Student expectations, instructor expectations.

In another thread about IFR training, a statement was made that I find quite interesting.

Due to the already major thread drift in the prior thread, I decided to start one that will hopefully deal with some of the things cropping up in that thread.

First off, I am NOT trying to take a cheap shot at anyone, nor am I trying to start an argument--------I am trying to understand something.

In the other thread the statement was made that an instructor may say "bring up the HSI display with the main CDI on the gps and the RMI needle on nav 1", and expect you to do it.

This shows that the instructor has certain expectations, namely being able to "bring up the HSI display with the main CDI on the gps and the RMI needle on nav 1".

I on the other hand, expect the instructor to teach me how to do that. I am the student-------I need to learn things like this. (by the way, I can bring up the HSI, although I have no idea how to set it to GPS, and no idea what a RMI even is)

So, here is the question for those of you planning on getting your IFR rating, and also for you CFIIs out there. What is your expectation for the training???

To start, here are my expectations; first of all, I expect the instructor to be able to teach me anything I need to know, but do not currently know about my nav equipment, and how to use it to safely fly in IFR conditions. Secondly, I expect the instructor to prepare me to take and pass the IFR check ride. Luckily, I have found an instructor close by who flies a RV 10, with a panel pretty much like mine.

So, what say you out there, students and instructors alike.

I think that's a high order for someone teaching in an E-AB where there's a HUGE range of navigation options. But it is a very reasonable order, and one that you should expect of your CFII as an instrument student. It may take some serious effort to find a CFII that knows or is willing to learn your system. As a CFII, I would want to know all there is to know about a student's airplane before starting training, or at least learn it as we go through the basic training, so that I can explain all that stuff and how/why to use it. Systems is also important-- if gizmo 1 and 2 fail, how are you going to get home? And as we all know, these airplanes are all wired and set up differently. It should take some extra effort on the part of the CFII to do it right.

Hi Mike,

I of course wrote that, and was thinking of you since it applies directly to GRT equipment.

What I meant was that that was typical of what I would expect you to be able to do, before starting actual flying. As others have said, the flying cockpit is no place to learn that stuff.

So I meant to suggest that you get a list of stuff like that from your proposed cfii, then go away and learn how to do it, on the ground. Either by yourself, or with help from a friend, or by scheduling ground sessions with a cfi familiar with your equipment. In the latter case this may or may not be the cfi who will be your instrument instructor.

If your proposed cfii happens to be proficient in your equipment and you want to use him to fulfill both roles (ground and flight instructor) that's fine. But it doesn't have to be that way. You can do some of this in flight but it will be much slower and more expensive that way.

It's important to not underestimate the time this familiarization will take.

The OP was considering PIC for flight training, and I meant to say that in all likelihood he would need to get the ground training out of the way before the PIC guy arrived - whether self-taught, or by getting other help locally.

Another example. I would expect you to be proficient in using your autopilot to climb, level, descend, track ground course, etc. in a stand-alone mode. I would also expect you to be able to do that stuff thru the GRT, as well as heading track, vor/ils track, etc. EDIT: Again, this is before actually flying. Whether it is your cfii or yourself or another instructor who helps you is not important; just that it get done before flying. I honestly see no way a PIC instructor could get anyone ready for the flight test in a TAA in 10 days if the pilot has not gotten "ground-proficient" before the 10 days start.

So I see (1) prep for written; (2) ground familiarization with all on-board equipment; and (3) instrument flying, as 3 separate things. For the vast majority of E-AB owners it will be near impossible to find one person who can do all 3 well (this gets back to Bill and Katie's comments that every E-AB is a bit different), and I see no reason why they cannot be done by 3 different people (or self-study, if appropriate). If you're using something like PIC I think it will HAVE to be done by different people (or at least not in 10 days).

Bob

BobTurner said:

The OP was considering PIC for flight training, and I meant to say that in all likelihood he would need to get the ground training out of the way before the PIC guy arrived - whether self-taught, or by getting other help locally.


Bob

Click to expand...

Bob, understand completely--------but the reason I started this thread is to get away from the PIC question in the other thread. Lets leave them----PIC---- to their own thread.

I am trying to determine if my expectations are realistic, and if they are common among students.

Also, are they the same as the instructors expectations, or are there major areas of difference between what the students want/expect and what the instructors want/expect.

If, as I suspect there are different mind sets between the student population, and the instructor population, I think it would be very helpful to both groups to become aware of and to understand these differences.

