IFR training

[GroundPounder]

For the Navy at least, prior civilian time doesn't really matter for selection. Once you get to flight school I believe they will waive certain events based on your prior training, which boosts your NSS (the score that factors into what platform you eventually select).

I would say there's a big difference between showing up with a PPL and an instrument card. Instrument flying is pretty much the same in the military world as the civilian world, and the reps you get before showing up for flight school will help build your spatial awareness and familiarity with the procedures, which is probably the toughest part of flight school besides the basic stick monkey skills.

Kind of off the topic, but at what point in the process does a SNA have the equivalent of a civilian IFR rating?

 

[jointhelocalizer]

Kind of off the topic, but at what point in the process does a SNA have the equivalent of a civilian IFR rating?

At some point in Advanced (each syllabus does it at a different point), you take an instrument check that results in your initial standard instrument rating.

 

[Gatordev]

I can only imagine/assume the “bad habits” myth was a result of a few SNAs with a lot of civilian time that had bad attitudes and thought they knew it all.

This.

We all knew who had flight time as IPs, but we also knew who had flight time but didn't want to let go of old habits. For the most part, the prior flight time guys did fine, and their scores would correlate to how many ratings they had, just due to experience, as you guys have already said.

 

[KODAK]

Don’t lie if an instructor asks you. But yeah, agree with the gist of that.

I’m certainly not saying to lie, but in retrospect I’ve often wondered if I should have down played having a rating right up to the very edge.. In my case my onwing all but told me after selection that he graded us differently (me as compared to his other Marine onwing who had absolutely no prior flight experience) and I don’t really fault him for it - it’s only basic human nature. He was a brand new instructor in the squadron and he was still working to find his baseline. Unfortunately it turned out that the next set of three onwings he had were more average (again his words, not mine) and he realized that his grading metric needed to reflect what he has learned. At that point the cake was already baked for me, and no matter how well I did in instruments and forms, the results of earning MIF through essentially all of contacts got me my second choice of helos. I have no shame in admitting any of this and I loved where I went, but I do occasionally wonder what if I’d kept my mouth entirely shut early on.. Live and learn.

As an IP I do my dead-level best to always grade every student against the standard (and not against any other student) just like the book says to, but as the eternal student of life I cannot help but ignore the basics of human psychology and the IP/ student relationship. This is just my particular set of data points, and like we have all said here, more flight experience is always better than less paired with a humble desire to learn things the Navy way! I know I learned about flying from all of that.

 

[jointhelocalizer]

To all the current and former IPs, how much of the FITU is dedicated to teaching students vice learning the plane and the stuff that goes along with it (FTI, SOPs, etc.)? Do they go into FAA FOI type stuff or is it sort of here are the common student tendencies and here is how to remedy them. Do they talk about the mental side (like how to get a student to come back after they’ve been messing stuff up all flight and they’re sort of defeated)?

 

[KODAK]

To all the current and former IPs, how much of the FITU is dedicated to teaching students vice learning the plane and the stuff that goes along with it (FTI, SOPs, etc.)? Do they go into FAA FOI type stuff or is it sort of here are the common student tendencies and here is how to remedy them. Do they talk about the mental side (like how to get a student to come back after they’ve been messing stuff up all flight and they’re sort of defeated)?

I can only speak for my squadron/ wing, but the course that delves more heavily into instructional style is FITC. The FITU focuses on safely flying the aircraft first and the particulars of instructional style are mostly delivered one-on-one and certainly when a new IP asks for feedback and advice.

As a broader point, I think one thing that we struggle with in the Navy is building instructors. Specifically, I have felt more than once in my career that folks earned advanced quals and then the natural progression seems to be “now go out and teach”. While this works for some, I think it’s also fair to say that there are a number of aviators who should not instruct, and unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be a formal mechanism to either remediate them or frankly offer consequences if they are a poor IP.

A friend recently made the point that many can rise to meet the high standards in Naval Aviation, but if you cannot instruct and help others along the path then what real use are you? Frankly I tend to agree with her. I know several pilots who are individually very good at what they do, but cannot seem to find it within themselves to find the humility and patience necessary to help someone new who is struggling with their first steps. Many are SWTIs and FRS IPs ironically. I’m painting with a broom, but I know my instructional style is heavily based on those good IPs who helped me along the way and often in violent contrast to those selfish individuals who ‘got it’ themselves but couldn’t seem to help others along their way.

 

[Gatordev]

In my case my onwing all but told me after selection that he graded us differently

I've struggled understanding this. MPTS makes things extremely easy...you know what a 4 is, by definition. So if MIF is something less than a 4, and a prior time stud is doing something close to or at a 4, then they should be graded better, not worse. Honestly, I think some of it has to be laziness in learning the landing pattern definitions for a 4. Plus I think there's a little bit of "well, he/she's pretty good, so I'm going to challenge him/her..."

I get the challenge part, and I would do that for my on-wings that had prior time, but that's different than grading them differently. I was lucky when I was a stud and my on-wing flew on the side, so he would challenge me, and relate things to GA, but would still grade me as he would for non-prior time studs. And that was when MPTS was brand new. I guess that idea was pressed into me early on.

