IFR flight test questions.

[clairvoyant]

Folks,
Just out of curiosity....
During your IFR flight tests, did you do?
8. VOR, LOC, LOC/BC or NDB Instrument Approach
8. ILS or LPV Instrument Approach (Precision Approach)
8. RNAV (GNSS) Instrument Approach
.....or all of the above???
If so care to share your experiences, tips, wisdom, do's/don'ts etc?
Thank You

[Teeg]

As per the flight test guide...

"The candidate will perform two (2) instrument approaches. Except where limited by aeroplane equipment or lack of approach facilities, these approaches will be done on different types of facilities. On an initial Instrument Rating flight test, a precision approach with vertical guidance is mandatory. An LPV approach can be substituted to demonstrate ILS approach proficiency"

1. is this your initial ride?
2. is this a group 1 ride?
3. are you doing the ride at the same location you trained at?

If its your initial and group 1... In my experience, always a single engine ILS to land.
If you are doing the flight test at the same location you trained at, you should be able to ask around, see what others did, ask about the Examiners preferences as well.

Regardless... wherever you are doing the ride, look and see what possibilities there are. If there is no NDB, or VOR to do an approach, guess what? Probably going to do a hold at a waypoint, followed by an approach from said waypoint.

*edit*
I should add, the script for a ride is pretty standard.
Depart airport, usually on a SID departure, vectors to the enroute (usually the destination you planned for in your groundwork), a "problem arises" which requires you to return to homebase. Then either an approach, missed, followed by a hold and another approach to land. OR hold, approach, miss, another approach.

[Peachtrees]

All you have to do is one PA (mine was full procedure ILS) and one NPA (RNAV/LPV on mine), it all depends on the availability of the NAV facilities of your intended destination airports. Of course, full holding procedure is included too.

[MrTurbine]

All you have to do is one PA (mine was full procedure ILS) and one NPA (RNAV/LPV on mine), it all depends on the availability of the NAV facilities of your intended destination airports. Of course, full holding procedure is included too.

What he said
Some examiners count LPV as a precision approach if an ILS approach is not available for your check ride. Basically a hold, usually on a fix inbound to an approach or arrival, one approach with glideslope guidance (usually ILS, sometimes LPV), and one without (Rnav, VOR, NDB)

[PAJ]

In addition to the hold and approaches expect some sort of simulated issue/emergency. Alternator, vacuum, auto pilot, blocked pitot, partial panel etc.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The IFR flight test is assesses against the criteria in the flight test guide. No more, no less. Be very familiar with the guide and there will be no surprises.

[Cessna 180]

On my initial ride, I flight planed from my home airport to an airport about 150 miles away (I included the arrival in my planning). He asked where I got my routing as it was different than what the CFS prefers, I told him it was a recently cleared route on fltplan.com, he accepted this answer as good. I used Foreflight to plan the flight. I added a random RNAV waypoint in between the arrival waypoint so I could program my GPS with the full route to get accurate ETA to the simulated destination (I was filing IFR and that was the waypoint I was actually going to file) and told him why. He was fine with that. I wouldn't have had to add that point if I did it under simulated IFR.

On the ride, I picked up my clearance with the plane off (cheaper) and programmed my GPS once I got started. I briefed the approach in case I had to come back immediately as well as the departure. I was vectored by departure to my RNAV waypoint and once at cruise I checked my ETA and TAS (using the GPS). Once we did that, he called Center and asked if we could get holding instructions at the FAF NDB. I got my instructions (as published on the ILS). I asked Center for a distance hold (good idea, no need to time the legs) as well as vectors while I reprogrammed my GPS (I used the GPS to hold on the NDB, not an ADF). We did two or three patterns and then shot the LOC (I believe the GS was inop that day). Because we held as published on the approach, there was no need to do a hockey stick procedure turn. If I would have had to (if we held somewhere else), I probably would have asked Center for vectors instead. Center asked me what I wanted next and I told them I wanted the RNAV. He gave me missed approach instructions (climb strait out to 4000 for vectors to one of the waypoints on the T).

