Modern avionics can make an instrument approach remarkably predictable. But every once in a while, the airplane does something you aren’t expecting and that’s when your instrument skills still matter. I was reminded of that recently while flying a Challenger into Jackson, Wyoming (JAC).
Jackson Hole isn’t an airport we visit frequently, and it’s not an approach you want to treat casually. The airport sits at a high elevation (6400′), surrounded by mountainous terrain, so we spent more time than usual briefing the arrival and approach. The weather was officially VFR, but it wasn’t exactly clear. As we approached the initial approach fix, we were in and out of layers.
We were also flying an approach that we had thoroughly briefed, so we had a pretty good idea of what the airplane should be doing and when. Then the needles went green transferring the nav input source from FMS to LOC. The autopilot had captured the approach and began an unexpected turn toward the final approach course which wasn’t what we were expecting at that point in the procedure.
We didn’t spend much time trying to figure out why. We disconnected the automation and went back to hand-flying. With two pilots in the cockpit and a thoroughly briefed approach, we were able to quickly get the airplane back where we wanted it, reestablish the automation, and continue the approach. It wasn’t a dramatic event, but it was a good reminder of several fundamentals that can get overlooked when we’re accustomed to letting the automation do the flying.
The Automation Wasn’t the Problem
Tim Decker recently wrote about the importance of cross-checking automation and offered three simple rules for doing it. Those rules came to mind as I thought about what happened at Jackson Hole. The important event to recognize was that the airplane was doing something we didn’t expect.
Modern avionics are very good at following instructions, but they don’t know what you intended unless you’ve given them the right instructions—and even when everything is programmed correctly, the airplane can sometimes behave differently than you anticipated. That’s why an instrument pilot can’t simply monitor whether the autopilot is engaged or whether the appropriate annunciation is displayed. You have to monitor the resulting flight path.
Where is the airplane?
Where is it going?
What should it be doing next?
And does what you’re seeing match what you expected? At Jackson Hole, the answer was no. We caught it quickly because we were looking.
Fly First, Troubleshoot Later
Fly First, Troubleshoot Later
When an automated system does something unexpected, it’s natural to want to understand why. Which mode is active? Did we miss something in the set-up? Why did it capture? Those are all reasonable questions, but they don’t necessarily need to be answered immediately.
The immediate question is whether the airplane doing what I need it to do? If the answer is no, disconnecting the automation may be the quickest way to eliminate uncertainty and get back to the fundamentals. Fly the airplane first and then figure out what happened.
That doesn’t mean every unexpected automation event requires immediately turning everything off. It means the pilot needs to remain comfortable enough with the airplane to recognize when automation is no longer helping and to take control by any means available without hesitation.
Are You Ready to Hand-Fly?
That’s where instrument proficiency comes in. There’s a difference between practicing hand-flying and being ready to hand-fly. You don’t need to turn off the autopilot on every IFR flight just to prove that you can fly an approach. Automation is one of the great tools available to an instrument pilot, and using it appropriately can reduce workload and increase safety.
But if the autopilot suddenly disconnects—or you disconnect it because the airplane isn’t doing what you expect—you shouldn’t suddenly feel like you’ve lost your primary flight-control system. The basic skills still need to be there.
Can you maintain heading and altitude?
Can you control the airspeed without chasing it?
Can you intercept and track a course?
Can you configure the airplane for landing while maintaining control?
Can you fly the approach while also thinking about what comes next?
Those aren’t skills that should disappear just because the airplane has an autopilot. But like any skill, they can get rusty if they’re rarely used.
The Briefing Was a Big Part of the Solution
One of the things that helped us at Jackson Hole happened before we ever got to the approach was that we had briefed it carefully. That wasn’t just about checking the minimums or reviewing the missed approach (although we did that too). We talked through the procedure and the environment because this was an airport we don’t fly into regularly, at high elevation, in mountainous terrain and with conditions that weren’t as straightforward as the VFR designation might suggest.
That preparation made the surprise much easier to recognize. And that’s an important part of instrument flying. You can’t recognize that something is unexpected unless you have some idea of what you expected in the first place. A good approach briefing creates that mental picture.
Use All the Resources You Have
I also had another advantage that day: another pilot in the cockpit. Crew resource management is a major part of professional flying, and having a second set of eyes makes it easier to monitor the airplane, the automation and the approach at the same time, but the underlying discipline applies to single-pilot flying, too.
Brief the approach out loud. Think about what the airplane should do at each major point. Know what the important modes and transitions should look like. And when something doesn’t make sense, don’t simply assume the airplane must be right.
Automation is an incredible tool. Use it. Trust it when appropriate. But keep your instrument skills sharp enough that you’re ready for the moment when you have to take back the airplane.
https://media.ifrfocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/07142821/Be-Ready-to-Take-Back-the-Airplane.png10001250Eric Radtkehttps://media.ifrfocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/14115136/IFR-Focus-Logo_White_Blue_Web-01.pngEric Radtke2026-10-13 07:45:562026-10-07 14:28:47Be Ready to Take Back the Airplane
What would you do if weather, darkness, and geography left you with several imperfect choices for an IFR flight?
That’s the dilemma in this month’s IFR Mastery scenario from PilotWorkshops. You’re flying your Cirrus from Buffalo to Iron Mountain, Michigan and the easy route is anything but easy.
