches. When several different approach minimums are listed for the same approach, applicants should be able to talk through real-life scenarios that would require them to fly one type of approach instead of another. There are also real-world reasons for knowing when GPS sensitivity will change and which GPS approaches have progressively increased sensitivity (like a localizer) after passing the FAF. This article provides some helpful information.
If something is flashing in the cockpit, it’s probably because the pilot needs to do something. I’ve noticed that most applicants are way too comfortable leaving a cursor flashing or ignoring a message light for several minutes. I suggest instructors do a better job teaching pilots to stop the flashing.
Some instrument applicants are being taught that we are not allowed to fly into clouds when the temperature is at or below freezing. That is not necessarily true. Applicants should be familiar with this letter of interpretation from the FAA.
Risk assessment is an important part of risk management. The FAA recommends using a tool that assigns value to different risk factors to make the process more objective. This free iOS app does a good job. It’s nice when applicants have a risk assessment done for the checkride/scenario flight. More information is available in this FAA document.
To make it easy for everyone, I suggest that each applicant show up to the checkride with written personal minimums. The FAA recommends this tri-fold and AOPA has created this Personal Minimums Contract for IFR pilots.
The personal minimums set by the applicant should be adhered to for the checkride flight. When something is outside the applicant’s personal minimums, it is their responsibility to discontinue the checkride.
The G1000 has become a common avionics suite in flight training airplanes. Many flight schools and instructors have embraced the technology. Unfortunately, it’s also clear that many are still not teaching pilots to use the system the way it was designed to be used.
I often observe checkride applicants doing all of their navigation via VORs (green CDI). This is certainly not wrong, but it’s not the way the system was designed to be used. GPS navigation is much more precise, especially with WAAS-enabled systems. I also often observe that applicants neglect to load VOR and ILS approaches into the G1000 flight plan. When done properly, the G1000 will show the entire hold entry/track (including wind corrections) and automatically switch from GPS (magenta CDI) to the LOC (green CDI) for an ILS approach, while providing a wealth of situational awareness for each waypoint on the approach. Too many flight schools and instructors seem to think this is cheating. Well, it’s not. It’s the way the system was designed to be used. Until a failure is simulated, the FAA expects applicants to exercise good Single-Pilot Resource Management by properly utilizing all available resources the way they were intended to be used by the manufacturer.
As the evaluator, it’s my job to simulate realistic failures that require the applicant to move down to lower levels of automation and the applicant needs to be comfortable with that. I usually do this by simulating a GPS outage in the area, including realistic communication from ATC informing the pilot of the outage. I then delete the current flight plan, change the active waypoint to something far away, turn off the bearing pointers, and change the MFD to show the traffic map. I also turn off the “own ship” feature on the applicant’s tablet (if applicable), because that would not be working either during a real GPS outage. The applicant is then required to select and fly an approach that does not require GPS or DME. This will likely be a timed approach, so hopefully they have practiced that recently.
The center section of the G1000 is often called the “Common Tuning Area.” This includes the controls on the right side of the PFD, the avionics panel, and the controls on the left side of the MFD. It’s best to teach pilots in the left seat to fly the yoke with their left hand and use their right hand to control everything in the Common Tuning Area. Without this specific instruction early in training, many pilots develop the bad habit of using the knobs and buttons on the left side of the PFD. This requires switching hands on the yoke and/or awkwardly reaching their right hand to the left side of the panel. Doing everything in the Common Tuning Area is a much better habit. Basically, ignore the fact that the knobs and buttons on the left side of the PFD even exist. This habit is also useful when we simulate a PFD failure. In that scenario, the pilot would have to use the altitude and heading knobs on the MFD anyway. Already having that as a habit makes it even easier.
Pilots that fly the G1000 system should have a basic understanding of the various components, how they work, and what to expect with different component failures. The following videos are helpful for learning and review.
G1000 Introduction. This one is pretty old and some of the information is outdated, but it's still a great overview and explanation of the different components of the G1000. The emergency procedures and examples of failure modes starting at 55:55 are especially valuable.
GFC 700 Autopilot. This is one of my favorite Garmin videos, packed with useful information.
Garmin G1000 IFR. This is an excellent training series from a couple of experienced instructors. Mossy can be a bit cheesy, but the content is very good.
