IMC cockpit organisation

[Lagentium]

Evening all, bit of advice needed as per usual. I'm flying instrument approaches as part of the IMCr course and was wondering how people organise everything regarding the plates for the destination etc, I have seen larger knee boards and the plates with the procedure on with the plate being A5 size, but to me that appears way too small! I currently have a laminated A4 sheet with some headings on, the abeam angle from the NDB and the gate angle from the NDB and the 60 degrees to go heading. I'm also interested in how the ATIS can be copied down in the most efficient way while flying, any advice would be great.

Cheers, Jim:ok:

[sharpend]

Good question. I'm an ace at IF, but still screw up with single pilot ops. Cockpit organisation is the key. Moreover, have a plan for when things go wrong. This week I flew into Cranfield for the procedural ILS. My GPS failed (I was using it to get to the NDB as I don't have an NDB). My back up plan was VOR/DME offsets. Sadly the VOR on the field went TU. I gave up (being a wimp).

Best advice I can give is to study very carefully the approach plate, work out any offsets if you have VOR/DME, make sure you know what the heights are for QNH & QFE, have a crib for the ident, use a second radio for the ATIS and write it down. If you don't have a second radio, just ask for it or get it early before you join the pattern. Remember, situational awareness is paramount. DONT go below MDH.

Finally, if you can, fly the pattern on your computer before you go live.

ps by the way, I use laminated plates and either place them on the P2 seat, or if occupied, ask the P2 to hold them. That's what I do!

[Cobalt]

Sound like you are using the AIP plates, which are not really suitable for in-cockpit use. Both AERAD and Jeppesen plates are designed for A5 and work well in that size.

In the paper age, I had an A4 kneeboard, with the plates on A5 rings on the left, and the PLOG on the right. If you need laminated cheat-sheets (holding entries, whatever) I would clip them below the PLOG (I had the UK frequency table and the LARS frequency map there).

Now, I have an iPad mini with Jeppesen plates clipped to the yoke and a normal A5 kneeboard for the plog & notes.

Regarding ATIS - which kind of PLOG form are you using? Some PLOG forms have boxes for each element of the ATIS. This makes it easier to start writing in the middle of a transmission, or leave a gap if you missed an item.

Personally, I just write them down exactly as a METAR, except I write 10+ instead of 9999 because writing 9999 takes too long. I don't catch something I leave some space.

Do you have a decent IFR PLOG form?

[Cobalt]

QFE

do not use QFE when flying IFR. The last thing you need is fiddling with the altimeter setting during approach and go-around.

[Johnm]

Quote:
QFE
do not use QFE when flying IFR. The last thing you need is fiddling with the altimeter setting during approach and go-around.


+1

Simply note the outbound track and inbound track and minima on the plog that's all that's important. Get the altitude and fixes off the plate as you go from one to the next.

ATIS can be scribbled across any convenient bit of blank paper if you develop your own shorthand

E.g V 27 R 230/15 25 >10 F 25 B 45 1021

Information Victor runway in use 27 right hand circuit wind 230 15 gusting 25 visibility 10 km or more few at 2500 broken 4500 QNH 1021

Keep it as simple as possible and use GPS with the procedures in it wherever possible and remember that no one in their right mind uses an ADF for NDB procedures in real life.

[Cobalt]

Simply note the outbound track and inbound track and minima on the plog that's all that's important. Get the altitude and fixes off the plate as you go from one to the next.

I really recommend Jepp plates and leave all of the above to the plate. They have a briefing strip at the top, which has - in that order - the final approach aid+ident, course, check altitude, minimum, missed approach, All in one place. If you use a higher minimum, cross out the minimum on the plate and substitute yours.

Aerads are not dissimilar, I believe, I did not like them because they do have approach category C/D procedures on the plate with A/B in the footnote if different, while Jepp depicts both.

The fewer different bits of paper, the better.

[piperarcher]

Sign up for GCAP and download some of their plates. They print off nicely on A5, and are simplified - saving you having to squint while flying an approach. Check they match the AIP plates online and make sure you have the latest. I have an A4 kneepad, and find the ring binder part very useful for keeping all relevant plates together. Otherwise purchase the expensive Jepp ones, and they are also readable on A5. The standard free AIP ones aren't very readable.