The shortest IFR option takes you north across Michigan and then over Lake Michigan, including about 50 miles of overwater IMC. The alternative around Chicago adds nearly 100 miles and pushes your arrival toward sunset. You could also try filing directly through Chicago’s Class B, or fly VFR along the Chicago shoreline and pick up an IFR clearance farther north.
Each option has its own set of risks, complications, and unknowns.
Which route would you choose?
Watch the scenario below and make your decision.
It’s more than picking the shortest route
Instrument flying often means choosing between imperfect options. Weather, terrain, airspace, daylight, fuel, and workload can all change the risk profile and sometimes the route that looks best on paper isn’t the one that makes the most sense in the air.
That’s the decision-making skills that IFR Mastery is designed to develop. Each month, PilotWorkshops presents a new real-world IFR scenario that puts you in the pilot’s seat. You’ll evaluate the situation, make your decision, and then compare your thinking with experienced instructors as they explain the factors that influenced their choices.
Think you’ve made the right call?
Watch the free scenario briefing above, then sign in or start a free 30-day trial to access the complete scenario, instructor analysis, and the complete library of nearly 200 IFR scenarios.
https://media.ifrfocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/07122759/ifr-imc-enroute-cruise-clouds-scaled.jpeg19202560Eric Radtkehttps://media.ifrfocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/14115136/IFR-Focus-Logo_White_Blue_Web-01.pngEric Radtke2026-10-09 07:45:352026-10-07 12:28:31New IFR Mastery: No Easy Way North
ForeFlight continues to add features designed to make preflight planning easier and give pilots more information when it matters most in the cockpit.
Join Thomas Daugherty, Head of ForeFlight Training Solutions, for a look at the latest updates to ForeFlight, including ClearNOTAMs and Mobile Clearance Delivery, along with new safety features such as Emergency Glide.
Whether you’re a longtime ForeFlight user or just getting familiar with the app, this webinar is a chance to see what’s new and learn how these features can help you fly smarter.
https://media.ifrfocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/05103021/Webinar-Whats-New-With-ForeFlight.png10001250IFR Focus Teamhttps://media.ifrfocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/14115136/IFR-Focus-Logo_White_Blue_Web-01.pngIFR Focus Team2026-10-08 07:45:552026-10-05 10:31:07Webinar: What’s New With ForeFlight
Building a deliberate flow for the modern IFR cockpit
The physical instrument scan has gotten smaller. The cross-check has gotten bigger.
Mention “instrument cross-check” to most instrument pilots and they probably picture the scan learned during instrument training—attitude, airspeed, altitude, heading and the other flight instruments, perhaps with the attitude indicator at the center of a familiar hub-and-spoke pattern. That cross-check still matters. But this isn’t another article about how to scan the flight instruments, nor is it another debate about whether modern pilots rely too much on automation.
Instead, consider the cross-check more broadly: a deliberate flow of attention that follows the flight from engine start through shutdown. Its purpose is to maintain awareness of the aircraft’s flight path and support what the FAA calls Flightpath Management.
FAA Advisory Circular 120-123 defines Flightpath Management (FPM) as “the planning, execution, and assurance of the guidance and control of aircraft trajectory and energy, in flight or on the ground.” Although the AC is directed primarily at Parts 121 and 135 operators and Part 142 training centers, the FAA encourages other operators and training providers to consider its guidance as appropriate.
That definition works just as well in a technically advanced GA airplane. The instrument cross-check is the process. Effective Flightpath Management is the objective.
A Scan and a Flow
Modern glass cockpits have made part of the traditional instrument scan easier. Information that once required our eyes to travel around the panel is now consolidated on a PFD. The physical scan has gotten smaller, but the cognitive cross-check has gotten larger.
Now we also need to monitor the flight director, Flight Mode Annunciations (FMA), autopilot, active GPS leg, selected altitude, navigation source, engine and system indications, CAS messages, terrain, weather and configuration.
A modern instrument pilot needs both a scan and a flow. The scan tells us what is happening. The flow directs our attention toward the information most important to what the airplane is doing—or is about to do.
Three questions help keep that flow oriented:
What is the airplane doing?
What is the automation doing?
What should happen next?
Above all, keep coming back to the flight path.
Before Taxi
The cross-check begins before the airplane moves. Consider a deceptively simple checklist item such as “Radios/Avionics—As Required.” That should mean much more than tuning a frequency.
Listen to ATIS or AWOS, determine the runway in use and set the altimeter. Load the flight plan and compare it with the source used to plan the flight. I also like a gross-error check of total distance. If the flight-planning app shows 412 NM and the navigator shows about 410, that is reassuring. If it shows 869, stop and find out why.
After receiving the IFR clearance, act on each element that can appropriately be preset. If cleared runway heading, then as filed, maintain 3,000, departure 119.35 and squawk 1234, set those items and verify them. Don’t rely on memory for information that can safely be programmed in the avionics before taxi.
Takeoff and Climb
As the airplane aligns with the runway, verify the runway and heading. As power is applied, check engine indications, then airspeed. After liftoff, the emphasis shifts toward attitude, airspeed, flight path, engine indications and altitude.
The cross-check should also tell us where we are in the takeoff contingency plan briefed before departure. The available response to an abnormality can change dramatically as runway remaining and altitude change. Those decision points will differ among airplanes—including multiengine aircraft and CAPS-equipped Cirrus aircraft—but the principle is universal: know which options are available now.
