Multi IFR in under a Week - Maybe Not My Best Idea
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 июн 2024
- I followed my own advice working toward an upgrade instead of just the minimal required IPC, and got humbled.
Huge thanks Luke for his time and energy on this.
Learn more about training at Harv’s Air:
www.harvsair.com/
Shout out to SiriusXM Aviation - having access to weather data while flying is a game changer!
www.siriusxm.com/aviation
#Flying Content like this wouldn't be sustainable without the involvement of Patrons.
I want to thank all of you for your ongoing support!
To become a part of the Flight Chops core community
and gain access to exclusive raw cuts, behind the scenes videos, and more, visit:
/ flightchops
Follow FlightChops on Instagram:
/ flightchops
Follow FlightChops on Twitter:
/ flightchops
Follow FlightChops on Facebook:
/ flightchops
FlightChops Sponsors & Supporters:
flightchops.com/supporters/
FLIGHT CHOPS DISCLAIMER:
I am a "weekend warrior" private pilot, I fly for fun with no intentions of going commercial.
I have had my PPL for over 20 years, but still consider each flight a learning experience
- I generally take detailed notes after each flight to remind myself what went well or what I could do to improve....
Having GoPro cameras to record flights like this is invaluable.
I find these self analysis videos very helpful in my constant quest to improve, and am happy to share.
Feedback is invited; however, please keep it positive.
For behind-the-scenes content,
epic giveaways and to search episodes by aircraft type, visit:
www.FlightChops.com/
I really like what the instructor said at the beginning, "An instrument rating is not an achievement, it's a commitment".
I'm doing my instrument right now, I've never felt my brain go so slow in my life. Multi is just unimaginable for me.
Good job for sharing this experience. Retired U.S. Navy pilot here. Many flight-related evolutions are perishable skills which if not regularly practiced, quickly degrade. We were required to fly specified amount of flight hours per month, landings, night time, air refueling, etc. to maintain proficiency. This system and focus on proficiency works very well and the Navy has a very good safety record especially considering the mission. Not staying proficient is very risky for pilots and their passengers. I’ll end with a quick story. While flying a training mission in Northern California near dusk, I heard a civilian pilot request vectors to a small airport. The controller informed him it had been closed for several months and asked the pilot’s intentions. He was unaware of the closure, low on fuel, and had his family onboard. He further stated that although he was instrument rated, he was not comfortable flying at night and needed to get on the ground. I coordinated with ATC which switched me to a remote frequency. I was able to intercept the pilot in duress and escort him to another airfield where he was able to safely land. ‘Nuff said….
I appreciate your comments on proficiency. As a retired Army helicopter pilot (CH-47s) we also had minimum hours and iterations of flight tasks (maneuvers). We also were required to fly at least 1 hour every 60 days to maintain currency. Herein lies my frustration. Many say that currency or recency doesn’t equal proficiency. I agree but say it should. When a pilot exceeded his 60 day currency requirement he was required to undergo a proficiency flight evaluation (PFE). If the pilot failed the PFE, he was given additional training until demonstrating proficiency. If the pilot passed the PFE he was considered proficient. Each pilot had semi-annual flight hours to sustain minimum proficiency. Yet rarely did any pilot fail a flight evaluation. It was simply because the evaluator would redo a flight task until the pilot got it right. That did not make the pilot proficient. Obviously, the hour levels were never high enough because of costs. Truth be told pilots need about 500 hours a year and practice doing all the flight tasks to truly be proficient. But military leaders have budget requirements and revert to placing the onus on instructor pilots and evaluators, who, for right or wrong, don’t want to alienate the pilots by documenting unsatisfactory performance which has its own stigma, and also don’t want to fail so many pilots that units become not mission capable and commanders fire them. So, that is the way it truly is.
