Suitability of RVs for Instument Training

[Tango Mike]

Let's say you're at a fly-in with your IFR-equipped RV and you've just slipped a pair of FOR SALE sleeves on the prop blades. A pilot walks up, asks you a few questions about the airplane, then says something like:

"I had a RV6 some years ago, only used it VFR. Currently, my daughter just received her PPL, and is wanting to go career. Next step is an instrument ticket. My question is that many say the Van?s are not stable enough for IFR, and for sure not for training. I've asked pilots about the IFR training aspect of RVs and I get mixed reviews, but mostly it is not ideal, and, that it may be hard to find a CFII to train in it as well. What is your experience and opinion?"

My response might include the following points:

1. My guess is that the "many" detractors probably have little or no time in RVs.

2. To compare the stability of an RV to a run-of-the-mill certificated airplane commonly used for instrument training is to highlight the difference in wing loading, light and more agile as opposed to heavier and more sluggish.

3. From the pilot's seat, an instrument approach looks the same regardless of the airplane type.

4. At the end of the day, instrument training in an RV has the potential for creating a more proficient IFR pilot because the airplane doesn't tolerate over-controlling well. It demands precision, and isn't that what instrument flying is all about?

5. Why would a CFII care what type of airplane is being used? If the instructor isn't comfortable in an experimental, that has nothing to do with the suitability of the airframe for the training objective.

6. To purchase an airplane other than an RV specifically for your daughter's IFR training allows faulty reasoning to prevent you and her from enjoying the many advantages of these airplanes.

7. With regard to any aspect of aviating, comparing total performance and the RV grin with a standard trainer boils down to two words: No comparison.

I'd appreciate hearing from pilots who fly IFR in their RV, and particularly from CFIIs on the question of suitability of the airplanes for instrument training.

Thanks in advance for sharing your opinions.

Tosh

[AaronG]

I did all my IFR training in an RV-10, but would not hesitate to do it in a 2 seater. I found an instructor that was willing to instruct in the RV as well as an examiner that gave me the checkout in the plane.

For me, learning to fly IFR in the plane I planned to use going forward was important. I suspect the RV would also better prepare you for faster planes (staying ahead of the plane is always a challenge in single pilot IFR), and teaches you the importance of small control inputs.

Having an autopilot was valuable as well. It takes off the workload during the busiest portion of the flight.

Aaron

[wjnmd]

I have an RV-7A with a three screen G3X panel, Garmin GTN 650 and a TruTrak autopilot.I am also currently working on my instrument rating using my airplane. I found an instructor who had no problems with training me in my airplane. The bigger challenge might be finding a DPE who is willing to examine you or your daughter. It's true that the RV is a very good airplane for this. It is very sensitive and responsive. An autopilot however is very helpful. I think we all know what a fantastic airplane this is but there is a bit of a lag from people not really understanding what an experimental is. If you look up the FARs, there is no longer a regulation stating that it has to be a certificated airplane. My experience is that examiners don't really understand what we can do as far as maintenance on our aircraft. In other words, it is a personal issue with the instructor as well as the DPE.

Best of luck
Bill Near

[TCONROY]

I instructed the owner of a popular EFIS manufacturer for his instrument rating and found it challenging at first being a fairly nimble airplane (and having only instructed in C-172/182 previously). We spent a fair amount of time initially on basic aircraft control and transitions to different phases of flight: climb to level, level to climb, level turns, climbing/descending turns, descent to level, constant airspeed climbs/descents, stalls...etc. We probably spent more time under the hood getting those basics mastered in the RV-10 than we would have in a spam can, but beyond that it was no different than any other aircraft. The RV's are extremely capable aircraft but they are also very nimble and can be over controlled pretty easily. Two fingers with light input is all that is required to remain stable. If you can hand-fly an RV under IMC, you can fly just about any single-engine airplane IMC.
When I signed him off, not only was I extremely comfortable with his abilities in his RV-10, but I also knew he would be an extremely safe and competent IFR pilot in any other airplane.

[Tango Mike]

I've been unable so far to practice enough to get really comfortable with the integration between my two G3X setup, G400W, and SL-30.

Another reply mentioned the necessity for being able to push a button with confidence and know exactly what the systems will do in response. Confusion and a "Why did it do that?" thought can be the first link in a chain of events leading to trouble.

That puts me in the current position of making some hard choices about how to move forward. But one thing comes across loud and clear: 47 years of professional flying in big airplanes mean virtually nothing other than being able to instill an abundance of caution.

Qualification and currency are two entirely different things, and if I've learned anything over the years, it's to fully appreciate the dangers inherent in overconfidence.

As for the autopilot comments, I agree wholeheartedly. Last week I flew a couple of practice approaches in typically turbulent conditions below scattered cumulus and watched the GX Pilot nail the approach.

The specific issue here, however, is not how well an autopilot can do in the real world of IFR flying, but teaching someone how to do it themselves.