I have know folks who have the attitude of "I am paying you, so do what I tell you to do, or I will find another instructor". And, I have bumped into instructors whose attitude is "I am the instructor, do what I tell you to do, or go find yourself another instructor."

Neither of the above examples is conducive to the learning process...............

... first of all, I expect the instructor to be able to teach me anything I need to know, but do not currently know about my nav equipment, and how to use it to safely fly in IFR conditions....

Secondly, I expect the instructor to prepare me to take and pass the IFR check ride....

Click to expand...

First - not so unreasonable an expectation if you go to a flight school that provides the aircraft. When the situation changes and the student provides the aircraft, the instructor is quite likely to see equipment they don't use often - especially with Experimental. So, the notion that the instructor is expected to teach to the "anything" standard is not realistic unless you hand the aircraft to the instructor for a period of time for them to become totally familiar with it. Even so, there will be a difference between knowledge just up to the Practical Test Standards and a comprehensive knowledge to the "anything" standard you allude to.

Second, the responsibility for the preparation to pass the ride belongs to the student. The instructor can teach the subject areas and evaluate according to the PTS and provide the feedback and coaching. He can sign off the student for the ride based on a professional belief that the student can perform the required tasks to the specified standards - but on the day of the ride, it's really up to the student. It really boils down to probability not certainty of the outcome.

I'm afraid I'd have to admit to a potential IFR student that opined these expectations that I'm not the instructor that he's looking for.

Dan

To follow up on Dan's thoughts: it's the "knows everything about everything in my panel" that's the hang up here. There may well be only a few cfii's in the state, or maybe even the US, that would qualify. One option, very expensive, is to find such a person and travel there. More realistic is to find someone who is close by but not perfect. As we (Mike) have previously discussed, you and I would be a pretty good - but not perfect - match except that if we're honest, the commute costs would almost double the cost of training. (Unless, of course, "flying is free" is your motto -). My weakness is the autopilot. I have a Trio, you have a TT. My last RV10/ifr student also had a TT, and he didn't know how to use it at all. So I downloaded the manual (he didn't have one here) which turned out to be for newer versions, but nonetheless we muddled thru it. Of course once I figured out how to couple it to the GRT I was back in familiar territory; but that's not good enough. The stand alone capability is a very important safety feature should the GRT die, and he/you need to be proficient in using it that way. So for you and I, I would recommend you find someone local who has and knows how to use a TT in stand alone (not coupled to the efis). This would be far better, cheaper and more efficient use of time, than me trying to re-learn (in 3 years I've already forgotten everything about the TT) it.

BTW: I'll bet $5 you know how to "set up the HSI with the CDI on the gps and an RMI needle on the VOR"; you just don't know you know!
First of all, in studying for the written you'll find out what an RMI is. As I said, I suggest to all my ifr students that they get the written done before even starting flying.
Next: on the GRT EFIS, main (PFD) page, push the second button from the right to select "gps" (or "gps1" or 'gps2' if appropriate) as the nav source. I'm sure you've done this for VFR flying. You are now done. If you call up the HSI the gps course deviation will be shown on the main CDI bar, and any (up to two) VOR's that you've tuned in will automatically be displayed as RMI needles. Not so hard.

I'll say this one more time and then stop. All this button pushing - the EFIS, the autopilot, the GTN, .... - has to be practiced over and over until it's second nature. Remember that in the air, you'll devote 90% of your time to just watching the flight instruments, so all the button pushing has to be done in the other 10%. (and talking to ATC and engine management squeezed in too.) So the actual flight training will go much smoother if you've really mastered the button pushing first. TAA airplanes are great - but they actually take considerably more training time to master than a 172 with a "6 pack" of flight instruments, plus a pair of nav radios.

Mike S said:

I have know folks who have the attitude of "I am paying you, so do what I tell you to do, or I will find another instructor". And, I have bumped into instructors whose attitude is "I am the instructor, do what I tell you to do, or go find yourself another instructor."

Neither of the above examples is conducive to the learning process...............

Click to expand...

I quite agree. It's important to remember that even between good, polite pilots and good, polite cfi's, there can be personality differences, differences in teaching style (I currently have a primary student who just flew with another cfi, as required by the local flying club. He said it was interesting to see our differences - Steve was more "seat of the pants", I was more "analytical", to use his words. Not good or bad, just different). In cases where people don't mesh well, a parting of the ways is called for, and it should be very civil. A decent cfi knows that his personality is not a good match for everyone. Fortunately for me, I have never personally run into the "my way or the highway" type (neither 'student' nor cfi), but I'm sure there are some out there.