After going missed, Tower handed me off to departure and he vectored me to one of the waypoints while I reprogrammed the GPS. We shot the LPV single engine (he told me an oil leak which is a bit easier than him pulling the engine during the approach) and circled to land Rwy 32.

My examiner never disabled any of my avionics and the entire test was done without an autopilot (wasn't available). I think it was 1.1 flight time. I would recommend filing IFR personally because I believe it can be a bit easier working with real clearances from ATC instead of simulated clearances from your examiner. They could deny vectors, deny distance holds, etc, but it's very unlikely that ATC ever will. It helps relieve some of the work load that's atypical of a normal IFR flight (putting in an entirely new route in the GPS just minutes from your next approach, procedure turn in a radar environment, timed holds, etc).

Best advice is be very prepared for the ground portion. Examiners love to ask tons of questions and if you sound knowledgeable, they're less likely to ask silly questions and even if they do, you will be prepared to answer them. If you plan on using an electronic tool to plan the flight (Foreflight, Fltplan.com), be prepared to explain how you came up with the answers and make sure the tool is properly programmed for the aircraft.

I was rather lucky the examiner I picked is a Captain at a major airline so he may have been more willing to accept modern technologies like EFBs and Fltplan.com and GPS than some examiners who primarily do tests might be so YMMV.

To add to all of this, the test isn't particularly difficult so if you're prepared you should do fine even if the test is under VFR and with an examiner that just loves full procedures and NDBs.

Good luck!

[clairvoyant]

Thank you very much for the clear and concise feedback here.
This is what I am looking for to demystify the IFR flight test as a whole.
My concern is somewhat similar. I am more proficient in the GPS realm (G1000/G3000) than the steam gauges.
Out of curiosity, what GPS did you use and what sort of aircraft did you fly during the test?

On my initial ride, I flight planed from my home airport to an airport about 150 miles away (I included the arrival in my planning). He asked where I got my routing as it was different than what the CFS prefers, I told him it was a recently cleared route on fltplan.com, he accepted this answer as good. I used Foreflight to plan the flight. I added a random RNAV waypoint in between the arrival waypoint so I could program my GPS with the full route to get accurate ETA to the simulated destination (I was filing IFR and that was the waypoint I was actually going to file) and told him why. He was fine with that. I wouldn't have had to add that point if I did it under simulated IFR.

On the ride, I picked up my clearance with the plane off (cheaper) and programmed my GPS once I got started. I briefed the approach in case I had to come back immediately as well as the departure. I was vectored by departure to my RNAV waypoint and once at cruise I checked my ETA and TAS (using the GPS). Once we did that, he called Center and asked if we could get holding instructions at the FAF NDB. I got my instructions (as published on the ILS). I asked Center for a distance hold (good idea, no need to time the legs) as well as vectors while I reprogrammed my GPS (I used the GPS to hold on the NDB, not an ADF). We did two or three patterns and then shot the LOC (I believe the GS was inop that day). Because we held as published on the approach, there was no need to do a hockey stick procedure turn. If I would have had to (if we held somewhere else), I probably would have asked Center for vectors instead. Center asked me what I wanted next and I told them I wanted the RNAV. He gave me missed approach instructions (climb strait out to 4000 for vectors to one of the waypoints on the T).

After going missed, Tower handed me off to departure and he vectored me to one of the waypoints while I reprogrammed the GPS. We shot the LPV single engine (he told me an oil leak which is a bit easier than him pulling the engine during the approach) and circled to land Rwy 32.

My examiner never disabled any of my avionics and the entire test was done without an autopilot (wasn't available). I think it was 1.1 flight time. I would recommend filing IFR personally because I believe it can be a bit easier working with real clearances from ATC instead of simulated clearances from your examiner. They could deny vectors, deny distance holds, etc, but it's very unlikely that ATC ever will. It helps relieve some of the work load that's atypical of a normal IFR flight (putting in an entirely new route in the GPS just minutes from your next approach, procedure turn in a radar environment, timed holds, etc).

Best advice is be very prepared for the ground portion. Examiners love to ask tons of questions and if you sound knowledgeable, they're less likely to ask silly questions and even if they do, you will be prepared to answer them. If you plan on using an electronic tool to plan the flight (Foreflight, Fltplan.com), be prepared to explain how you came up with the answers and make sure the tool is properly programmed for the aircraft.

