IFR Checkride in a C172 G1000
Posted by reddit231200@reddit | flying | View on Reddit | 56 comments
I have my IFR Checkride this week and will be flying in a C172 with a G1000. The autopilot is inoperative, my school inop’s all the auto pilots.
A few Questions:
1) Should I expect the DPE to ask me about the autopilot and will he expect me to know how to operate it, even though I have never flown with the autopilot?
2) What kind of instrument failures can I prepare for other than the PFD failure? My instructor said that the only failure I should expect is a partial panel.
MangledX@reddit
If the autopilot doesn't work and won't be used, then they can't ask you to demonstrate knowledge on it. You should also 100 percent expect lost comms on your checkride.
Neither-Way-4889@reddit
They can still ask you to demonstrate knowledge on it as it is installed equipment, even if it is INOP. They can't make you demonstrate a coupled approach however.
MangledX@reddit
Any DPE I've ever worked with has said that if a flight school airplane has had an inop piece of equipment that hasn't worked in 15 years installed, they're not asking questions about it because you were never able to utilize it in training. That makes sense. Not saying there shouldn't be fundamental understanding of how any autopilot works, but memorizing the operational handbook for a dusty piece of equipment that has never been utilized during training seems like a pretty big waste of time.
NecessaryLight2815@reddit
Autopilot???? Wtf? Is this where we are headed in aviation? That there is autopilot in GA aircraft and you use it on your checkrides? Scary, really. This over reliance on automation is going to cause accidents. Hand fly the GD airplane ffs.
Neither-Way-4889@reddit
If autopilots make airliners safer then why would they not make GA safer? The risks are still the same. You need to know the systems, how to engage and disengage the AP, and still know how to handfly when it malfunctions. I would argue that it is much safer to be looking at and briefing an approach plate while on AP than while trying to hand fly.
Captain_Sheppard@reddit
Why? It’s a useful tool. Obviously you need to learn its limitations and to fly without relying on it (see TNFlygirl). You’re required to use it on your instrument checkride if it’s installed and you need it for TAA time for commercial
Necessary_Use_4729@reddit
Just because the autopilot is inop, still make full use of your flight directors and fly the magenta bar. All the autopilot does is fly the flight director anyway.
Neither-Way-4889@reddit
If its a KAP140 AP then there are no flight directors.
HLSparta@reddit
Not all G1000s have flight directors. And if OP has their checkride in a week or so, it generally isn't a good idea to change how they fly if they're currently within standards.
davidswelt@reddit
As an instrument pilot, you should know about how to operate a modern autopilot, understand how to fly a coupled approach, understand what it shows on your PFD screen, and what typical limitations / problems are. It is an important tool to manage workload and prevent fatigue.
IMHO some of what gets asked for on an IR checkride is not what you do and need to do to successfully fly in the system...
ltcterry@reddit
But are people counting it as TAA time?
Japanisch_Doitsu@reddit
Is it not TAA time?
ltcterry@reddit
The definition of TAA includes an autopilot. If it's purposely "inoperable" then I'd maintain there's no autopilot hence no TAA...
mirassou3416@reddit
If it’s installed it’s fair game for questions on the checkride even if INOP
Japanisch_Doitsu@reddit
Sure an inop autopilot goes against the spirit of the rule. But if it has an autopilot installed its still a TAA. Is there an LOI out there that says differently?
PlasticRange526@reddit
You should know how to perform an approach with the G1000 autopilot. Make sure to stress that the auto pilot is not controlling your throttle. You are still responsible for that.
PFD failure is easy. Hit the red button. I had a partial panel- in the G1000 it’s pretty stupid. They block your airspeed, attitude indicator and altimeter. You can still see the glide slope, and CDI. Basically just use the standby instruments to maintain altitude and airspeed.
Finally be prepared to expect to perform an LPV approach, the examiner will disable the WAAS capability on the G1000 so your CDI will not say LPV. In this instance you want to change your minimums to the LNAV mins and perform the step down approach.