Changes in the environment should change the cross-check too. Entering clouds or visible moisture should bring OAT, pitot heat and possible airframe icing into the flow. It should go without saying that encountering icing conditions in an airplane not approved for flight into known icing means finding another altitude or route—or otherwise exiting the icing conditions. In a FIKI-approved airplane, a trained and current pilot should be prepared to use the ice-protection systems in accordance with the POH.
Automation after takeoff requires the same discipline. Any autoflight change should trigger an immediate look at the FMA—the “scoreboard.”
Don’t verify the button you pushed. Verify the result.
I’ve been having turbine-transition students verbalize the FMA after any autoflight change. Select HDG, look at the FMA and say what is actually displayed. Arm NAV and verbalize what the FMA actually shows. The purpose isn’t to turn a single-pilot cockpit into an airline cockpit. Instead, this process helps build the discipline of looking at the FMA after every change. I like to say that the buttons you push are rumor. The FMA—the scoreboard—is fact.
Then return to the flight path. Continually compare what the autoflight system is doing with the desired and anticipated flight path of the aircraft.
Cruise: Look Ahead
In cruise, the cross-check broadens and slows somewhat, but it never stops. Continue monitoring the flight path while periodically scanning engine and system indications, maintaining fuel awareness and planning, monitoring weather and avoiding developing threats, and requesting course or altitude adjustments necessary to provide a smooth ride for passengers.
Cruise is also the time to prepare for what comes next. Determine a top of descent. In an unpressurized airplane, I typically plan around a comfortable 500–600 fpm descent. In a pressurized turbine, a three-degree descent path is a useful planning baseline.
Before top of descent, obtain landing weather and brief the STAR, if applicable, and the planned instrument approach. Compare the procedure loaded in the GPS with the current chart. Verify the waypoint sequence, altitude and speed restrictions, and threats such as terrain and weather. Professional pilots try to have this work completed before TOD, because workload—and threats such as traffic and terrain—are about to increase. A good cruise cross-check doesn’t just monitor the flight you’re flying. It prepares you for the flight you’re about to fly.
Descent: Manage the Energy
Descent turns Flightpath Management into a three-dimensional challenge. We need to arrive at the landing field laterally and vertically positioned, but also at an airspeed and energy state that allow an orderly transition to the approach.
VNAV is an excellent tool for solving that problem. Many modern GPS navigators can provide VNAV guidance, and many modern autopilots can fly VNAV when selected. But VNAV does not relieve the pilot of managing the descent. It gives us another source of guidance to monitor and verify.
This becomes increasingly important at higher altitudes and in heavier aircraft. Some swept-wing airplanes, like the Boeing 757 I fly, simply cannot go down and slow down at the same time. Vertical planning matters.
The principle scales directly to GA: don’t let VNAV deliver you to the correct altitude with the wrong energy state.
Our goal is to arrive at the final approach fix at an altitude and airspeed that allow us to reach final landing configuration and establish a stable approach. Reaching the FAF at the correct altitude does little good if we are still above flap or gear-extension speeds and cannot get configured.
The cross-check therefore needs to look forward: Am I going to arrive there with an energy state that lets me configure and stabilize the airplane?
Approach: Verify What You Have
On an instrument approach, the cross-check should deliberately follow the waypoint sequence. As each waypoint approaches, know the altitude restriction, desired airspeed and configuration, and the automation change you expect next. Then verify that it actually happens.
For a ground-based approach, ensure the NAVAID is properly identified before relying on it for the approach. For an RNAV (GPS) approach, verify the level of service annunciated by the avionics and compare it with the minimums you briefed and set. If you briefed LPV, confirm that LPV is what the system is actually providing.
Inside the FAF, the instrument cross-check should confirm that we are maintaining a stable approach. A good target is to arrive at the FAF at an altitude, airspeed and configuration that make that possible, and to be stabilized no lower than the applicable gate—typically 1,000 feet AGL in IMC.
After Landing
The cross-check follows the airplane onto the ground. After landing, it transitions toward excellent situational awareness during taxi.
Use the airport diagram—preferably a moving map zoomed appropriately—to maintain situational awareness all the way to parking. At a towered airport, listen to and understand the taxi clearance, then compare it with the diagram. Identify the route, runway crossings, hold-short instructions and hot spots. At a non-towered airport, monitor the common traffic frequency to build a picture of other traffic while using the diagram to determine your taxi route and identify threats along it. The flying isn’t over just because the wheels are on the ground.
The Cross-Check Follows the Flight
The traditional instrument scan remains fundamental. A pilot trained entirely on glass should not assume that proficiency automatically transfers to conventional instruments, just as a pilot with an excellent traditional scan may need to develop a broader flow when transitioning to an integrated glass cockpit.
The answer isn’t less automation or more automation. It is disciplined Flightpath Management.
The cross-check should change as the flight changes, always directing attention toward what matters now and what will matter next. Every selection deserves verification. Every automation change should be checked against the FMA and then against the aircraft’s actual trajectory and energy state.
Keep asking:
What is the airplane doing?
What is the automation doing?
What should happen next?
The physical scan may have gotten smaller. The cross-check has gotten bigger.
https://media.ifrfocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/25104136/quiz-category.png744993Tim Deckerhttps://media.ifrfocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/14115136/IFR-Focus-Logo_White_Blue_Web-01.pngTim Decker2026-10-06 07:45:532026-10-11 18:46:08The Instrument Cross-Check Is Bigger Than You Think
Garmin’s new AXIS Flight Displays bring a new generation of avionics technology to the cockpit, with features designed to improve situational awareness and simplify cockpit operations. But what’s actually new—and what do pilots need to know about the technology behind the displays?