I flew into IMC for the first time back on Tuesday night, I had my instructor with me who holds his double I and we decided to go fly and if we had to grab a hotel at our XC airport we would. It was a wild experience, the first cloud i ever flew through i actually flinched when we punched into it. Then the wild feeling of what all my sensory input is saying is happening and what the instruments say is actually happening is such a crazy phenomenon that is impossible to convey to someone who hasnt experienced it. I know from what i was told by hundreds of other pilots either in person who i know, or on aviation subreddits or forums, I thought i knew what to expect, but when i actually flew into it there was nothing anyone could have said to prepare me for what i experienced. Great job documenting the humility it takes to learn the craft even with as much time as you have flying. When we stop learning and get complacent is when things get dangerous.
When your mentor is quiet and gives you one word answers....It was at that time, you know you've F'ed up...back on the horse, you got this!
Kudos Steve - so many folks regard IFR as 'just another technique' and yet as you show, way more to it! Plenty of stress. :)
Thank you Steve for your contributions to aviation. Priceless your level of honesty and humility and vulnerability. Let’s us all know we’re mortal and to be vigilant about how difficult and dangerous IFR flying can be, especially single pilot in a twin. There is a lot of shit going on and it’s very easy to get way behind the airplane.
I’ve been working on my multi engine and multi IFR simultaneously and we flew 1.5 hours in total IMC in a 310. I couldn’t believe how mentally taxing it is. We flew at 11000 and dealt with icing which was crazy
As a fellow Canadian, I appreciate your humbleness. Very technical twin IFR. Thx😊
This is so important to hear. Thanks for your candid self-evaluation - we can all identify with you.
Mad respect for how you handle everything in flight and how honest you are in the videos. I started to get a little ill myself listening you talking about "it feels like we're in a descending right turn" and getting rattled by the turbulence. Made me remember knocking out all of the IMC time required for Private in one sitting. That was a looong flight for a 20 hour pilot.
Took the “accelerated” commercial multi in a Tecnam
Last year, definitely didn’t feel comfortable or ready for the checkride after 7 hours so I had to retry 6 months later. Highly recommend learning all the emergency procedures and flows to the last dot before getting in the cockpit.
Just a few questions to Luke, how far below minimums would you say is acceptable, what is the new gate, is there a new gate, is there no other way other than commiting to land, how likely is a second engine failure during a go around, did you really have to punish him, wouldn‘t flight freeze, a short discussion over the options, pros and cons and thereafter a reposition to final and reflying the whole approach with the abnormal possibly be the better way? Just thoughts that came up, because my inital reaction was, that I would’ve done it differently, since the possibility of negative training was given.
but I am eager to hear about your or everyone else‘s point of view.
If they were doing an approach with vertical guidance, or a CDFA on a non-precision, then there should have been less concern about sinking below MDA and not making the runway. Reaching minimums, maintaining the same trajectory would take you to the touchdown zone. Nobody should be doing dive-and-drive technique.
@@llaughridge given the fact that you maintain the sinkrate perfectly all the way down to the RWY and maybe still have some crossing altitudes left to check your CDFA non-precision - only then I might agree. But what if you don‘t maintain the sinkrate perfectly (even worse, it happened unnoticed). And you break through the clouds in let‘s say 200‘ and you still have 1.5 NM to go. Other than that there could be obstacles, do you really want to try to power yourself into the RWY with the given single-engine performance?
So where do you draw the line?
What if there is a rainshower just overhead the threshold, patches if fog…. You don’t see anything. You still land (without autoland)? Or do you try a missed approach then, even lower, with even less options.
I don’t know the aircraft they are flying at all, but from what I took out of the video, it seems to have very poor single-engine-performance. Which lead me to thinking that the whole approach to an approach in an OEI condition in that particular aircraft may be worth another thought. Would it be an option to pick an airport with more suitable weather, set the minimum higher (commander‘s discretion) - leaving you with more air aka time under the belly to make a reasonable decision.
Of course we all don‘t know what they‘ve briefed and the exercise was all about. It is just a short outtake from many hours in the simulator. I just don‘t feel confortable with the thought that someone has to descend down to an RNAV, non-precision or even ILS minimum before he may or may not see the RWY and is then left with only one option because of the (non existing) performance of the aircraft - land and the runway better be where it is expected.