TristanwithaT@reddit
Never once heard of a dpe disabling WAAS
HLSparta@reddit
Mine did it while he had me with my eyes closed and head down for the unusual attitude recovery. Confused the heck out of me since there was no glidepath or error message.
BetsTheCow@reddit
I had that at my 141 school. Check pilot turned off my WAAS without warning, didn't realize it until I was loading the approach in and where I normally saw "LPV" instead I had "LNAV/VNAV". That, coupled with it being my partial panel approach; I just used the LNAV mins and step downs. There were no comments about that in the debrief, so I must have done something right.
ltcterry@reddit
Really? That’s how you turn an LPV into an LNAV if there are no actual LNAV approaches available.
TristanwithaT@reddit
Sure… maybe it’s because I live where there are still vor or loc approaches so demonstrating a non precision gps approach isn’t necessary.
ltcterry@reddit
More and more airlines are available that only have GPS so those options aren’t even available.
The long cross country gets LPV, LNAV, and either type w/ circle to land as the three approaches.
Internal_Time8330@reddit
It is to purposefully create a gps approach without vertical guidance, which would downgrade to lnav/vnav or lnav depending upon the procedure options and aircraft capability
reddit231200@reddit (OP)
I’ve never heard of a DPE blocking the airspeed, attitude indicator and altimeter on a partial panel but I guess that makes sense. I appreciate the insight, very helpful
NoDrunkImNotOfficer@reddit
What have you been training then?
jtyson1991@reddit
I agree you don't lose much flying from the MFD, BUT, just make sure you have all your buttonology straight when you're flying. Can you switch freqs on the radio without using the PFD buttons? (just an example)
NolanonoSC@reddit
I train in Canada and I'm curious, during instrument training its been stressed that the step down method was not the safest and not the "right" way to shoot a non prec
We do an SCDA approach where you calculate the rough descent rate before commencing the descent from the IAF and then every 1.0 nm cross-check the altitude you should be at with your current altitude, so it's basically following the glide path manually. Is that something you folks do down south?
reddit231200@reddit (OP)
Ive never heard of an American flight schools doing it that way, seems like a little workload but gets the job done. I’m not sure how step downs are “less safe” but it’s an interesting concept.
vanhawk28@reddit
This is how my school teaches it except we don’t keep checking. We just look at ground speed a quick math a descent rate and then make sure we stay above the different minimums
kmac6821@reddit
Please see my response above. Your answer is a good example of how to apply the US method for flying a continuous descent.
44Runner@reddit
Dive and drive baby!
kmac6821@reddit
No, and that’s by design. After a mishap in Canada (~2009 maybe) due to a crew descending below MDA thinking that they were spotting the airport lights, Canada revamped their procedures. Previously, the altitudes on an approach were just the minimum obstacle clearance altitudes. These could be very low, which meant that a crew descending to minimums would be at a low altitude for a very long time. Therefore, Canada followed the ICAO recommendation and started publishing procedure altitudes that coincide with a normal glidepath (i.e., SCDA) while keeping those lower, obstacle clearance altitudes. This is why you have a descent table with check altitudes along final.
In the US, that idea had been rejected many years before the Canadian mishap. The proposal would take up to much space on a chart without the added benefit. Instead of publishing minimum altitudes based solely on obstacle clearance, the final approach fix minimum altitude is associated with that normal glidepath. Therefore, you would not be flying at a low altitude until you actually begin the descent from the FAF. The US solution was/is to provide the vertical descent angle for non-precision approaches to enable flying a CDFA from that FAF.
akraut@reddit
Out of curiosity, why are all the autopilots inop?
ReadyplayerParzival1@reddit
If this is an older g1000 install it doesn’t have an integrated auto pilot. It used an external kap 180. I think there was some expensive ad or too much mx so almost all are inop’d
ThatsSomeIsh@reddit
Just for semantics, it’s a KAP140. The reality is, it’s kind of a pile of shit and the G1000 integration is marginal at best for something that came from the factory, IMO.
SeaSDOptimist@reddit
The integration being the TC hidden behind the G1000 display? I agree, it’s an atrocity, and I don’t remember one surviving at the school I worked for more than a few months.