Garmin’s Chun Hei Ng provides a first look at AXIS. Luke will walk through key features including 3D SafeTaxi, onboard data logging, and the Flight Management System (FMS), with an emphasis on why understanding the FMS is important for pilots. He also explains what’s new with AXIS and how the various models and variants differ.
When controllers anticipate a delay, usually due to a high volume of traffic, weather, or both, pilots are usually issued a holding clearance. If the holding pattern assigned by ATC is charted, pilots are expected to hold as indicated. Holding patterns at the most generally used holding fixes are charted on Low or High Altitude En Route, Area, Departure Procedure, and Arrival Charts. When ATC issues a clearance requiring you to hold at a fix where a holding pattern is not charted, pilots are issued complete holding instructions. The holding instructions will include:
the direction from the fix
name of the fix, course
leg length (if distance instead of time)
direction of turns (if left turns are required)
the expect further clearance (EFC) time.
Let’s look at holding clearance example below to identify the various components (note the absence of turn direction indicates standard, right hand turns are expected):
Hold north (direction from the fix) of Volunteer on the 360 degree radial (name of VOR fix and course), five mile legs (leg length), expect further clearance at 15:50 zulu (EFC) time now, 15:40 zulu (current time is often issued as a courtesy so that pilots quickly know how long they may have to hold for fuel planning purposes).
Pilots are required to maintain the last assigned altitude unless a new altitude is specifically included in the holding clearance. Pilots are expected to hold on the inbound course using right turns unless instructed otherwide. In the example instructions above, the INBOUND course would be 180 degrees if holding on the 360 degree radial.
When executing a holding pattern above 14,000 feet, the inbound leg should be 1.5 minutes in duration. When at or below 14,000 feet, the inbound leg should be 1 minute. Timing of the outbound leg should begin abeam the holding fix or at the completion of the turn. Fly the first outbound leg at the appropriate standard duration, then adjust subsequent outbound legs so as to make the inbound leg the standard 1 or 1.5 minute duration. This will vary with wind.
Timing of the holding pattern should be adjusted on the outbound leg so that the inbound leg will be the standard duration.
GPS-equipped aircraft have some additional options for holding. Rather than being based on time, the leg lengths for GPS holding patterns are based on distances. The controller, or the applicable chart, specifies the length of the outbound leg. The end of the outbound leg is determined by the distance.
Charted holding procedure on the low altitude enroute chart with 5 mile legs specified.
Because the size of the holding pattern is directly proportional to the speed of the aircraft, maximum holding speeds in knots indicated airspeed (KIAS) have been designated for specific altitude ranges. Often pilots can avoid flying a holding pattern or reduce the length of time spent in the holding pattern, by slowing down on the way to the holding fix.
Maximum holding speeds in knots indicated.
Turns in the hold should be standard rate, but not more than 30 degrees. If you are using a flight director, the maximum bank angle is 25 degrees. Except when turning, you should compensate for the wind. Outbound you should triple the wind correction angle used to track the inbound course. This will distort the racetrack shape, but keep you inside the holding pattern protected airspace.
The racetrack pattern will be distored with appropriate wind correction.
The protected airspace is not charted, but it is shaped somewhat like and centered upon the holding pattern. This puts about 60% of the protected area on the holding side, so the majority of your maneuvering should be on this side.
The majority of your maneuvering should be on the hodling side as this is where the majority of the protected airspace exists.
Holding protected airspace is designed based in part on pilot compliance with three recommended holding pattern entry procedures.
Parallel Procedure. When approaching the holding fix from parrell sector, the parallel entry procedure would be to turn to a heading to parallel the holding course outbound on the nonholding side for one minute, turn in the direction of the holding pattern through more than 180 degrees, and return to the holding fix or intercept the holding course inbound.
When approaching the holding fix from anywhere in the teardrop sector, the teardrop entry procedure would be to fly to the fix, turn outbound to a heading for a 30 degree teardrop entry within the pattern (on the holding side) for a period of one minute, then turn in the direction of the holding pattern to intercept the inbound holding course.
When approaching the holding fix from anywhere in the direct sector, the direct entry procedure would be to fly directly to the fix and turn to follow the holding pattern.
To help determine which sector you fall within when approaching a holding fix, look at where the outbound course falls on your heading indicator or H-S-I when flying direct to the fix. Divide the indicator into three segments as depicted below. And for a standard right-turn hold, and you can visualize exactly what kind of entry is expected.
You can visualize exactly what kind of entry is expected when placing the outbound course on the heading indicator when flying direct to the fix.
The teardrop section is the smallest, only 70 degrees on the right of the nose. At the fix, turn to a heading 30 degrees from the outbound course toward the holding side for one minute. Then turn in the direction of the holding pattern to intercept the holding course.
The direct entry section is the largest, covering a 180-degree arc. Simply turn right outbound and fly the pattern.
The parallel segment is 110 degrees to the left of the nose. Turn to the outbound heading, correct for wind if known, fly for one minute, and then turn toward the holding pattern more than 180 degrees. Return to the holding fix or intercept the holding course inbound.
This method of visualizing the outbound course on the heading indicator is also referred to as the “thumb” method because placing your thumb to the right (for right-hand turns) or the left (for left-hand turns) will approximate the teardrop entry area as decpicted below.