Just some thoughts, and I would love to hear from Luke - because so know I might be so far off, and can learn from him and his experience. And if there is some truth to my thoughts, maybe some of y‘all in the Community take something away from that.
In the end I don‘t want to blame - I want us all to understand, comprehend, learn and tomorrow be better and safer pilots than today. Step by step from current to proficient.
A lot more people have died by going below minimums than on a single engine go around on a good engine. The correct answer is zero.
@@BillliammAre you sure about that? In light piston twins specifically?
So good of you to share these Steve. Thousands and thousands of pilots benefiting massively I have no doubt. Great great work!
Great content (again) and even better, great humility (again). Thanks for being honest and keeping the lessons real.
I have a wry smile on my face at the end of this video, 'cos you seem to beat yourself up the same as I do when something isn't right. The chasm of difference though is that I'm barely 100hrs P1 and still in nappies!
Thanks for sharing this Steve, this was helpful for me as I start in to my IFR training..
Chops, you’re normal. Thanks for sharing. Trust the gauges-100%.
Thank you for showing the real side of multi instrument flying training. I think a lot of students get discouraged, but it’s excellent for them to see what I think is a great pilot undergoing such a positive learning experience.
Long time fan, marveling in your progress. A fan since your touch and go flights out of Zillah.. you go boyyo!
Flying - Thumbs up !!! Thanks for sharing Steve.
Great video. Safe travels
The aviation (specifically general aviation) industry is truly better off for FlightChops and similar channels that are not afraid to let us all learn from mistakes they make with humility, grace, and a metric fuck ton of insight. Truly an amazing video and channel!
Just keep in mind with that single engine missed approach, your instructor said it's an emergency and go below mins anyway. That is only true if your airplane doesn't have the single-engine performance to climb, like most piston twins. However that's not the case for turbine twins, you have plenty of single-engine performance to go back up and try again or go to your alternate.
Not sure if this is US/CA thing? Certainly in the UK we do single engine missed approaches on piston twins, it is always part of the proficiency check. The drill is to retract gear and flaps without waiting for positive rate as you are unlikely to get positive rate with them deployed.
@@whiskeybravoaviationIt's never very high nor hot in the UK! 😂
@@igclapp very true! We do always check the OEI performance for departure, destination and alternate though. The danger for UK pilots is visiting our lovely European neighbours where these conditions do exist and becoming complacent to flying from low airfields at mostly ISA temps.
Nice work Steve!
😃
The P2006T is a great economical twin IFR trainer, that makes you work hard and stay on your game. The new NG Sport with injected engines, 3 doors, and a fully integrated GFC 700 autopilot will be a game changer. A few extra inches MP on one engine will help a lot too!
If you're not humbled by the thing you're learning, you're not learning anything.
This is my favorite part of this channel
Great video, Steve. And a good reminder that I’m way out of proficiency with my own IR.
really good film about flying....hope you can do more SIM training and take this as a good learning experience.
ahh the legendary VLOC /GPS switch over aka the $500 button. (cost of another check ride lol )
What is up with the belly belts? I have been seeing this lately on RUclips and this can be a fatal mistake in and of itself while striking an obstacle on the ground. Lap belts must by tight ON TOP of the upper thighs. Having a lap belt on your belly places your hips below the belt fulcrum and your lower body will move out from under the belt during deceleration Gs [into the space under the instrument panel with the associated injuries.] What the shoulder harness is going to do during this event in unknown to me, but my guess is pretty bloody. In the U.S., and I assume north of the border as well, this topic has been studied ad nauseum by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and numerous automotive engineering centers since the mid 50s with crash test dummies and high-speed film etc. The shoulder harness can only offer acceptable protection if the lap belt is positioned properly. Also, a belly belt will not hold you in the seat in the event of turbulence. The shoulder harness may offer some protection with a pure vertical vector (only a guess) but no one can say for sure without advanced full-scale testing. NASA has done some full-scale crash tests with actual aircraft, but I do not know the technical results of correct / incorrect seat belt use.