ThatsSomeIsh@reddit
When I first learned about the hidden TC, I thought the CFI was jerking my chain. It’s ridiculous.
The 182 that I fly with a KAP140 will occasionally freak out and bank left or right and continue until you disconnect and reset. It can be sketchy at best and highly problematic and scary at worst
Thomas-Ligotti97@reddit
Mostly because 1. They’re pretty expensive to fix 2. Students don’t learn a lot flying ir with autopilot
Flyinghud@reddit
I didn’t use it when learning how to fly instruments, but when doing XC’s towards the end of IR training when I felt fairly comfortable flying under the hood, AP was a great resource. Plus I had to perform an AP coupled precision approach on the checkride.
Thomas-Ligotti97@reddit
Like I’ve said this wasn’t an opinion FROM ME. It’s just arguments I’ve heard from schools/ students at the schools
bobnuthead@reddit
I’d say knowing how to properly use an AP is a skill in itself. I get why schools want students to hand fly, I encourage it too, but completely removing the AP as a learning opportunity is depriving students of useful knowledge. Whether they end up as a hobbyist or airline pilot, autopilot use and knowledge should be well understood.
Thomas-Ligotti97@reddit
No I agree, I was just providing the 2 reasons I’ve heard from different schools/people at those schools.
M2K-throwaway@reddit
Specifically to avoid having to use it on checkrides
ThatsSomeIsh@reddit
I think this is a real answer. The interesting part for me is that my flight school allowed me to take the 182 with G1000 with KAP140 on my IR check ride. I flew 2.5 approaches on AP. It was great
Wasatcher@reddit
They probably don't want student pilots programming themselves into the ground on an XC solo.
But not allowing use of it on a checkride is pretty ignorant. Hard IMC is a lot safer if you know how to use your autopilot.
CSGOTRICK@reddit
I use the three strike policy and an inop autopilot would be a strike
Pilotreggie@reddit
You should definitely know how to use the autopilot and its limitations. You would also want to practice AHRS failures as well.
Captain_Sheppard@reddit
I did my instrument checkride with inop autopilot. In fact the autopilot was inop through my entire instrument training. He acknowledged it was inoperative and never asked me anything about it
reddit231200@reddit (OP)
That’s the answer I was hoping for, thanks!
HailStorm_Zero_Two@reddit
I would say, get on top of it. Don't wait for him to ask about it, point it out as part of the pre-flight brief. Show that (even if you already know it) the MR states it's inop, and what ramifications that will have for the flight.
cficole@reddit
Keep in mind this can vary by DPE. Probably best to ask yours, or at least someone who's taken a checkride with him.
VileInventor@reddit
You can 100% still be asked about auto pilot. Good news is it’s not that complicated. You should also know how an AHRS works. As far as instrument failure goes, it’s just partial panel. Usually they block out your attitude and heading indicator. I think for the G1000 they just kill ur PFD. Train unusual attitudes as well.
masepoes7@reddit
IFR certifies you to fly IFR - Not just to fly a C172 G1000 without AP. You could go get in any aircraft after your rating and fly AP IFR. I would encourage you to know the limitations of the autopilot at least. Anything attached to the aircraft is fair game for the checkride - however - it’s unlikely that the DPE will hound you on it or anything like that
Opperater9@reddit
Even though the autopilot is INOP I’d still know how to answer questions about the various ways to disconnect it, in the event it were to be used in the future.
Flyinghud@reddit
I would know the limitations of the AP for the oral. I had to know them for my IR checkride.
rFlyingTower@reddit
This is a copy of the original post body for posterity:
I have my IFR Checkride this week and will be flying in a C172 with a G1000. The autopilot is inoperative, my school inop’s all the auto pilots.
A few Questions:
1) Should I expect the DPE to ask me about the autopilot and will he expect me to know how to operate it, even though I have never flown with the autopilot?
2) What kind of instrument failures can I prepare for other than the PFD failure? My instructor said that the only failure I should expect is a partial panel.
Please downvote this comment until it collapses.
Questions about this comment? Please see this wiki post before contacting the mods.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. If you have any questions, please contact the mods of this subreddit.