Mike,
Intellectually I agree with you, but I have to leave room for the fact that I can't expect anyone to know everything about all the various combinations of avionics out there. I would consider it my responsibility to learn about my specific avionics capabilities and be able to convert what my instructor was asking for.
BUT I would expect my CFII to have the same respect for me and understand that I may not know how to do that and give me advanced notice so I can have the plane prepped for the lesson.

Lemmingman said:

Mike,
Intellectually I agree with you, but I have to leave room for the fact that I can't expect anyone to know everything about all the various combinations of avionics out there.

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

Expectations rarely match reality.

This thread is meant to generate discussion, so such an outrageous statement just might just be considered to be a bit of

As a CFII here is my lousy two cents regarding the original question. As the instructor giving an advanced rating I expect the student to have a slightly greater knowledge base than somebody just learning to fly. With that said, if I jumped in your airplane and asked you to perform some task with your avionics suite that you were unfamiliar with, we would either take the time right then and there to learn it or I would modify the lesson for the day and send you off with homework. That decision would be based on a myriad of factors. One of the most important rules of teaching is recognizing that not everybody learns the same way.

BobTurner said:

I'll say this one more time and then stop. All this button pushing - the EFIS, the autopilot, the GTN, .... - has to be practiced over and over until it's second nature. Remember that in the air, you'll devote 90% of your time to just watching the flight instruments, so all the button pushing has to be done in the other 10%. (and talking to ATC and engine management squeezed in too.) So the actual flight training will go much smoother if you've really mastered the button pushing first. TAA airplanes are great - but they actually take considerably more training time to master than a 172 with a "6 pack" of flight instruments, plus a pair of nav radios.

Click to expand...

This statement of Bob's, pretty much sums it all up, in my opinion. The 172 with a "6 pack" and dual nav/coms might well be the fastest and simplest route to the instrument rating. Of course, one would still not know how to operate IFR with the wonderful equipment many of us put in our EAB airplanes.

xblueh2o said:

if I jumped in your airplane and asked you to perform some task with your avionics suite that you were unfamiliar with, we would either take the time right then and there to learn it or I would modify the lesson for the day and send you off with homework. That decision would be based on a myriad of factors. One of the most important rules of teaching is recognizing that not everybody learns the same way.

Click to expand...

Sam, best comment of the thread by far, including any I have made.

I think this goes back to instruction 101 - an analogy would be asking a primary student in his first couple of hours to, "give me a 30 degree bank turn to a heading of 180," or, "dial up 122.8 and make an announcement on UNICOM." If this hasn't been briefed, demoed, chair-flown (practiced on the ground) or tried in the air, then there shouldn't be any expectation that the student has any idea what you're talking about. In a perfect world you would know all the ins and outs of your system but in reality you're going to need some help in areas you don't yet understand.

Lacking a flight simulator, some time spent on the ground on ground power (with instruction, and then as practice) will make a big difference in flight - the buttonology is important, as Bob says, not only to get right, but so as to not become a big 'face magnet' with the corresponding flight deviations. After doing the required calibration and set up to get our system functioning, we plan to do just that and draft up initial checklists for various phases of flight - how to load a flight plan, update it in flight, get set up for various types of approaches, etc. Then after trying it in flight and the inevitable RTFM it'll get tweaked.

Hopefully, discussion with the instructor to determine what's known and what's not should go a long way towards mapping out a plan of attack. At some point in the training you should be expected to be able to understand what is being asked of you and be able to flog your way through it.

I think the instructor does have some responsibility for being familiar with the basic functions of the avionics - I had an instrument refresher in a 172 that neither I nor the instructor was completely familiar with, and what would have taken 2 or three minutes to sort out on the ground took two attempts at a GPS approach to finally get right. So, I learned something (good) but maybe not by the most efficient means. And bad on me for not taking my advice from above...

==dave==

"So, here is the question for those of you planning on getting your IFR rating, and also for you CFIIs out there. What is your expectation for the training???"

As a CFI-I, when I see this question I think:
1. This person HAS NOT started training or
2. The CFI has failed to provide a syllabus & no reference to the PTS

You will be expected to operate, understand (limitations and emergency procedures) all of the equipment on your plane.