Placing your thumb to the left or right of your current heading can help identify the correct holding entry procedure.
A non-standard holding pattern uses left turns, and the entry procedure diagram has to be flipped so the teardrop section is in the upper left. For non-standard left turns, use your left thumb to mark the 70-degree teardrop section, and the remaining sections fall into place. Right turns, right thumb.
The entry procedure diagram has to be flipped so the teardrop section is in the upper left for left hand turns.
It’s worth noting that modern GPS navigators can be programmed for holding procedures and coupled with an autopilot, can also fully execute a hold. There are also devices available to help determine the correct entry.
Be Ready to Take Back the Airplane
/by Eric RadtkeModern avionics can make an instrument approach remarkably predictable. But every once in a while, the airplane does something you aren’t expecting and that’s when your instrument skills still matter. I was reminded of that recently while flying a Challenger into Jackson, Wyoming (JAC).
Jackson Hole isn’t an airport we visit frequently, and it’s not an approach you want to treat casually. The airport sits at a high elevation (6400′), surrounded by mountainous terrain, so we spent more time than usual briefing the arrival and approach. The weather was officially VFR, but it wasn’t exactly clear. As we approached the initial approach fix, we were in and out of layers.
We were also flying an approach that we had thoroughly briefed, so we had a pretty good idea of what the airplane should be doing and when. Then the needles went green transferring the nav input source from FMS to LOC. The autopilot had captured the approach and began an unexpected turn toward the final approach course which wasn’t what we were expecting at that point in the procedure.
We didn’t spend much time trying to figure out why. We disconnected the automation and went back to hand-flying. With two pilots in the cockpit and a thoroughly briefed approach, we were able to quickly get the airplane back where we wanted it, reestablish the automation, and continue the approach. It wasn’t a dramatic event, but it was a good reminder of several fundamentals that can get overlooked when we’re accustomed to letting the automation do the flying.
The Automation Wasn’t the Problem
Tim Decker recently wrote about the importance of cross-checking automation and offered three simple rules for doing it. Those rules came to mind as I thought about what happened at Jackson Hole. The important event to recognize was that the airplane was doing something we didn’t expect.
Modern avionics are very good at following instructions, but they don’t know what you intended unless you’ve given them the right instructions—and even when everything is programmed correctly, the airplane can sometimes behave differently than you anticipated. That’s why an instrument pilot can’t simply monitor whether the autopilot is engaged or whether the appropriate annunciation is displayed. You have to monitor the resulting flight path.
Where is the airplane?
Where is it going?
What should it be doing next?
And does what you’re seeing match what you expected? At Jackson Hole, the answer was no. We caught it quickly because we were looking.
Fly First, Troubleshoot Later
Fly First, Troubleshoot Later
When an automated system does something unexpected, it’s natural to want to understand why. Which mode is active? Did we miss something in the set-up? Why did it capture? Those are all reasonable questions, but they don’t necessarily need to be answered immediately.
The immediate question is whether the airplane doing what I need it to do? If the answer is no, disconnecting the automation may be the quickest way to eliminate uncertainty and get back to the fundamentals. Fly the airplane first and then figure out what happened.
That doesn’t mean every unexpected automation event requires immediately turning everything off. It means the pilot needs to remain comfortable enough with the airplane to recognize when automation is no longer helping and to take control by any means available without hesitation.
Are You Ready to Hand-Fly?
That’s where instrument proficiency comes in. There’s a difference between practicing hand-flying and being ready to hand-fly. You don’t need to turn off the autopilot on every IFR flight just to prove that you can fly an approach. Automation is one of the great tools available to an instrument pilot, and using it appropriately can reduce workload and increase safety.
But if the autopilot suddenly disconnects—or you disconnect it because the airplane isn’t doing what you expect—you shouldn’t suddenly feel like you’ve lost your primary flight-control system. The basic skills still need to be there.
Can you maintain heading and altitude?
Can you control the airspeed without chasing it?
Can you intercept and track a course?
Can you configure the airplane for landing while maintaining control?
Can you fly the approach while also thinking about what comes next?
Those aren’t skills that should disappear just because the airplane has an autopilot. But like any skill, they can get rusty if they’re rarely used.
The Briefing Was a Big Part of the Solution
One of the things that helped us at Jackson Hole happened before we ever got to the approach was that we had briefed it carefully. That wasn’t just about checking the minimums or reviewing the missed approach (although we did that too). We talked through the procedure and the environment because this was an airport we don’t fly into regularly, at high elevation, in mountainous terrain and with conditions that weren’t as straightforward as the VFR designation might suggest.
That preparation made the surprise much easier to recognize. And that’s an important part of instrument flying. You can’t recognize that something is unexpected unless you have some idea of what you expected in the first place. A good approach briefing creates that mental picture.
Use All the Resources You Have
I also had another advantage that day: another pilot in the cockpit. Crew resource management is a major part of professional flying, and having a second set of eyes makes it easier to monitor the airplane, the automation and the approach at the same time, but the underlying discipline applies to single-pilot flying, too.
Brief the approach out loud. Think about what the airplane should do at each major point. Know what the important modes and transitions should look like. And when something doesn’t make sense, don’t simply assume the airplane must be right.
Automation is an incredible tool. Use it. Trust it when appropriate. But keep your instrument skills sharp enough that you’re ready for the moment when you have to take back the airplane.
New IFR Mastery: No Easy Way North
/by Eric RadtkeWhat would you do if weather, darkness, and geography left you with several imperfect choices for an IFR flight?
