Current IFR rating?

Group opinion recorded by the community.

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

Current IFR rating

Yes
76
83%
No
16
17%
 
Total votes: 92
User avatar
Boatguy
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1827
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:48 am
First Name: Russ
Aircraft Type: DA62
Aircraft Registration: N962M
Airports: KSTS
Has thanked: 1327 times
Been thanked: 1163 times

Re: Current IFR rating?

Post by Boatguy »

dant wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 5:31 amHis comment was that the FAA _really really_ wants you to think about and plan your fuel usage, and have a solid plan "B".
I think that's correct and the alternate language was created when the FAA was focused on fuel exhaustion accidents.
User avatar
p3dave
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2021 10:18 pm
First Name: Dave
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N321CK
Airports: 82J
Has thanked: 60 times
Been thanked: 13 times

Re: Current IFR rating?

Post by p3dave »

dant wrote: Thu Jan 06, 2022 5:31 am
There is very little aircraft equipment in the regs required for IFR. Check out what part 91 does NOT require what we all take as normal.
My end of course examiner for my IR had an interesting observation - he asked me to compare how onerous the regs were for currency vs alternates, noting that no one believes the currency regs for IR/PPL privileges are sufficient for proficiency. However for alternates, there's this slew of regulation with respect to weather, fuel, minimums at your alternate, alternate mins at the alternate, alternate not available, GPS approaches at both, etc. His comment was that the FAA _really really_ wants you to think about and plan your fuel usage, and have a solid plan "B".

I found it interesting.
! are an important part of any IFR flight plan that requires them and in the 121/135 world, the alternate rules are more complex than 91. In airline flying where they measure the cost to "tanker" fuel in 3 decimal points, dispatch is looking to give you the least amount of fuel they can but a good Captain is looking to take as much as they can just in case. The alternate rules look at ceilings and visibilities but there are other reasons you may not be able to land at your destination, such as winds. It's good to always have a backup as no plan survives first contact with the enemy! Another point is that the alternate in your flight plan is what you put in it at the time, that doesn't mean when you need alternate you have to go there. Many times when you are at that point another airport makes more sense and you just tell ATC that is where you are going to go.
User avatar
Rich
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 4592
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
First Name: Rich
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N40XE
Airports: S39 Prineville OR
Has thanked: 145 times
Been thanked: 1180 times

Re: Current IFR rating?

Post by Rich »

Speaking of regulations. In November the FAA put out a notice about adding medical requirements for commercial balloon pilots. It goes on and on about the reasons, cost/benefit, blah, blah... It also gets into BasicMed in this context but buried amongst all the blather, the FAA is proposing rewording the privileges and limitations to include not just pilot in command, but as a required crew member. The explicitly stated intent is to includes allowing BasicMed holders to act as safety pilots for view-limited pilots working on currency. It includes a statement to the effect that it was never intended that BasicMed holders to be excluded from this role but rather an oversight in the original writing of the rule.

The alphabet organizations have commented in favor and you will see some coverage in current publications of same.
2002 DA40-180: MT, PowerFlow, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal., Surefly, Flightstream 210, Orion 600 LED, XeVision, Aspen E5
User avatar
MikeMeadows
2 Diamonds Member
2 Diamonds Member
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2021 2:44 am
First Name: Mike
Aircraft Type: DA62
Aircraft Registration: N486A
Airports: KTME KDWH KIWS TS07 KSGR
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 35 times

Re: Current IFR rating?

Post by MikeMeadows »

Donkadillapig wrote: Wed Dec 15, 2021 12:32 pm DA40NG passed my IFR checkride yesterday :)
Congratulations
User avatar
Mjwatlanta
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat May 14, 2022 9:35 pm
First Name: Michael
Aircraft Type: DA40NG
Aircraft Registration: N161DA
Airports: Kfty
Has thanked: 148 times
Been thanked: 90 times

Re: Redbird td2

Post by Mjwatlanta »

I am beginning work on my instrument rating after a very long break from flying. Basically, I’m starting from scratch. I am curious about peoples’ thoughts about the use of a redbird TD2. It emulates or simulates a generic airplane. It has a yoke instead of a stick. But it does have G 1000 instruments. Is it a good investment to make me a safer and more efficient pilot?
User avatar
arksat
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
Posts: 136
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2016 6:13 am
First Name: Tosh
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N00000
Airports: KHWD
Has thanked: 427 times
Been thanked: 59 times

Re: Current IFR rating?

Post by arksat »

I used some advanced sims with G1000 panel in a flight school. I found it's useful to a certain extent in practicing the cockpit flows and buttonologies. But there are no kinetic senses, feels on yoke/stick, and a big missing piece is ATC so it doesn't really put you in a real multi-tasking situation.

A good thing in the sim is you feel more relaxed so you can use your brain purely for approach procedures, and you can pause at any point to discuss with your CFI, and put the airplane in any position on the approach course, which is very helpful and efficient.

Not sure if you are thinking of buying a system at your home, but I'd try it at a school first to see how you like it.
User avatar
chili4way
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 523
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:51 pm
First Name: Paul
Aircraft Type: DA40NG
Aircraft Registration: N718NG
Airports: KADS
Has thanked: 1057 times
Been thanked: 482 times

Re: Current IFR rating?

Post by chili4way »

Hi Michael - good on you for getting back into the game and going for your IR!