I recently had a student who explained that ?he was just a weekend pilot? and therefore his level of knowledge/skill could be lower. The ice, clouds, cross-wind and emergencies have no idea who is at the controls. Professionalism IS NOT whether you get paid or not-it?s an attitude and approach to flying.

Make sure that you read and understand the syllabus and PTS. If your CFI-I is not following a syllabus you are being shortchanged.

I think that if you step back and look at this a little more globally, you should expect from the instructor what you contract the instructor to do. If, when you are looking for an instructor, you tell him - up front - that you need him to teach you the details of how to use a GRT system as WELL as preparing you for the instrument checkride (per the PTS, etc), then that is the contract you have made. If no one takes the contract, you have to look for someone else to do the initial training.

This really isn't that hard Mike - you must be up front about what you want, and hopefully the instructor will be up front about what they can provide. No mystery, no secrets - and then no hard feelings.

If you don't hammer out the expectations long before you get near the airplane, you have both failed.

In addition to what Paul said...

The way I would have started this course of training, as a CFII, in an aircraft well equipped (and unfamiliar to me) is to plug in the airplane to ground power and never start the engine. Sit in the airplane with the student in our seats. The entire first lesson would have been on the ground. We would chair fly the switchology and procedures of an entire flight, to cover:

start up procedures
instrument cockpit checks
attitude instrument flying (flying headings, climbs, descents, etc)
tracking a vor and a GPS course
direct to(s)
vectors to intercept a course
loading, briefing, and flying an approach
Landing procedures and shutdown
Post flight responsibilities

This entire lesson would have been conducted with charts, operating manuals for efis/GPS/autopilot systems etc as if we were flying an actual ifr flight from point a to point b. It would probably take between 1.5-2 hours.

And until some moderate level of proficiency with the installed technology available, this lesson would be repeated. I would expect to also be compensated for the instruction even though the Hobbs never turned.

I think you will find that conducting such "ground based simulator" time to make the learning process quicker, more efficient, cheaper, and more thorough.

In the airlines we use paper mock ups before ever getting to a non- flying simulator where we must show procedural mastery before going into the full motion sim. There is a reason for this. If you are concentrating on keeping the shiny side up while learning how to set the obs,how much capacity do you have for learning the procedure? If you can learn procedures without being pestered by flying, you will be able to put the procedures to use with little thought and concentrate on the stick skill when actually burning 100LL$$.

IFR on the ground

Hi Mike

I tend to agree with joeflys approach.

I got my PPL a little over a year ago and almost immediately started on OTT. The purpose was to give me some minimal advanced skills while I work toward IFR. Since I'm building my RV-9a most of my IFR training time will eventually be spent on a panel unfamiliar to my instructor.

My expectation is to be technically proficient with the functionality of the panel before I engage my instructor. I then expect to spend time on the ground with the instructor using the panel in a practical sense.

When I finally get into the air I expect my instructor will have gained some familiarity during ground sessions. And even though there may be some level of uncertainty on the part of my instructor I expect to pay for his time.

My expectation during OTT was more obvious because he was instructing with simulators and real aircraft he was completely familiar and proficient with. In my aircraft and a foreign panel I expect a learning curve. And if he decides he'd like to do some of his own research that's a bonus for me.

I still fly with that instructor in an IFR equipped Archer II for the IMC experience but will only do so now for ILS and IMC since we are loosing much of VOR ground based equipment in my area very quickly so it is largely becoming irrelevant. My panel will be GPS/IFR and a VOR/GPS/ILS handheld backup. My expectation on the handheld is to learn that on my own and pay my instructor for help if that does not come together.

Cheers.

Michael B.
College Fund Contributor 2014.

1bigdog said:

My panel will be GPS/IFR and a VOR/GPS/ILS handheld backup. My expectation on the handheld is to learn that on my own and pay my instructor for help if that does not come together.

Click to expand...

Has Canada changed its rules? It used to be that they required a nav aid in addition to the GPS, for ifr flying. Does hand held count?

Here in the US your panel would be legal for ifr; but paradoxically it would not be sufficient for taking your ifr practical test.

Having been a student and an instructor, here is my take.on the subject.

1. The instructor has to know the system. EFIS is easy if the functions of a particular system are understood. Programming the flight during the preflight phase of the flight is 98% of the effort. Inflight changes sometimes occur and must be executed when necessary but most flights will go as planned.