Transair used to sell Jepp plates on a per page basis, with one airport maybe being 10 pages and costing something like £5, but not sure they do that anymore. As I say, GCAP ones are perfect for the IMCr

[hegemon88]

...and remember that no one in their right mind uses an ADF for NDB procedures in real life.

Unless one's real life includes the IMCr training, which the OP seems to have indicated.

I agree with what has been advised so far - I also use an A4 kneeboard which has a clip and A5 binder rings, plus the Aerad plates which do the job and which I can't compare to Jepp as I only had access to Aerad.


/h88

[Johnm]

Of course an A4 IPad makes all the paper redundant!

[Whopity]

Of course an A4 IPad makes all the paper redundant!And on a recent ILS approach I suddenly find I am looking at an email because my elbow has rubbed the screen whilst setting the inbound heading and the plate has disappeared. Paper doesn't do that!

[M-ONGO]

And on a recent ILS approach I suddenly find I am looking at an email because my elbow has rubbed the screen whilst setting the inbound heading and the plate has disappeared. Paper doesn't do that!

Neither does an ipad if you lock the screen on Jeppview.

[Cobalt]

Sign up for GCAP and download some of their plates. They print off nicely on A5, and are simplified

There is an R missing in GCAP. Seriously. Better than AIP plates, which in turn are better than a blank sheet of paper.

Get samples - Aerad, Jepp, GCAP, and AIP for the same approaches, and make up your own mind.

Check they match the AIP plates online and make sure you have the latest.

Yeah, right. I pay Jeppesen to do that for me.

Just be aware - the chart providers are not perfect, but they have their own "NOTAM"-like system you should check / subscribe to.

For example, Jeppesen did not update the Warton (EGNO) plates because they received an update in August too late (at least that was their excuse), so they withdrew the charts and issued new charts early September. They have an RSS feed that notifies of issues in their data such as the above.

[tmmorris]

I think it's important to develop the skill of flying an approach cold from just the plate. Printing off plates from the AIP and annotating them is fine in training, but in real life you may find yourself on an approach you weren't expecting. This will take time; pick AERAD or Jepp (does your instructor have a view? Mine preferred AERAD) and use them until you are comfortable.

I'd strongly recommend using MSFS or similar as part of that process. Pick an approach pretty much at random from your AERAD or Jepp booklet, and try it. Give yourself different hold entries, set the cloudbase at minimums, and get on with it. Very very useful for NDB approaches!

[A and C]

AERAD have long been taken over by NAVTECH and the quality has suffered, the latest gem being moving the DET VOR about twenty miles south on the Gatwick engine failure chart...........just what you need when an engine quits.

My employer provides me with NAVTECH plates but IMO they are so poor for single pilot operation that I pay for Jeppesen. The cost may be high but the cost of a mistake resulting from poorly depicted data is likely to be far higher.

[thing]

I use the AIP plates reduced to A5 on the copier. I also have an iPad with them on but TBH I find the paper easier to use, probably because that's what I learned with. The secret with plates is to sort out the niff naff, there are only bits of it that you are interested in, try highlighting them. The best thing about NDB approaches is that they will be gone sooner rather than later...the sooner the better.

Try and remember the go round procedure or write it in big letters on top of the plate. Lot easier to glance at 'RH 2000' LEFT 340' written in red than trying to squint at a plate during a critical phase of flight.

As to QFE or QNH, military airfields will expect you to use QFE on an instrument approach. A few of us fly from mil airfields so worth bearing in mind.

[Scott C]

I print off the necessary plates in A5 format and clip it to my A5 kneeboard - I also have every plate available on SkyDemon saved to my iPad, so I can pull them up instantly.

On my Plog sheet, usually underneath, I make two columns - One for Headings, one for Altitudes.

As an example, if ATC say to me "Turn right heading 090 degress and descend to 3000ft" I write 090 in the headings column and 3000 in the altitude column. If they then come back and say "Turn right heading 180 degrees and descend to 2000ft" I simply put a line through the 090 and 3000 and write 180 and 2000 underneath.

Doing it this way, if I get overloaded at any point and have a memory blip, I only need to look at the plog and can see what heading and altitude i'm supposed to be at.

I was also taught to fly approaches on QNH as if you have to declare a missed a approach, the last thing you want to be doing is fiddling with the altimeter.

I hope this helps.


Scott.