That’s the dilemma in this month’s IFR Mastery scenario from PilotWorkshops. You’re flying your Cirrus from Buffalo to Iron Mountain, Michigan and the easy route is anything but easy.
The shortest IFR option takes you north across Michigan and then over Lake Michigan, including about 50 miles of overwater IMC. The alternative around Chicago adds nearly 100 miles and pushes your arrival toward sunset. You could also try filing directly through Chicago’s Class B, or fly VFR along the Chicago shoreline and pick up an IFR clearance farther north.
Each option has its own set of risks, complications, and unknowns.
Which route would you choose?
Watch the scenario below and make your decision.
It’s more than picking the shortest route
Instrument flying often means choosing between imperfect options. Weather, terrain, airspace, daylight, fuel, and workload can all change the risk profile and sometimes the route that looks best on paper isn’t the one that makes the most sense in the air.
That’s the decision-making skills that IFR Mastery is designed to develop. Each month, PilotWorkshops presents a new real-world IFR scenario that puts you in the pilot’s seat. You’ll evaluate the situation, make your decision, and then compare your thinking with experienced instructors as they explain the factors that influenced their choices.
Think you’ve made the right call?
Watch the free scenario briefing above, then sign in or start a free 30-day trial to access the complete scenario, instructor analysis, and the complete library of nearly 200 IFR scenarios.
Webinar: What’s New With ForeFlight
/by IFR Focus TeamForeFlight continues to add features designed to make preflight planning easier and give pilots more information when it matters most in the cockpit.
Join Thomas Daugherty, Head of ForeFlight Training Solutions, for a look at the latest updates to ForeFlight, including ClearNOTAMs and Mobile Clearance Delivery, along with new safety features such as Emergency Glide.
Whether you’re a longtime ForeFlight user or just getting familiar with the app, this webinar is a chance to see what’s new and learn how these features can help you fly smarter.
The Instrument Cross-Check Is Bigger Than You Think
/by Tim DeckerBuilding a deliberate flow for the modern IFR cockpit
The physical instrument scan has gotten smaller. The cross-check has gotten bigger.
Mention “instrument cross-check” to most instrument pilots and they probably picture the scan learned during instrument training—attitude, airspeed, altitude, heading and the other flight instruments, perhaps with the attitude indicator at the center of a familiar hub-and-spoke pattern. That cross-check still matters. But this isn’t another article about how to scan the flight instruments, nor is it another debate about whether modern pilots rely too much on automation.
Instead, consider the cross-check more broadly: a deliberate flow of attention that follows the flight from engine start through shutdown. Its purpose is to maintain awareness of the aircraft’s flight path and support what the FAA calls Flightpath Management.
FAA Advisory Circular 120-123 defines Flightpath Management (FPM) as “the planning, execution, and assurance of the guidance and control of aircraft trajectory and energy, in flight or on the ground.” Although the AC is directed primarily at Parts 121 and 135 operators and Part 142 training centers, the FAA encourages other operators and training providers to consider its guidance as appropriate.
That definition works just as well in a technically advanced GA airplane. The instrument cross-check is the process. Effective Flightpath Management is the objective.
A Scan and a Flow
Modern glass cockpits have made part of the traditional instrument scan easier. Information that once required our eyes to travel around the panel is now consolidated on a PFD. The physical scan has gotten smaller, but the cognitive cross-check has gotten larger.
Now we also need to monitor the flight director, Flight Mode Annunciations (FMA), autopilot, active GPS leg, selected altitude, navigation source, engine and system indications, CAS messages, terrain, weather and configuration.
A modern instrument pilot needs both a scan and a flow. The scan tells us what is happening. The flow directs our attention toward the information most important to what the airplane is doing—or is about to do.
Three questions help keep that flow oriented:
What is the airplane doing?
What is the automation doing?
What should happen next?
Above all, keep coming back to the flight path.
Before Taxi
The cross-check begins before the airplane moves. Consider a deceptively simple checklist item such as “Radios/Avionics—As Required.” That should mean much more than tuning a frequency.
Listen to ATIS or AWOS, determine the runway in use and set the altimeter. Load the flight plan and compare it with the source used to plan the flight. I also like a gross-error check of total distance. If the flight-planning app shows 412 NM and the navigator shows about 410, that is reassuring. If it shows 869, stop and find out why.
After receiving the IFR clearance, act on each element that can appropriately be preset. If cleared runway heading, then as filed, maintain 3,000, departure 119.35 and squawk 1234, set those items and verify them. Don’t rely on memory for information that can safely be programmed in the avionics before taxi.
Takeoff and Climb
As the airplane aligns with the runway, verify the runway and heading. As power is applied, check engine indications, then airspeed. After liftoff, the emphasis shifts toward attitude, airspeed, flight path, engine indications and altitude.
The cross-check should also tell us where we are in the takeoff contingency plan briefed before departure. The available response to an abnormality can change dramatically as runway remaining and altitude change. Those decision points will differ among airplanes—including multiengine aircraft and CAPS-equipped Cirrus aircraft—but the principle is universal: know which options are available now.
Changes in the environment should change the cross-check too. Entering clouds or visible moisture should bring OAT, pitot heat and possible airframe icing into the flow. It should go without saying that encountering icing conditions in an airplane not approved for flight into known icing means finding another altitude or route—or otherwise exiting the icing conditions. In a FIKI-approved airplane, a trained and current pilot should be prepared to use the ice-protection systems in accordance with the POH.