2. The student must be prepared for the lesson. A review of the EFIS system documentation is a good start. To expect, and many students do, an instructor to transfer what they know about anything without student preparation or study does not work.

In summary it's a two way process. The instructor must know the subject and the student must be prepared for the lesson. It is not all that complicated.

VOR in Canada

Bob

Depends what you mean by rules changed or NAV Aid.

When I started training OTT, which includes use of VOR, NDB ...
I trained on the Archer using traditional ground based beacons. That was during this past summer. Since then Transport Canada/Nav Canada have been aggressively decommissioning those radio nav aids such that our charts are changing quickly and loosing all the local waypoints and VOR routes. The IFR chart has become quite sparse in the Greater Toronto area.

So by the time I get to the panel design I believe the choice will have already been made for me. I'm quite comfortable using VOR and the such but I see no point putting it in the panel given these recent changes, BUT as a backup on a handheld it definitely gives me options if I loose the panel (power loss). The latest offerings from Vertex and Icom have a full nav/comm stack in a handheld. My current handheld does have VOR but missing ILS/GPS so I'll be upgrading.

Cheers.


Michael B.

Mike,
It was good seeing you the other day. One thought I have after reading this thread is - do you want to learn to fly in IFR conditions with an instructor that does not know your equipment enough to teach you? This is a good discussion for all parts of learning to fly.

There is no way an instructor can know every combination of systems we install in experimental airplanes. I believe there is a market for instructors that specialize in GRT, Dynon, Garmin, etc, systems. When I learned ACAD, I didn't ask a Microsoft instructor to teach me. They could show me how to get into the program but they can't teach me specifics.

If a person or the manufacture set up a system that they could instruct on, I would go to them to learn how to use it. I just spent a bucket of money on a Garmin system that I was thrilled can now display the "6 pack"! A day of instruction by someone that knows the system would make our flying safer and we would get full use out of the systems we buy.

Good luck on your IFR training.

rockwoodrv9 said:

Mike,
It was good seeing you the other day.

Click to expand...

You too Rocky , anytime.

rockwoodrv9 said:

One thought I have after reading this thread is - do you want to learn to fly in IFR conditions with an instructor that does not know your equipment enough to teach you? This is a good discussion for all parts of learning to fly.

Click to expand...

I started this thread to get people thinking-------both the students, and the instructors. After reading the thread about using the accelerated course I saw a trend where it looked like folks had expectations that were all over the map concerning IFR training--------specially with non standard panels.

As it turns out, I have been extremely lucky to have Bob Turner close by, and to be able to pick his brains. Bob happens to fly a RV 10, and has GRT EFIS like I do, so he is my obvious choice to do at the early portion of my instruction with.

For those who do not have a Bob to help, this is something that should be on your radar-------at least IMHO.

We worked it out

I got my IFR in the VOR/NDB/glide slope days, then quit using it during a very slow build process. I needed some instruction to learn to use the GPS and get my Competency. Between me and my new/younger instructor, we had the panel pretty well figured out after a couple of VFR flights with me wearing a hood. He obviously had flown behind other EFIS type equipment and had no trouble adapting to my Trutrak. I think we both enjoyed the process. (He was glad to get out of the 172 for a while.) I'm drawing social security, but the hardest part of IFR to me is not the technology, but learning the system, staying ahead of the plane, being mentally flexible and keeping my skills up. My instructor showed great adaptability because he flys a lot of different equipment and has to adapt all the time. I think you're better off letting the instructor get some learning in on your dime and doing it in your own plane while he teaches you IFR. Besides, it's priceless when he/she has to ask you how to do this or that. (Never happened in my instructor's plane.)

John

BobTurner said:

All this button pushing - the EFIS, the autopilot, the GTN, .... - has to be practiced over and over until it's second nature. Remember that in the air, you'll devote 90% of your time to just watching the flight instruments, so all the button pushing has to be done in the other 10%. (and talking to ATC and engine management squeezed in too.) So the actual flight training will go much smoother if you've really mastered the button pushing first.

Click to expand...

I've taught many people to fly instruments in both glass and analog airplanes, and I think the button pushing gets major focus from most people. That's where they start.

I also think it's the wrong approach. It's exactly opposite of where you should start. If you're devoting 90% of your time and energy to scanning instruments and essential flying, I hope there's an instructor on board.