So much this. I've seen too many videos where people are wearing harnesses incorrectly which would kill them due to internal injuries. Showing this as an example is horribly irresponsible.
I find 5-point harnesses far more comfy than 3, and even 4-point. The latter always ride up and I'm constantly readjusting.
Excellent video. Real IFR is way different from practice. Very humbling for sure after my proficiency begins to erode.
Thank you for sharing your learning experiences. For me, learning is hard, can be frustrating because of personal pressure (or other pressure - to say nothing of having to learn while dealing with an audience, turbulence, and vestibular funkiness!). On the other hand, humility is a great trait and you've got that. Thank you again for reminding me that failure is a completely normal part of greater success!
Excelente brother 🛩️🇺🇸👍🏼👍🏼
I did my ME rating in a day (6hrs), Did my IR in a week (40hrs in the simulator and the 10hrs in the aircraft)
Anyone else watch the 4 split screen four times to see each video’s perspective on the landing?
Just passed my IPC and I somewhat voluntarily switched from CDI to GPS while doing the ILS. I stayed in the box and managed to recover, but probably out of sheer luck.
My Multi-IFR training was brutal. After passing the test, I hated flying.
Went camping, got drunk and burned all my books and notes. I vowed to never fly again.
A few months later I got my float rating.🙄
Great video (as always). The seatbelts up over your belly buttons is the only weird part!😄
Thanks for posting a struggle. That is real training!!!
Oh damn, you've been in Kansas? I wish I'd known so I could've said hi!
Yuuuup…. Yuuuup….at the end.😂
I see a couple of snippets in here from an location that I know well (62AR). Was looking... Is there a video?
To anyone watching this video: Please, please, please do not go below minimums - even in an emergency! Love your videos!
Depends on the situation. Here, if you’re familiar with the area, you could technically do a contact approach since you see the ground. Much safer than single engine go around
You do want to do it all in and not loose what you did two weeks ago and do a refresh and refresh every week.
You’re going to go back and finish it, right?
Steve you gotta trust that autopilot, you’re creating your own self hazard by getting so worked up on little things. Just fly the airplane.
I did my rating in this very airplane. Don't trust the autopilot. It caused more problems than it solved, and in the end I hand flew the check ride.
Is it normal to use the A/P for MEIR training now?
If it's equipped in the plane, you better know how to use it and be proficient.
Maybe just a little update in the title? “Canadian Multi IFR”? There is no such rating as Multi IFR in the U.S., and I would guess possibly other places? Or is it just referring to Multi IFR training? Haven’t gotten to the end of the video yet.
After getting to the end of the video, do you see any reduction in value of the learning moments of this content having watched it from an American perspective?
As a retired airline pilot i dont recommend the average private pilot get an instrument rating unless they are prepared to fly a significant amount of instrument practice AFTER receiving the instrument rating. Never fly ifr and do ifr approaches without expecting to know the specific procedure, missed approach and operation of every aspect of your airplane because when its down to minimums, and on missed approach, is not the time to press the wrong button. Staying proficient will cost $$. Be absolutely committed. Professional pilots are.
What would Chuck Yeager do?
Brag.
. Thanks for sharing. Whoever is reading this comment, I wish you success, health, love and happiness!
Weird that you need a separate instrument multi add on, i can't see anything being different from SEL instrument
Huge difference! If you fly in IMC and one of the engine is out you not only have to pay attention to properly keep flying according to IFR but also you have to “fight” with controls and settings to keep an airplane under control using just one engine. It is not easy in small twins. A mistake can kill you within seconds.
@@ATOMEK2025 if the engine is already out then it is secured feathered and you are trimmed, and you just need to add appropriate amount of rudder input with changes in power, again there's nothing fundamentally different about flying in imc with a single or a twin. An ILS is an ILS. Airplane responds the same losing an engine if your in the clouds or in the clear.
There is enough of a difference…
That the FAA wants us to train on the differences…. In place of figuring it out on your own…
Single engine ops in a twin… requires serious dedication to holding airspeed.