I've told this story before, but I had an on-wing that did very well through Contacts, making 4s early and would routinely make 5s towards the end. His FAM-12 he had food poisoning and got sick while we flew. His pattern work was below average for him that day, understandably (he said he wanted to rally and finish the event), and while sloppy, he was still meeting the definition of a 4 in the pattern, so I graded him appropriately (MIF was a 3 for landings, for that stage at the time...not sure if that's still the case).

I'll get off my soap box now.

I can only speak for my squadron/ wing, but the course that delves more heavily into instructional style is FITC. The FITU focuses on safely flying the aircraft first and the particulars of instructional style are mostly delivered one-on-one and certainly when a new IP asks for feedback and advice.

I can't speak to the T-6 FITU, but for WING 5, the T-34 FITU was a relatively quick NATOPS phase, followed by FTI contacts and RIs. This let the IUT get more practice in learning the plane while also learning the FTI inside and out. During those phases, you would talk about common errors and techniques to help studs (and the IUT). There would then be two defensive positioning/OCF flights where the IP would act as the stud and the IUT would teach and try not to prevent the IP from killing them. It was a good combo of training but of course the IUTs all wanted more of those "teaching" flights because it was good exposure.

Like KODAK said, there is then more one-on-one ready room chit chat once you're at the squadron where you can ask for advice, as well as get feedback from the SFS IPs after you send your on-wing on to the checkride.

I do think some squadrons were better at this than others, and which squadrons were better would change over time. The quality of the FITU helps too. When I was an IUT, the FITU was okay, but the flow was REALLY slow, which hurt learning the plane. When I was a FITU IP, it was better, but the quality of IPs being sent there were really hit and miss. By the time I left, the new OIC was doing a lot to change that as well as kicking the squadron OpsOs in the butt to help with flow. From what I understand, the place improved dramatically after I left.

Ironically enough, that OIC was my Primary on-wing when I was a stud.

 

[JP5MN]

Thank you to all that responded! As I have known, everyone’s path and experience is a little different. There is a lot to learn from all of you!

My son had his solo yesterday and hopefully more milestones to come.

What I’ve gathered from the above input is the GA IFR will help but I think it would be better served between college graduation and the beginning of UPT/SNA flight training. I don’t know if there is a delay in the start of training at Pensacola like AF UPT, but that seems like a better time for GA IFR. Experience on the yoke seems more valuable than racking up ratings at this point.

Thanks again to all!

 

[jointhelocalizer]

Thank you to all that responded! As I have known, everyone’s path and experience is a little different. There is a lot to learn from all of you!

My son had his solo yesterday and hopefully more milestones to come.

What I’ve gathered from the above input is the GA IFR will help but I think it would be better served between college graduation and the beginning of UPT/SNA flight training. I don’t know if there is a delay in the start of training at Pensacola like AF UPT, but that seems like a better time for GA IFR. Experience on the yoke seems more valuable than racking up ratings at this point.

Thanks again to all!

I’d say knock out the IFR rating a bit after PPL (like in college). It’s more efficient, cost-effective, and you are still close to a training mindset. It also gives one time to fly actual IFR in the system. Actually being a PIC having to fly real-world IFR builds more skills than simply going out and doing practice approaches at the same airports. You’ll have to calculate fuel, deviate for weather, interpret clearances (and ones you might not have heard before), and fly unfamiliar approaches.

As someone who came in with an instrument rating, knowing how real IFR was flown added a lot of context to IFR training. Instead of learning how IFR all works (it’s difficult and even winged aviators have annual training requirements), I was just learning military nuances and refreshing myself on all the obscure regulations that are rarely used in the non-training environment.

 

[kmac]

I can't speak to the T-6 FITU, but for WING 5, the T-34 FITU was a relatively quick NATOPS phase, followed by FTI contacts and RIs. This let the IUT get more practice in learning the plane while also learning the FTI inside and out. During those phases, you would talk about common errors and techniques to help studs (and the IUT). There would then be two defensive positioning/OCF flights where the IP would act as the stud and the IUT would teach and try not to prevent the IP from killing them. It was a good combo of training but of course the IUTs all wanted more of those "teaching" flights because it was good exposure.

This was exactly my experience as well. Ironically, now I assist in teaching a collegiate course called Principles of Flight Instruction. It is a mix between what the FAA puts out for flight instruction and some of the research-based understanding of how teaching/learning works.

I’d say knock out the IFR rating a bit after PPL (like in college). It’s more efficient, cost-effective, and you are still close to a training mindset. It also gives one time to fly actual IFR in the system. Actually being a PIC having to fly real-world IFR builds more skills than simply going out and doing practice approaches at the same airports. You’ll have to calculate fuel, deviate for weather, interpret clearances (and ones you might not have heard before), and fly unfamiliar approaches.

As someone who came in with an instrument rating, knowing how real IFR was flown added a lot of context to IFR training. Instead of learning how IFR all works (it’s difficult and even winged aviators have annual training requirements), I was just learning military nuances and refreshing myself on all the obscure regulations that are rarely used in the non-training environment.

I think your point about military nuances is spot on. IFR from the civilian perspective is different from a military one. Yet, the entire global structure for IFR is centered around civilian rules. I didn’t actually realize the nuanced differences until I interacted with professional civilian aviators.