When teaching an instrument student, I always start with basic aircraft control. I don't care if they know how to operate any of the systems. I don't care if it's glass or round gauges. I just want to see them flying level, making turns, climbing, descending, and doing those things in combination. No talking to ATC. No navigating. No button pushing of any kind. Just fly and learn to do it really well. Drill it until it's second nature.

Once that's truly mastered, I'll add in constant rate and speed climbs and descents. They key there is to know the power settings that give you specific speeds and performance. Once that's mastered, we can move on to tracking and intercepting courses. Then holds. THEN maybe we'll start talking about approaches.

It's a building-block method. In fact, it's very similar to private pilot instruction that way.

I don't understand instrument instruction that starts with flying approach procedures. That's like starting primary instruction with a solo cross country. It makes no sense. You must first establish a solid foundation of basic flying proficiency. Everything else is secondary.

Flying instruments is kind of like driving a manual transmission. You need to be proficient enough that it doesn't require major mental bandwidth, because you need that mental capacity for things like navigating, communicating, and so on.

If you're dedicating 90% of your mental focus to basic aircraft control, you're barely in control of the aircraft at all. Sadly, I see that a lot during recurrent instruction, IPCs, and so on.

Just my thoughts on it, of course.

--Ron

and don't forget partial panel

Ron

Agree with everything you've said. My instructor spent the bulk of the initial time getting me straight and level under the hood

and doing exactly the same with partial panel was very beneficial.

Not much point trying to navigate your destination if you happen to be spiraling downward in the process.

Cheers.

Michael B.
College fund contributor 2014

1bigdog said:

Not much point trying to navigate your destination if you happen to be spiraling downward in the process.

Click to expand...

That was very philosophical!

Yes, partial panel is very important, especially with glass because the scan is typically much different after the failure than before it. With analog, you're simply omitting instrument(s) that don't work. The remaining gauges are still in the same place. But with glass, the standby source of information are often in a different place. Then you're probably using ground track in lieu of heading, and that comes from a different place than the HSI. You might have to navigate off a moving map, default nav page, or other source. Sometimes people don't appreciate the challenge until they've tried it.

Ron,
I agree with most everything you said about flight instruction (except perhaps you misinterpreted my "90%" comment - that was aimed at new students, and I think you will agree that it does take time until flight control runs in 'background mode'). But you didn't say when and where you would introduce the 'button pushing' stuff. I advocate doing that on the ground, before it's needed in the air. I think that saves the student time and especially money. You can do it all up front, or just before the lesson where it's needed. However, if you do it just before the lesson where it's needed, the student won't have mastered it yet. So again he will be 'practicing' in-flight, where training is most expensive.

I have another reason for doing all the ground training up front. I think it's very important for students to get some actual IMC experience. Unfortunately the local wx is frequently vmc. So I am willing to jump ahead in the syllubus to take advantage of an actual IMC day, even if it means I need to 'help' the student more than normal. But it is best if he has the button pushing needed mastered, so that he does as much of the flying as he can.

As a CFII, if you ask for something that I don't know, in some cases you will be paying for me to do my homework and figure it out. But I bring experience to the table and can usually get there quickly.

And if I don't know something I will tell you...that is a rare commodity.

I suggest treating your training like a construction contract. Here are the existing conditions and here is what I want it to look like in the end. How much it will it cost and how long will take? Any change orders (usually unforeseen conditions) will cost extra which can be agreed upon prior to authorization.

BobTurner said:

But you didn't say when and where you would introduce the 'button pushing' stuff. I advocate doing that on the ground, before it's needed in the air.

Click to expand...

Definitely. As we've all discovered, a pilot's IQ drops by 10 points the minute he or she hits the starter. So it definitely saves time and money to figure out the avionics on the ground. If you can hook up a GPU, so much the better.

The button pushing comes little by little. If the student is new to glass and doesn't know the panel at all, I work with them on the ground a bit, and when we first fly it's a VFR experience. When the instrument training starts, I help them with the buttonology if they need it.

It helps tremendously that IFR flying is very procedural. Eventually I start to help them less and less and they have to figure it out on their own.

I love IMC days. They're a wonderful opportunity for students to experience The Real Thing. Much better than leaving them to fly in actual IMC for the first time on their own! I'll bend my training plan considerably in order to get them actual IMC experience. It's valuable, and of course we can't control the weather so some flexibility is required.