Crummy things happen when airspeed dwindles away…
😃
Training yes, Multi IFR rating, no. The is NO separate “IFR” rating for multi-engine from the FAA. However, you do need an IFR rating in order to not receive a “VFR only” limitation on your multi-engine rating, as you will have a small amount of IFR TESTING on the multi-engine rating if you already have your IFR rating..
There is NO separate Multi IFR rating in the United States, must be Canadian (as I know Flight Chops is)
3rd
Somehow I never expected 3rd to require a translation. 🤪
Just look at the artificial horizon and heading. and GPS map. what's the issue.
and all planes should have large clear synthetic vision. such a miss for GA
I don't understand why IFR is speaked about with such hushed voices. I much prefer radio navigation to reading landmarks. Same thing at sea, I much prefer night navigation with radar and light beacons. During the day you have a lot of clutter to filter out and visual references are small and hazy. Beacons identify themselves clearly and there aren't too many to choose from.
I’m mostly with you but there are some extremely challenging approaches out there and a whole spectrum of user friendliness of panels. Multiply flying a very challenging VOR-A approach where the MAP is only a mile or two after passing over a VOR (with a drop from the FAF to circling minimums of over 800 feet) with having to fly needles on traditional gauges and you could be in for an extremely humbling experience.
That said I prefer IFR flying to VFR and overall I agree with your sentiment.
Autopilot shouldn't even be a thing at this level of training
Why? As pilot you are trained to use all resources available to you. Is the autopilot a resource you can leverage to move attention to other matters? Then yes you should use it if it is installed
@@jmizzonini Correct, key emphasis should be on the management of it's use. Use the autopilot as a tool and not a crutch, keep the pilot proficient in its use but not over reliant on it.
?…. No such thing in America.
Fixed wing instrument, and helicopter instrument are different tests.
Never heard of a single engine and / or multi engine instrument test or rating.
There isn’t a Multi IFR in the U.S. He’s Canadian, and should really clarify that in his titling as yes, the world is not just the U.S., but a huge part of the RUclips audience IS U.S. pilots, students and enthusiasts.
Lame brain writes checks your body can't cash!!!
Tecnams are horrible mutlis. underpowerered, no single engine performance, and maintenance nightmares.
And the book numbers are gross exaggerations
You realize that people have gotten multiengine training in Apaches and other horrible twins for decades, right? If they learn to maintain directional control and not rely on the remaining engine to keep them aloft, then the plane has fulfilled its role as a basic trainer.
@@llaughridge and this manages to be much, much worse
Makes a great trainer…
Like C152…
Who does intentional single engine ops… in their real airplane?
😃
@@llaughridgeLoads of people have also DIED training in underpowered twins. I think in the real world, you want to use equipment that prolongs your lifespan the best, not the cheapest.
„You can’t maintain altitude with one engine when the gear is extended.“ Really? So the P2006 is not a real multi-engine airplane. Maybe switch to a DA-42 …
How does one define real airplane…?
Single engine ops at seal level, or in Denver?
Turbocharged engines, or normally aspirated?
Is a P2006 ever going to be considered a real airplane?
Looks like a great economical, trainer…
If you can’t make it to the airport, with the gear down…
A real pilot can choose to use the second engine or leave the gear up…
Is a C152 a real airplane?
The only thing not real in Steve’s video… is the simulator….
😃
Yeah, this airplane in my opinion is a good dedicated multi engine trainer. It is small and economical and has all the complexity you’d need to think about in any twin; However, due to its minimal power, it requires total precision with your hand flying to get good (any?) single performance. Would I buy one as a utility aircraft to fly around with my family? No. 😂
I'm doing my multi training in a DA42, and if we lose an engine after liftoff and the gear is still down, we have to abort the takeoff.
@@aerobaticflying Yesterday I was in the DA 42 sim and tried flying on one engine with flaps up and gear down. About 3,000 feet and 20 degrees C. It sank about 200 feet per minute.