This useful shortcut is one of my favorite hidden features in the G1000. The second tip in this 3-minute video demonstrates the shortcut.
I’ve also noticed that most pilots do not understand ROL mode. The table at the bottom of page number 350 (PDF page 364) in this document explains what ROL mode does in the G1000 and comparable systems. This 8-minute video also provides some helpful suggestions.
Max Trescott shares some excellent tips and suggestions in this podcast recording.
Recommended Training Aid: Common G1000 Errors and Solutions
Here’s a link to some valuable information to help ensure the IACRA application is completed correctly.
In standard 6-pack airplanes, we usually simulate a vacuum failure to have the applicant demonstrate the required partial panel approach. It’s clear that most applicants are accustomed to their flight instructor covering up the attitude indicator and heading indicator for them. I strongly suggest instructors stop doing this for their students. Instead, I suggest that instructors teach their students to carry their own cover-ups. Simple sticky notes work great. The instructor should then control the scenario by saying something like, “Simulate the suction gauge now shows zero. What are you going to do?” In addition to running an appropriate checklist and simulating a call to ATC, it would be great to see the applicant use their own cover-ups to mitigate the threat of the (simulated) failing instruments.
The regulations are clear that ground instruction must be properly logged by the instructor. To begin a checkride, we need to at least have a signed ground log that shows the minimum areas of operation were covered. This applies whether the applicant did a home study course or not.
Looking for Traffic
The examiner is responsible for visual scanning and traffic avoidance when the applicant is wearing a view-limiting device. There are times, however, when instrument applicants are not “in the clouds” during the checkride flight. Takeoffs, the circling approach, and visual approaches are a few examples. The examiner may also have the applicant remove the view-limiting device during an enroute segment or between approaches. During these times, I’ve noticed that most instrument applicants keep their attention completely focused on the instrument scan and neglect the need to look for traffic.
It’s important to remember that instrument pilots are required to use proper and effective visual scanning procedures when not in IMC. The instrument ACS includes the following statements:
In addition, one of the five specific items listed for Unsatisfactory Performance in Appendix 5 is, “Failure to use proper and effective visual scanning techniques to clear the area before and while performing maneuvers.”
I understand that most of the instrument training is performed in simulated instrument conditions and applicants are used to putting all of their attention on the flight instruments. Instructors must also emphasize proper visual scanning procedures when in VMC. It’s not enough to just talk about this. It’s a skill that must be practiced in flight. On the checkride, applicants must remember to demonstrate proper visual scanning procedures when not wearing the view-limiting device.
Applicants must understand the requirements of 91.185. I suggest listening to this 17-minute podcast for an explanation of the difference between what is needed for the discussion during a checkride and what probably makes more sense in real life. When the applicant tells me they are going to proceed to an IAF and immediately begin an approach before flying to the clearance limit at altitude, then it’s important they explain that they are exercising their 91.3 PIC authority to do something different than 91.185.
Applicants that use ForeFlight should know the basics of what it means to “Pack.” This short video explains it.
It’s important for applicants to remember that we are usually simulating clouds and visibility down near minimums. Turning on the approach lights at a non-towered airport would be very important in real life, even during the day. It’s good when applicants tell me they are thinking about this and simulate turning them on. If the frequency is not too busy, I think it’s great for the applicant to actually turn the lights on before they cross the FAF. I will not fail an applicant for not doing this, but it is something we discuss in the post-test briefing.
I created this document to help clear up several common misconceptions and provide valuable suggestions to help you with your pilot logbooks.
AC 91-92 is packed with great information and links to useful resources that all pilots should be familiar with.
When ATC instructs you to standby, please don’t reply. Controllers usually do this when there’s something time-sensitive they need to do. If the pilot immediately reads back the instruction to standby, there’s a good chance they are blocking the time-sensitive instructions that ATC is trying to give someone else. If the instructions include something else like, “Cessna 123 squawk 4336 and standby,” simply put in the code and wait. No reply is needed.
The Pilot/Controller Glossary defines Procedure Turn Inbound as, “That point of a
procedure turn maneuver where course reversal has been completed and an aircraft is established inbound on the intermediate approach segment or final approach course.” This commonly comes up on a checkride when I (as Albuquerque Center) instruct the applicant to report procedure turn inbound. They then often simulate the call when they are still procedure turn outbound. I commonly observe flight instructors making this same mistake in the stack at Stanfield. Slide #36 of the AFTW procedures linked above also addresses this issue. Let’s all please follow the proper definition to avoid confusion.