[kharmael]

Who gives a toss if it's QFE or QNH? The plate will likely have both heights and altitudes annotated so just pick one and use it consistently as required! Honestly, some people seem to be making an issue out of nothing! :rolleyes:

I'd have an A5 plate on my knee, highlight the minima, step alts, safety alts, and the MAP.

[thing]

The plate will likely have both heights and altitudes annotated so just pick one and use it consistently as required! Honestly, some people seem to be making an issue out of nothing!

You put it much more succinctly than I...:)

[A and C]

The plates used by most of the world don't have the QFE values printed on them because it is only in a few places in the world that QFE is used.

I personally think that it is almost suicide to keep changing from QFE to QNH, as a single pilot probably the most demanding thing you will ever do is a GA when the weather is on minima, changing the altimeter setting from QFE to QNH when going around and then changing it back for the next approach is introducing a potential error that is unnecessary........... It short all you are doing is making extra work that if done wrong has a chance of killing you...... Why do it ?

The only justification for QFE I can see is in the fast jet world when using PAR to recover, in this case it moves the workload from the cockpit to the controler.

[kharmael]

A and C

I don't know if you're replying to me or not, but if you are then RTFQ mate. I said pick one baro setting and stick with it. :ok:

If the plate doesn't have heights on it and you still shoot a QFE approach you frankly deserve to smash into the side of a hill. :}

[thing]

A n C, why would you change from one to the other? :confused:

[A and C]

When I did my inital training for the IR the SOP was to make the approach on QFE, holds and the start of the procedure was flown on QNH.

So the drill was as you went outbound from the IAP you set QFE for the base turn and approach, If you did a GA you reset QNH immediately to fly the GA procedure.

This constant resetting of the altimeter mattered little at Bournemouth with an elevation of thirty feet or so but go to Bristol or Luton and one mistake was likely to kill you.

Thankfully as soon as I did not have to fly using the training organization's SOP I ditched QFE until I was forced to use in when operating from military airfields, fortunately the military fly the whole procedure on QFE so altimeter setting is done at a low workload part of the flight.

My point is that the civil system has largely changed from using QFE for instrument approaches and as the rest of the worlds ATC is issuing clearances based on QNH it is a bit silly to have one system for the UK and another for the rest of the world, converting clearances from QNH to fit the QFE setting of your altimeter is a disaster waiting to happen and I can't believe that this is common practice but nothing would suprize me in the UK training system that has a habit of turning even the most simple things into a black art.

Kharmael while agreeing with you about changing altimeter settings you are not correct about most plates having both QNH & QFE values printed on them Jeppesen plates don't, they are the global standard and outsell all the others by a large margin. Perhaps you should RTFA as you so quantly put it !

[AirborneAgain]

Already 30 years ago when I got my PPL, no one (in Europe at least) except the UK used QFE in civil aviation...

[thing]

Thankfully as soon as I did not have to fly using the training organization's SOP I ditched QFE until I was forced to use in when operating from military airfields, fortunately the military fly the whole procedure on QFE so altimeter setting is done at a low workload part of the flight

I see. I was trained using both QFE and QNH for approaches (not mixed I might add!) and prefer the QFE approach personally. It's the one I use the most so I suppose I'm just used to it.

[kharmael]

This whole discussion relies on the fact the one is able to shoot either a QFE or QNH based approach at this hypothetical airfield.

If you are able to fly a QFE or QNH approach at an airfield then the plate will have both heights and altitudes on it. If the plate doesn't have heights on it then it really renders moot the whole argument doesn't it!? :confused:

[thing]

? Of course it does.

[AerocatS2A]

Keep it as simple as possible and use GPS with the procedures in it wherever possible and remember that no one in their right mind uses an ADF for NDB procedures in real life.
Sure they do. There are people out there flying passenger jets with analogue flighdecks into ports whose only navaid is an NDB.

[A and C]

It's not just those with steam driven flight decks that have to use the ADF, I recently shot an ADF using the ADF as the primary navigation source because the NDB approach was not in the navigation data base.

The aircraft was a very well equipped 737NG.

Obviously the approach is made much easier with the FMS generation a reliable track line but at the end of the day the ADF is legally required and if you step outside the limits of the ADF you have to go around.

Also the ADF fitted to the aircaft is more reliable than most GA ADF's ( with the exception of a well set up Bendix/King KR87).