I was rather lucky the examiner I picked is a Captain at a major airline so he may have been more willing to accept modern technologies like EFBs and Fltplan.com and GPS than some examiners who primarily do tests might be so YMMV.

To add to all of this, the test isn't particularly difficult so if you're prepared you should do fine even if the test is under VFR and with an examiner that just loves full procedures and NDBs.

Good luck!

[Cessna 180]

Whether you're used to a G1000 or not you should be able to fly proficiently with steam gauges. I used a fairly well equipped Piper Seminole with Dual Garmin G430s, an HSI with a magnetometer, no autopilot. There was a functional ADF (movable card). I did most of my IFR training on a G1000 equipped single with an autopilot and using the steam equipped multi didn't feel much different.

Thank you very much for the clear and concise feedback here.
This is what I am looking for to demystify the IFR flight test as a whole.
My concern is somewhat similar. I am more proficient in the GPS realm (G1000/G3000) than the steam gauges.
Out of curiosity, what GPS did you use and what sort of aircraft did you fly during the test?

On my initial ride, I flight planed from my home airport to an airport about 150 miles away (I included the arrival in my planning). He asked where I got my routing as it was different than what the CFS prefers, I told him it was a recently cleared route on fltplan.com, he accepted this answer as good. I used Foreflight to plan the flight. I added a random RNAV waypoint in between the arrival waypoint so I could program my GPS with the full route to get accurate ETA to the simulated destination (I was filing IFR and that was the waypoint I was actually going to file) and told him why. He was fine with that. I wouldn't have had to add that point if I did it under simulated IFR.

On the ride, I picked up my clearance with the plane off (cheaper) and programmed my GPS once I got started. I briefed the approach in case I had to come back immediately as well as the departure. I was vectored by departure to my RNAV waypoint and once at cruise I checked my ETA and TAS (using the GPS). Once we did that, he called Center and asked if we could get holding instructions at the FAF NDB. I got my instructions (as published on the ILS). I asked Center for a distance hold (good idea, no need to time the legs) as well as vectors while I reprogrammed my GPS (I used the GPS to hold on the NDB, not an ADF). We did two or three patterns and then shot the LOC (I believe the GS was inop that day). Because we held as published on the approach, there was no need to do a hockey stick procedure turn. If I would have had to (if we held somewhere else), I probably would have asked Center for vectors instead. Center asked me what I wanted next and I told them I wanted the RNAV. He gave me missed approach instructions (climb strait out to 4000 for vectors to one of the waypoints on the T).

After going missed, Tower handed me off to departure and he vectored me to one of the waypoints while I reprogrammed the GPS. We shot the LPV single engine (he told me an oil leak which is a bit easier than him pulling the engine during the approach) and circled to land Rwy 32.

My examiner never disabled any of my avionics and the entire test was done without an autopilot (wasn't available). I think it was 1.1 flight time. I would recommend filing IFR personally because I believe it can be a bit easier working with real clearances from ATC instead of simulated clearances from your examiner. They could deny vectors, deny distance holds, etc, but it's very unlikely that ATC ever will. It helps relieve some of the work load that's atypical of a normal IFR flight (putting in an entirely new route in the GPS just minutes from your next approach, procedure turn in a radar environment, timed holds, etc).

Best advice is be very prepared for the ground portion. Examiners love to ask tons of questions and if you sound knowledgeable, they're less likely to ask silly questions and even if they do, you will be prepared to answer them. If you plan on using an electronic tool to plan the flight (Foreflight, Fltplan.com), be prepared to explain how you came up with the answers and make sure the tool is properly programmed for the aircraft.

I was rather lucky the examiner I picked is a Captain at a major airline so he may have been more willing to accept modern technologies like EFBs and Fltplan.com and GPS than some examiners who primarily do tests might be so YMMV.

To add to all of this, the test isn't particularly difficult so if you're prepared you should do fine even if the test is under VFR and with an examiner that just loves full procedures and NDBs.

Good luck!