Applicants should know the meaning of “Radar contact lost” as defined in the Pilot/Controller Glossary. They should also understand how and why not being in radar contact affects reporting requirements/procedures and their ability to fly approaches that require radar.
I often observe pilots rapidly changing engine power from idle to full power for takeoffs, go-around, and stall recoveries. It is also common for flight instructors to quickly pull power to idle when simulating engine failures. This Lycoming Operator’s Manual explains why rapid throttle movements should be avoided. Please help take care of the engines we all depend on by always allowing 2 to 3 seconds to perform full power changes. You may need to actually count it out loud, “One thousand one, one thousand two, one thousand three,” while slowly moving the throttle. Even in time-sensitive scenarios like a stall recovery or low altitude go-around, properly controlling the pitch (reducing angle of attack) is much more important than quickly shoving the throttle forward. More information about detuning counterweights can be found HERE.
When flying approaches with a system that includes an altitude selector (like the G1000), the pilot should enter the desired altitude for each step down/assigned altitude. For approaches that include official vertical guidance (approaches with a DA), it works best to enter the appropriate missed approach altitude once the vertical guidance is being followed. This should be the first published missed approach altitude that requires a level-off, not just a turn. For example, with the ILS to runway 5 at KCGZ, the pilot should set 5,900 (not 2,100) in the pilot-selected altitude once established on the glideslope.
The minimums bug should be used to identify the decision altitude (DA). This procedure is a good habit for two reasons:
Many instructors are teaching pilots to “bug the highest altitude listed in the missed approach procedure.” That’s bad advice because it does not cover all scenarios. Look at the ILS or LOC RWY 19 at TEB, for example. If the pilot bugs the highest altitude (3,000) and then flies the missed approach, they will likely bust the 1,500 ft. required level-off altitude at BUBGE. That’s a pilot deviation and a safety hazard. Again, pilots should bug the first published missed approach altitude that requires a level-off.
One area where training should improve is the simulated IFR calls between the instructor/evaluator and the applicant. For example, applicants don’t seem familiar with the proper phraseology when contacting Departure Control after departing IFR from a towered airport. I simulate this shortly after takeoff by saying something like, “I have the real radios now and we are simulating that I am Phoenix Departure. What would you say when you contact them on a real IFR flight?” The applicant usually gives me something like, “Phoenix Approach, this is Cessna 123 requesting class Bravo transition to Stanfield for practice approaches.” No, no no. That’s not an IFR call. Callsign, current altitude, and altitude climbing to (and/or name of DP if applicable) is all that’s needed. I then provide simulated vectors and take care of the real VFR calls.
Another example where we can do a better job simulating real IFR flight is when conducting simulated instrument approaches to non-towered airports. When conducting a real instrument approach to a non-towered airport, ATC will usually give the pilot a frequency change to CTAF somewhere around the FAF, or well before it. The pilot is then responsible for traffic calls. It appears that most instructors/evaluators are not simulating this. The instrument applicants I’ve flown with have clearly not been practicing their CTAF calls recently. Of course, in real life with the clouds and visibility down to minimums, there would not be several other aircraft in the VFR pattern. I get that and I think it’s appropriate for the instructor/evaluator to help out with the VFR traffic calls as needed/appropriate.
I simulate this at Casa Grande (for example) by pretending to be Albuquerque Center. I tell the applicant something like, “Cessna 123 this is Albuquerque Center, you are cleared for the ILS runway 5 approach at Casa Grande, report Stanfield inbound.” When they report at Stanfield, I say, “Roger Cessna 123, change to advisory frequency approved, report canceling IFR on the ground, have a good day.” I then inform the applicant that they now have the real radios for CTAF calls (as explained in my pre-flight briefing). They just need to make the appropriate calls to Casa Grande Traffic letting everyone know we are inbound to runway 5 for the option (since they don’t yet know whether or not they will come out of the simulated clouds). If we are circling to land on 23, I usually remind the applicant that they have the radios after they come out of the simulated clouds and they do a good job reporting downwind, base, and final.
