Now that we are going to have six months of IMC in the Pacific Northwest, I took the opportunity to fly the first set of practice approaches in actual IMC. I prefer actual IMC over under the hood flying, and simulators for reasons I will explain later.
Mission
Fly five practice approaches without using autopilot and moving map.
Conditions
Cold front passing, Airmet Zulu, many airports either MVFR or IFR, 35 kts winds aloft, freezing level between 7000 and 8000, so no icing. Airmet Tango from surface. Some airports reporting below minimum. Rain shower, but no thunderstorms.
Flightplan
4000 feet
PWT ILS 17, OLM ILS 17, SHN GPS 5, RNT RNAV GPS Y 16
The plan requires fast reconfiguring for the next approach, after coming out of a missed approach, I.e. the distance from the point of re-establishing contact with ATC after going missed to the next IAF is less than 10 nm.
Airplane
TB20
Execution
ILS 17 to Bremerton (PWT) was not as good as I liked. I got two dots below the glideslope, but just about within max deflection. Usually, my SOP is staying a dot above the glideslope, since safer. We had just broken out of the clouds a little bit above minimum, when my safety pilot pointed out that we were low. I looked out to my left window, and indeed the tree tops were surprisingly close.
ILS 17 to Olympia (OLM) went well.
GPS 5 to Shelton (SHN) was a total screw up. I had loaded the approach, but never activated it. There was no glideslope. I knew it is a non-precision approach, but expected an advisory glideslope. I also wasn’t sure whether I had passed the IAF. The approach also has a bend. The course of the first leg is 45, and the final 55. I had not carefully studied the approach and missed this subtlety and started off flying 55, after I got vectored onto the first leg. I knew something wasn’t right, but at the moment didn’t know what. I made the decision to stay high and not descent. I was about to ask for vectors to try again, when the controller already had recognized that I had strayed of course, and suggested vectors back. If I would have had a moving map, I would have recognized the mistake immediately.
RNAV GPS Y 16 to Renton (RNT) went well with one mistake.
When I got “DIRECT LUTSY”, and activated it, I picked up erroneously TRK instead of DTK, and strayed South. ATC recognized and called me. My course pointer was already set to the final approach course, so didn’t tell me much, but then I recognized the mistake and correct it. You can see this in the tracklog. This was one time, where I cheated and verified my position and track on the moving map.
Due to the choppiness I sometimes diverted more than the 200 feet from my assigned altitude. Not happy, but this is also very difficult in turbulent weather.
Conclusion and personal takeaways
(a)
One cannot appreciate enough the enormous help that moving maps provide with situational awareness. But I wonder if we depend too much on them. They can fail. I recommend doing practice approaches without a moving map, once awhile, to also stay current with situational awareness.
(b)
The time constraints when reconfiguring from one approach to the next is high workload. It requires using ATC as a resource much more than usual. I.e. forget about obtaining ATIS. No time for that. Just ask ATC, or ask for delay vectors. Managing high workload, understanding options and using all resources available must be learned as well.
(c)
I printed out all approaches on paper, letter size, not the small size. I highlighted with a yellow marker all the important numbers, i.e. minimums, ILS frequency. This way my eyes are drawn to the essential information immediately. Paper has a major advantage in turbulence, since much easier to read and button clicking on an iPad and switching between different ForeFlight screens is a pain, and it is too easy to miss-click. Besides paper approach plates are free.
(d)
Practice approaches aren’t all about flying the perfect approach and feeling good about it. It’s also about recognizing a screw up and quickly taking the right decision to be safe, and recovering.
(e)
There is nothing that can replace flying in hard IMC, with some choppiness and without autopilot. An ILS approach in smooth air, say through the typical marine layer on the West Coast is too easy. IMC in turbulence is the hard, where one is forced to pay attention to details. For example, I like how Ron Machado attaches the pencil to his hand with a rubber band. See
at 27:50. Small things, but I believe in the aggregate matter.
Except for million dollar airline style simulators, the average flight school simulator is just not a replacement for flying in actual IMC.
Lastly, people may disagree with practicing IFR approaches in less than ideal IFR conditions, and that a simulator is a safer environment. I agree that a simulator is safer, but also believe that the typical GA simulator is ineffective for IFR training, except perhaps for learning navigation and radio communication. There is also the practical side of it. You won’t find a simulator with a cockpit setup of my plane and buttonology of the GNS 430W of the redbird simulators are different.
I have done these high intensity workouts before, and always felt it was very effective. However, I also was told that it is too risky. I like to hear opinions. Thank you.
(f)
In turbulence and in IMC, one starts to really appreciate the stability of a TB20 with her high wing load.
After over two hours of hard IMC workout, I was more than ready for a good IPA from a Seattle microbrewery at the Dog & Pony, where many folks from the Boeing 737 factory line hang out.
Lucius wrote:
I recommend doing practice approaches without a moving map, once awhile, to also stay current with situational awareness.
I used to do it when I owned TB20. Now with DA42 and G1000 it’s not easy not to lurke a little bit on MFD (or inset map on PFD) during the approach. However, I did this during check ride with MFD turned off but it wasn’t actual hard IMC – we broke clouds at 1000 ft AGL.
Lucius wrote:
There is nothing that can replace flying in hard IMC, with some choppiness and without autopilot.
I agree – I had the opportunity 
to fly like this last few months with autopilot mainly being inoperative.
As you ask for opinions….
I don’t think this is too risky. You were flying in weather conditions well within your privileges and the aircraft’s capabilities, and had a 2nd pilot to reduce the risk of the self-imposed handicap… There is nothing like the real thing.
Another tip: When flying a GPS approach without moving map, display the FPL page. That makes it abundantly clear what the active leg is. Best configuration is track and miles to go. I like to have that displayed even if I have a moving map
Lucius wrote:
but also believe that the typical GA simulator is ineffective for IFR training
I an not agree. You can shoot 2-3 approaches, one holding and airwork within 2 hours flight. At the sim you can shoot 20-25 approaches, debriefing (you see at the log what is going wrong) and chance wind and visibility. Never learned more how to fly IFR/IMC.
Cheshunt wrote:
I an not agree. You can shoot 2-3 approaches, one holding and airwork within 2 hours flight. At the sim you can shoot 20-25 approaches, debriefing (you see at the log what is going wrong) and chance wind and visibility. Never learned more how to fly IFR/IMC.
I also don’t agree. After not flying at all for 17 years and then flying VFR for one year, I renewed my IR after only 8 hours of training. That wouldn’t have been possible had I not spent at least 30 hours in front of my PC running X-Plane practising hold entries and approaches…
I think this is a typical FAA IR training exercise. Very useful as an exercise but not terribly realistic for real IFR. You wouldn’t normally have all your plates printed in large size, would always have more time between approaches. But as far as getting familiarity with your equipment and reminding yourself how to hand fly and set up approaches it is very helpful. A good simulator can replicate it but still (until you are in a full motion level D type simulator) is not the same. I personally think more people should experience actual IMC to minimums as part of their training – nothing like an ILS to minimums for real to wake you up let alone an NDB/DME. A hood is just different.
IFR Practice Approaches with moving map and autopilot shut off in hard IMC Quote
I never practiced this way, but I sure did a lot of these approaches in twins which were never equipped with either avionic, and it works!