I've got mixed views on the Redbird TD2. It's old software and it's a Legacy G1000 emulation. If you're going to be training or flying behind a G1000 NXI Panel, you'll find it lacking. If there's an advantage, it's a BATD than can be used to log hours and approaches for legal currency. And it's certainly suitable for developing your glass-panel scan and practicing basic approaches. Boatguy/Russ has one and can provide first-hand feedback.

If you want to dig into learning the G1000 NXI, here are two DAN topics that might be of interest & use:

viewtopic.php?t=7696

viewtopic.php?t=7427
User avatar
Rich
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 4592
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
First Name: Rich
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N40XE
Airports: S39 Prineville OR
Has thanked: 145 times
Been thanked: 1180 times

Re: Current IFR rating?

Post by Rich »

There are a few things for which simulators are superior to actual aircraft:
- Better learning experience - especially initially - with a less time-stressed and more flexible environment
- Less expensive time (other than purchase cost if you're buying your own).
- No weather delays/complications
- No traffic (IFR, VFR, NORDO, ...) fouling up your flight paths.
- You can fly approaches that are simply not reasonably available. Example: The only ILS within 100 miles of me has been out of service for months. This is a routine occurrence. There are a couple of VOR approaches but the airspace involved is insanely busy with all manner of traffic. Mostly only RNAV approaches are on my menu for currency.

Where they fall short:
- Almost guaranteed to not accurately reflect the performance characteristics of the airplane you fly. Not even the aircraft it purports to simulate.
- Highly unlikely to match buttonology of same.
- Keeping NAV database current is probably hit-and-miss.
2002 DA40-180: MT, PowerFlow, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal., Surefly, Flightstream 210, Orion 600 LED, XeVision, Aspen E5
User avatar
Boatguy
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1827
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:48 am
First Name: Russ
Aircraft Type: DA62
Aircraft Registration: N962M
Airports: KSTS
Has thanked: 1327 times
Been thanked: 1163 times

Re: Redbird td2

Post by Boatguy »

Mjwatlanta wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:10 pm I am beginning work on my instrument rating after a very long break from flying. Basically, I’m starting from scratch. I am curious about peoples’ thoughts about the use of a redbird TD2. It emulates or simulates a generic airplane. It has a yoke instead of a stick. But it does have G 1000 instruments. Is it a good investment to make me a safer and more efficient pilot?
1) There's no question that you should do 20hrs of training in a sim, as provided for in the ACS, as part of your IR training. It is less expensive and a much better learning environment than in the plane. The 20hrs must be with a CFII so you'll probably need a sim at a school, I'm not sure if the TD2 (a BATD) with a CFII will be useful.

2) The flight simulation and G1000 simulation of the TD2 is horribly out of date. Redbird has made promises about updates for three years and has delivered nothing. It's only redeeming feature is that it is certified so you can fly it for currency (but of course not proficiency).

I would use a sim at a flight school or some facility for your IR training. And I would not hesitate to do some personal time, without a CFII, during your first 20hrs, or after. Again, it is much more productive than time in the airplane. My worst IR training was in VFR at non-towered airports, trying to fly instrument approaches while everyone else is flying VFR patterns. Towered airports were a little better, but trying to fly "against the flow", because that was the IAP you needed (e.g., a VOR) was still challenging (i.e., "break off at 3,000'...")

For the IR, the airplane being simulated is almost entirely irrelevant. The sim is all about the avionics and learning the "buttonology". The IR is the complete opposite of the private. In the private they emphasized looking outside the plane, for the IR it's all about the panel and the simulation out the front is totally irrelevant as it's just gray clouds. So it doesn't matter if you have a 24" screen that is simulating an SR20, P28, C172, etc. All that matters is the quality of the G1000 simulation. You'll quickly learn to set the speeds according to whatever plane is being simulated (you don't want to stall), but the real training issue is setting up the approach, intercepting courses, holds, leveling out before you reach an MDA, flying the missed, etc. All of that is done with no visual references so the quality of the flight simulation (i.e., view out the front) is irrelevant. You're flying by instruments.

Once you gain your rating, I'd see if Redbird has delivered an updated flight simulation and G1000 simulation. The use Lockheed's Prepar3D, but are currently two full releases behind (i.e., about eight years). The current G1000 simulation is maybe circa 2007. Again, the only reason to spend money with them is because they are FAA certified. I would check out Precision Flight Controls before Redbird, though I have no knowledge of the price difference.

PM me if you want to discuss on the phone.
User avatar
Rich
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 4592
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
First Name: Rich
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N40XE
Airports: S39 Prineville OR
Has thanked: 145 times
Been thanked: 1180 times

Re: Current IFR rating?

Post by Rich »

To summarize: Simulators are invaluable during IR training. They are a very useful tool for maintaining legal currency and for certain ongoing exercises.

Since I got my IR when Dinosaurs roamed the Earth, my focus is on the currency and proficiency aspect. It would be considerably more convenient to maintain legal currency with a simulator (no traffic, safety pilot or weather complications). But in no way would a simulator be a credible tool for proficiency. It would need to faithfully support ForeFlight/530W/430W/Aspen/KAP140 functions and interactions and at least approximate the flying characteristics of my DA40. There is no simulator like that. So I live with my plane as the tool for both aspects and endure the limitations of the process.
2002 DA40-180: MT, PowerFlow, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal., Surefly, Flightstream 210, Orion 600 LED, XeVision, Aspen E5
Post Reply