Note: It is not appropriate to abbreviate the name of the airport to “Casa” when making CTAF calls.
Applicants should also be simulating a call to Albuquerque Center each time they enter the hold at Stanfield [see AIM 5-3-3 a.1.(f)]. My experience in the real world is that we never use local time on the radio. Applicants should state the correct UTC time. I believe it’s also acceptable to simply state the minutes. For example, “Albuquerque Center, Cessna 123 entered the hold at Stanfield at 4,500 feet, at three-two past the hour.” This should be a simulated call to the instructor/evaluator who is making the real calls to Stanfield Traffic.
I’ve noticed that when pilots go through their instrument training without ever (or rarely) actually putting in IFR squawk codes on the ground or turning pitot heat on when entering clouds, they forget to do these important items in real instrument flying. Instrument checkrides usually start with a simulated clearance. I think it’s great when the applicant puts in the squawk code I give them in the simulated clearance. I then change the code to 1200 and say, “That’s simulated.” It’s good to see them getting in the mindset that we are going on a real IFR flight. Same for the pitot heat when I tell them they are in the clouds and have them put on the hood. As far as they are concerned, those are real clouds. It’s great when they at least tell me they’re thinking about the pitot heat.
Applicants should be familiar with the information in this FAA Safety Briefing. One of my scenarios for the oral portion of the checkride is a night visual approach to a runway that has the PAPI NOTAMed out of service. When I ask how they would mitigate that threat, most applicants don’t really know. One effective way is with the 3:1 rule, which says that for each 1 NM from the runway, the airplane should be about 300 feet above the TDZE to be on a 3 degree glidepath. This does not guarantee obstacle clearance, but it’s a great tool to start with. It can also be said that when an airplane is on a 3 degree glidepath, 3 miles from the runway, it is about 1,000 feet above the runway.
The FAA has outlined seven criteria for a stabilized approach on page 9-6 of the current Airplane Flying Handbook. The seven items listed by the FAA can be condensed into the C-FLAPS acronym:
C - Checklists, complete.
F - Flight path (horizontal and vertical), proper.
L - Landing configuration, set.
A - Airspeed, within normal approach criteria.
P - Power setting, adjusted and constant.
S - Sink rate, as planned/expected.
If one or more of the above items is not achieved by a certain point, the airplane is not stabilized and a go-around should be initiated. The Airplane Flying Handbook states, “For a typical GA piston airplane in a traffic pattern, if the approach becomes unstabilized below 300 feet AGL, the pilot should initiate an immediate go-around.” 300 feet AGL may or may not be the appropriate height based on the specific airplane, runway, and current conditions, but it is still important for pilots to select a minimum height at which they will decide to go-around if not stabilized. This selected height can be different for each landing, but the pilot should always know how far they will take an unstabilized approach before choosing to go-around. Think of it as a “Personal Decision Height.”
Forward slips should only be used when previously briefed and/or when simulating an abnormal/emergency scenario that makes a go-around less desirable. A forward slip should not be used to fix a poorly planned/executed approach. With rare exceptions, the best thing to do when unstabilized is promptly execute a go-around.
When flying with a heading indicator or HSI that has a heading bug, it’s a good habit to always keep the bug on your current heading. I also recommend this effective technique to prevent over-controlling of heading changes on final approach in IMC:
Think of it as a gate that you are required to stay within. If you need to turn farther than the bug to correct for wind, simply move the heading bug and then continue to make small corrections inside the width of the heading bug.
This is general advice to help you in both real life and anytime you’re being evaluated by a pilot examiner. Whenever you are presented with a problem (big or small), follow these three simple steps in order:
This means that when the examiner gives you an in-flight scenario with a problem and asks, “What are you going to do?” the best first answer is always, “First, I’m going to focus on flying the plane.”
I’ve found that most checkride applicants and flight instructors are still not familiar with the FAA Pilot Proficiency Award Program (aka WINGS). Participating in this program should be a lifelong endeavor, especially for U.S.-based pilots. Successfully passing the instrument checkride earns the pilot several knowledge and flight credits. If the evaluator does not offer to give credit after the checkride, any flight instructor can validate the activity based on the temporary airman certificate. An independent company is also currently offering cash prizes via a sweepstakes for both pilots and instructors who participate. More information and useful links are available in this article.
No topics match that search.