Automation after takeoff requires the same discipline. Any autoflight change should trigger an immediate look at the FMA—the “scoreboard.”
Don’t verify the button you pushed. Verify the result.
I’ve been having turbine-transition students verbalize the FMA after any autoflight change. Select HDG, look at the FMA and say what is actually displayed. Arm NAV and verbalize what the FMA actually shows. The purpose isn’t to turn a single-pilot cockpit into an airline cockpit. Instead, this process helps build the discipline of looking at the FMA after every change. I like to say that the buttons you push are rumor. The FMA—the scoreboard—is fact.
Then return to the flight path. Continually compare what the autoflight system is doing with the desired and anticipated flight path of the aircraft.
Cruise: Look Ahead
In cruise, the cross-check broadens and slows somewhat, but it never stops. Continue monitoring the flight path while periodically scanning engine and system indications, maintaining fuel awareness and planning, monitoring weather and avoiding developing threats, and requesting course or altitude adjustments necessary to provide a smooth ride for passengers.
Cruise is also the time to prepare for what comes next. Determine a top of descent. In an unpressurized airplane, I typically plan around a comfortable 500–600 fpm descent. In a pressurized turbine, a three-degree descent path is a useful planning baseline.
Before top of descent, obtain landing weather and brief the STAR, if applicable, and the planned instrument approach. Compare the procedure loaded in the GPS with the current chart. Verify the waypoint sequence, altitude and speed restrictions, and threats such as terrain and weather. Professional pilots try to have this work completed before TOD, because workload—and threats such as traffic and terrain—are about to increase. A good cruise cross-check doesn’t just monitor the flight you’re flying. It prepares you for the flight you’re about to fly.
Descent: Manage the Energy
Descent turns Flightpath Management into a three-dimensional challenge. We need to arrive at the landing field laterally and vertically positioned, but also at an airspeed and energy state that allow an orderly transition to the approach.
VNAV is an excellent tool for solving that problem. Many modern GPS navigators can provide VNAV guidance, and many modern autopilots can fly VNAV when selected. But VNAV does not relieve the pilot of managing the descent. It gives us another source of guidance to monitor and verify.
This becomes increasingly important at higher altitudes and in heavier aircraft. Some swept-wing airplanes, like the Boeing 757 I fly, simply cannot go down and slow down at the same time. Vertical planning matters.
The principle scales directly to GA: don’t let VNAV deliver you to the correct altitude with the wrong energy state.
Our goal is to arrive at the final approach fix at an altitude and airspeed that allow us to reach final landing configuration and establish a stable approach. Reaching the FAF at the correct altitude does little good if we are still above flap or gear-extension speeds and cannot get configured.
The cross-check therefore needs to look forward: Am I going to arrive there with an energy state that lets me configure and stabilize the airplane?
Approach: Verify What You Have
On an instrument approach, the cross-check should deliberately follow the waypoint sequence. As each waypoint approaches, know the altitude restriction, desired airspeed and configuration, and the automation change you expect next. Then verify that it actually happens.
For a ground-based approach, ensure the NAVAID is properly identified before relying on it for the approach. For an RNAV (GPS) approach, verify the level of service annunciated by the avionics and compare it with the minimums you briefed and set. If you briefed LPV, confirm that LPV is what the system is actually providing.
Inside the FAF, the instrument cross-check should confirm that we are maintaining a stable approach. A good target is to arrive at the FAF at an altitude, airspeed and configuration that make that possible, and to be stabilized no lower than the applicable gate—typically 1,000 feet AGL in IMC.
After Landing
The cross-check follows the airplane onto the ground. After landing, it transitions toward excellent situational awareness during taxi.
Use the airport diagram—preferably a moving map zoomed appropriately—to maintain situational awareness all the way to parking. At a towered airport, listen to and understand the taxi clearance, then compare it with the diagram. Identify the route, runway crossings, hold-short instructions and hot spots. At a non-towered airport, monitor the common traffic frequency to build a picture of other traffic while using the diagram to determine your taxi route and identify threats along it. The flying isn’t over just because the wheels are on the ground.
The Cross-Check Follows the Flight
The traditional instrument scan remains fundamental. A pilot trained entirely on glass should not assume that proficiency automatically transfers to conventional instruments, just as a pilot with an excellent traditional scan may need to develop a broader flow when transitioning to an integrated glass cockpit.
The answer isn’t less automation or more automation. It is disciplined Flightpath Management.
The cross-check should change as the flight changes, always directing attention toward what matters now and what will matter next. Every selection deserves verification. Every automation change should be checked against the FMA and then against the aircraft’s actual trajectory and energy state.
Keep asking:
What is the airplane doing?
What is the automation doing?
What should happen next?
The physical scan may have gotten smaller. The cross-check has gotten bigger.
Webinar Video: Garmin AXIS Flight Displays
/by IFR Focus TeamA First Look at What’s New
Garmin’s Chun Hei Ng provides a first look at AXIS. Luke will walk through key features including 3D SafeTaxi, onboard data logging, and the Flight Management System (FMS), with an emphasis on why understanding the FMS is important for pilots. He also explains what’s new with AXIS and how the various models and variants differ.