Tosh

[flyr747]

This is just my opinion, but someone that flies an RV-6 IFR and bigger airplanes professionally for over 30 years. This is also from the perspective of seeing my son and nephew get all of their tickets the past few years and are now flying corporate.

I think you will answer your questions by finding the CFII that is going to do the instrument training in the RV and have him take you up for a simulated Instrument check ride that your daughter will be taking after only 40-50 hours of instrument dual. You can count on the autopilot being inop for the bulk of the flight and several modifications to the original intended flight. In the most simple, stable platform ie. C-172 or similar the checkride for an instrument student can be difficult with plenty of opportunities to stumble. While I agree that learning to fly instruments in an RV will sharpen your skills I also think for a checkride of this importance you would want every advantage going your way since the examiner has nothing to compare to except the other students taking an instrument checkride in airplanes that are more stable. The PTS standards are set by the FAA without regard to airplane type and become the basis for the pass / fail criteria.

If your daughter is considering a professional pilot career it is very important that she is given every opportunity to complete her training without a busted FAA checkride. While she might be a better pilot because of her RV instrument training the bust would follow her and would be something she would have to explain away at the job interviews.

Again just my opinion but I would recommend finding a club airplane and CFII to do the training and buy the RV for all the other right reasons.

Good luck to her in her flying. We need more people flying for the right reasons.

[crabandy]

I've been lucky enough to help several guys get an instrument ticket in a 9A and a 10. If anything I would say they are better instrument pilots because they learned in an RV, much easier for them to fly a 172 IFR than a 172 pilot to fly an RV IFR. No issues with the DPE, in fact he was very impressed with the airplanes especially the 10.

[60av8tor]

I have mixed emotions about this topic. I just did 2.5 of actual this AM. The weather has been perfect IFR lately - 700-1000 ceilings. I decided to reset my currency so I did a round robin with 6 approaches and some holding. First off, a round robin is always very busy; you're usually setting up for the next arrival before established in cruise off the missed, etc. I also hand flew almost the entire flight - only used the autopilot when briefing/setting up the avionics for the next approach.

I will say that at times I was concentrating very hard to keep tight tolerances. I will also say that a few times I had altitude deviations, that while not worthy of ATC's attention, I would not want to have had a CFII next to me - let alone a DPE. These deviations happened VERY quickly.

I learned flying instruments in helicopters, so I know about squirrelly birds in the clouds, but I would have a hard time recommending beginning in an RV (perhaps the 9 or 10 would be different). At the very least I would spend some time in a traditional trainer getting comfortable with basic scan, procedures, etc then move into the RV.

That all being said, using an autopilot is a whole different ball game. Once the switchology is down cold, nothing could be easier than flying instruments in a TAA. By the end of flying 6 approaches by hand, I appreciated having the AP more than you can imagine.

[BobTurner]

I'm a cfii, fly my -10 in imc, and have instructed one pilot in his -10 to completion for his instrument rating.
The -10 is less stable in both pitch and roll than, say a 182; and the -6 or -7 is less stable than the -10. What this means is that the pilot must be very proficient at all other tasks besides basic control. In a 182 you might get away with staring at an approach plate, or a gps, for 30 seconds while you try to find what you are looking for. That won't work in an RV. Starting from scratch in a well equiped RV will take more time to get to check ride ready status than if you rent a 172, not only because of the lower stability of the RV but because you must be able to BOTH hand fly the airplane on just back up instruments AND demonstrate mastery of all the fancy equipment. Do not under estimate the latter. Learning to fully use ifr gps, and autopilots, is a big deal and takes time.
So my opinions:
Can you get the rating in an RV? Yes. Around here finding a cfii and an examiner for an RV is not difficult.
Is it quicker and easier to get the rating in a 172? Yes.
What is the total time to competancy in the RV? Is it quicker to go in the 172, then transition, or do it all in the RV? IMHO either way is about the same.
Daughter plans to get cfi. Will she be able to fly the 172 okay if she does her training in the RV? No, she will need training. Going from glass to 6 pack seems to be harder than 6 pack to glass. Also, with no gps, position awareness is awful with pilots who learned with a moving map.
The choice really depends on the pilot. If your preferred method of learning to swim is to start in the shallow end, then start with the rental 172. If you liked learning to swim by jumping into the deep end, then starting out in the RV is okay.

[RhinoDrvr]

As a civilian trained PPL who did his instrument training in two touchy airplanes without autopilots (T-6B / T-45C) I'll say this;

A jet (which your daughter will eventually fly) will deviate from an altitude faster than any RV will. Learning to fly in a sensitive aircraft such as an RV that takes a constant instrument scan builds the skills required to fly any jet.

As long as the aircraft is instrument equipped, and you can find a CFI/DPE who is willing to train/check in it...go for it. You'll rise to the challenge. IFR in an aircraft like an RV is more demanding of a quick scan, but so are the higher performance aircraft that a career pilot will fly in the future.