IFR Holding Procedures Explained: A Pilot’s Guide to Holding Patterns
/by Eric RadtkeWhen controllers anticipate a delay, usually due to a high volume of traffic, weather, or both, pilots are usually issued a holding clearance. If the holding pattern assigned by ATC is charted, pilots are expected to hold as indicated. Holding patterns at the most generally used holding fixes are charted on Low or High Altitude En Route, Area, Departure Procedure, and Arrival Charts. When ATC issues a clearance requiring you to hold at a fix where a holding pattern is not charted, pilots are issued complete holding instructions. The holding instructions will include:
Let’s look at holding clearance example below to identify the various components (note the absence of turn direction indicates standard, right hand turns are expected):
Hold north (direction from the fix) of Volunteer on the 360 degree radial (name of VOR fix and course), five mile legs (leg length), expect further clearance at 15:50 zulu (EFC) time now, 15:40 zulu (current time is often issued as a courtesy so that pilots quickly know how long they may have to hold for fuel planning purposes).
Pilots are required to maintain the last assigned altitude unless a new altitude is specifically included in the holding clearance. Pilots are expected to hold on the inbound course using right turns unless instructed otherwide. In the example instructions above, the INBOUND course would be 180 degrees if holding on the 360 degree radial.
When executing a holding pattern above 14,000 feet, the inbound leg should be 1.5 minutes in duration. When at or below 14,000 feet, the inbound leg should be 1 minute. Timing of the outbound leg should begin abeam the holding fix or at the completion of the turn. Fly the first outbound leg at the appropriate standard duration, then adjust subsequent outbound legs so as to make the inbound leg the standard 1 or 1.5 minute duration. This will vary with wind.
Timing of the holding pattern should be adjusted on the outbound leg so that the inbound leg will be the standard duration.
GPS-equipped aircraft have some additional options for holding. Rather than being based on time, the leg lengths for GPS holding patterns are based on distances. The controller, or the applicable chart, specifies the length of the outbound leg. The end of the outbound leg is determined by the distance.
Charted holding procedure on the low altitude enroute chart with 5 mile legs specified.
Because the size of the holding pattern is directly proportional to the speed of the aircraft, maximum holding speeds in knots indicated airspeed (KIAS) have been designated for specific altitude ranges. Often pilots can avoid flying a holding pattern or reduce the length of time spent in the holding pattern, by slowing down on the way to the holding fix.
Maximum holding speeds in knots indicated.
Turns in the hold should be standard rate, but not more than 30 degrees. If you are using a flight director, the maximum bank angle is 25 degrees. Except when turning, you should compensate for the wind. Outbound you should triple the wind correction angle used to track the inbound course. This will distort the racetrack shape, but keep you inside the holding pattern protected airspace.
The racetrack pattern will be distored with appropriate wind correction.
The protected airspace is not charted, but it is shaped somewhat like and centered upon the holding pattern. This puts about 60% of the protected area on the holding side, so the majority of your maneuvering should be on this side.
The majority of your maneuvering should be on the hodling side as this is where the majority of the protected airspace exists.
Holding protected airspace is designed based in part on pilot compliance with three recommended holding pattern entry procedures.
Parallel Procedure. When approaching the holding fix from parrell sector, the parallel entry procedure would be to turn to a heading to parallel the holding course outbound on the nonholding side for one minute, turn in the direction of the holding pattern through more than 180 degrees, and return to the holding fix or intercept the holding course inbound.
When approaching the holding fix from anywhere in the teardrop sector, the teardrop entry procedure would be to fly to the fix, turn outbound to a heading for a 30 degree teardrop entry within the pattern (on the holding side) for a period of one minute, then turn in the direction of the holding pattern to intercept the inbound holding course.
When approaching the holding fix from anywhere in the direct sector, the direct entry procedure would be to fly directly to the fix and turn to follow the holding pattern.
To help determine which sector you fall within when approaching a holding fix, look at where the outbound course falls on your heading indicator or H-S-I when flying direct to the fix. Divide the indicator into three segments as depicted below. And for a standard right-turn hold, and you can visualize exactly what kind of entry is expected.
You can visualize exactly what kind of entry is expected when placing the outbound course on the heading indicator when flying direct to the fix.
The teardrop section is the smallest, only 70 degrees on the right of the nose. At the fix, turn to a heading 30 degrees from the outbound course toward the holding side for one minute. Then turn in the direction of the holding pattern to intercept the holding course.
The direct entry section is the largest, covering a 180-degree arc. Simply turn right outbound and fly the pattern.
The parallel segment is 110 degrees to the left of the nose. Turn to the outbound heading, correct for wind if known, fly for one minute, and then turn toward the holding pattern more than 180 degrees. Return to the holding fix or intercept the holding course inbound.
This method of visualizing the outbound course on the heading indicator is also referred to as the “thumb” method because placing your thumb to the right (for right-hand turns) or the left (for left-hand turns) will approximate the teardrop entry area as decpicted below.
Placing your thumb to the left or right of your current heading can help identify the correct holding entry procedure.
A non-standard holding pattern uses left turns, and the entry procedure diagram has to be flipped so the teardrop section is in the upper left. For non-standard left turns, use your left thumb to mark the 70-degree teardrop section, and the remaining sections fall into place. Right turns, right thumb.
The entry procedure diagram has to be flipped so the teardrop section is in the upper left for left hand turns.
It’s worth noting that modern GPS navigators can be programmed for holding procedures and coupled with an autopilot, can also fully execute a hold. There are also devices available to help determine the correct entry.
Test your holding pattern entry knowledge in this interactive holding exercise from Sporty’s Instrument Rating Course.