Insturment Rating Checkride: how to get into Hoding?

[Guest atelem]

Hi Everybody.I'm officially gave up on this and hereby challenge you to pass this Checkride in FS2004.I read every thread I could lay hand on, in English & Hebrew, posted questions in several forums, read documents, saw video, and still I can't make it into the Holding.Particularly, I get the ever so lovely failure announcement when I start the Dear-drop entry (from 140 degrees to 320).If you know how to enter that Holding, please be kind and post here the answer to probably the most annoying Checkride in FS.thanxayal.

[Avcomware 1]

Hi.Do a Search for "avcomware" in the FSX Forum, used to be FS9, and look back about 2 years. If you cannot find what you need, post here again. TV

[Chuck_B 2]

I'm wit you, Ayal. I gave up on this checkride about 6 months ago, and am just pretending it doesn't exist. Who needs the aggravation? I'm simming to have fun.Chuck

[mnmon 0]

After seeing these posts I decided to give it a try. I've never even touched any of the lesson sections in FS. Just some background: been simming since SubLogic, had a PPL even further back :-) I've been doing instrument approaches after learning procedures from a great book: Flying on Instruments with FS. I can now do NDB, VOR, precision approaches in everything from C172 to 737. Not trying to brag, just setting the stage. Ok, printed out the first IAP chart: VOR to 34R at KSEA. Got the approach ingrained in my head, plus had the chart set up next to the monitor. Ran the checkride. As far as I could see, I did very well. Turned onto the approach course and held it very tightly, started the descent at FACTS INT at 5,000 ft. Nailed the altitudes at the next two markers. Broke out of the clouds at 1400 ft; at 1000 ft had the runway clearly in sight and lined up (which is clearly above the published MDA of 840 ft), and then greased a landing at which point FS said I crashed. Pardon my language, but #####? So I tried it again, only didn't land and got the go-around command and to use the published MA. I did: publish was climb to 2000, to 3.4 DME, then climb to 5000 to the NDB and hold, all on the 341 radial. While climbing to 3000 FS stopped the ride, said I failed miserably, didn't keep altitudes, didn't keep course, broke MDA, etc. etc. etc. I checked my flight profile and it looked like it could fit perfectly over the approach chart profile. At that point I decided that this is one very messed up part of FS. Back to some more realistic IFR sim flying. ;-) Mike

[Chuck_B 2]

I'm pretty sure it has do with the back course or resetting the nav radios -- she says feel free to pause the sim to do so, and as I recall there's a one degree course shift required after you abort the landing. AND, you are absolutely right: DO NOT actually land, landing causes you to FAIL. Abort and go to holding.Honestly, I was getting way too frustrated and I'm just taking a pass on the whole checkride. That was months ago and since then I've learned way too much to really worry about it.Chuck

[Guest Aviator4life]

Here is the modified text of a tutorial I did several years ago for the IR checkride. Yup, I did tutorials for all the FS9 checkrides which included screenshots as well but after the initial interest faded I took them off our website. I belong to a very nice VA called Tasman Pacific (in existence for about 7 years now). Stop by and check us out, or get a hold of me via the pilot

[Guest DocW]

Excellent, didn#t knew that such a thing existed. Great work. Thank you.

[mnmon 0]

Well, the fact that one must use the digital readouts at the top of the screen rather than the actual instruments tells me that the tolerences built into this scenario are a bit ridiculous. Mike

[Guest DocW]

yes, indeed. Doing it this way is a little like cheating.

[Chuck_B 2]

This is great! Thank you for all your efforts -- now and in the past!In real world flying, I'd never go into a IR checkride cold -- I'd practice a lot, with an instructor's help and hints. AFAIC, if the failure tolerances in the program are set so closely and the documentation/failure parameters are so thinly documented to me that is kind of like cheating, a programmer's way of having a little chuckle at us. ;-)I just really appreciate the help an a part of FS that had me confounded! And I've learned a lot that will now carry over into other aspects of my flight simming.Thanks again.Chuck

[old_doggie 0]

>>>So I tried it again, only didn't land and got the go-around>command and to use the published MA. I did: publish was climb>to 2000, to 3.4 DME, then climb to 5000 to the NDB and hold,>all on the 341 radial. While climbing to 3000 FS stopped the>ride, said I failed miserably, didn't keep altitudes, didn't>keep course, broke MDA, etc. etc. etc. I checked my flight>profile and it looked like it could fit perfectly over the>approach chart profile. At that point I decided that this is>one very messed up part of FS. >Let me start off by saying my sim is not patched so maybe these things were fixed in ver9.1.BUT -There are two IAP's for the 34L/R Vor App . The current IAP has the inbound and MA as you stated/ flown above, ***BUT** the checkride is based on the other IAP with inbound being 158*Radial /338 track changing to the 339*radial outbound SEA on the MA, Altitudes are the same on the approach but MA reads climb to 2100 via 339*radial to Parkk LOM and hold, 5.8DME. The checkride has many, many way too many quirks.THERE SHOULD BE NONE OF THAT BS, but sadly there is.This ride starts off with your aircraft on a 066* heading somewhere south and west of FACTS int ( which is the initial app fix )and is identified by the 158*Radial SEA/VOR 17.0dme and the 066*Radial 6.9dme McChord VOR. The initial clearence from the "voice" is DIRECT FACTS then cleared for the VOR app 34R at SEA airport. I take the clearance exactly as delivered and in RW would read back "Dir Facts cleared VOR 34R app Cessna 12345' as that is what ATC is expecting! There also would be an Altitude, heading/track and airspeed to maintain the latter sometimes is given as PD. Now, unless you are setup to go Direct FACTS - the 066* heading is not going to cut it. You can do a real quick air plot or bring up your gps as you will not be able to accurately find FACTS, or you can pause, take a look see at the map view or do a best guess or come up with some other cleaver maneuver to get you "DIRECT" to the IAF as that 066* heading will intersect the inbound radial at some point then you can fly onto FACTS depending on which chart version you are using. lol .Maybe in the patched version the flight starts off over McChord which will negate the direct Facts/066* heading snafu as the 066*Radial there takes you DIRECT FACTS (Know where you are and where you are going) Flying is in part based on knowing where your are and where you are going. If you do not know these two simple things, well friends you are lost. If it sounds like I am ranting then I am. If M$ had used "Real Pilots" to check these rides out they would have ended up with some very unsavory comments - what a crock of dog doody. Hmmmm , unless of course you had to tow the party line.These checkrides are more of a GAME than "AS real as it gets" you mission is to guess whats in the game...A few years ago I rewrote the entire ATP checkride and got rid of all the the crap, You can check it out at;http://www.angelfire.com/ult/fsflightline/...ing_737ATP.htmlor download it from flightsim.com I thought I had uploaded it to Avsim as well but it appears that I have not.Below are two pics. One shows the start point on the chk ride the othe shows the same start point but with a gps track drawn in.My 10 cents.Douglas Ret B-707 http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/174023.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/174024.jpg

[Guest Aviator4life]

To each their own. Yes there are other ways/things you can do to pass this check ride. I found that by flying it as I describe in the tutorial it is easy to pass consistently.Some may consider using the digital display "cheating". I'll tell you what, I'm a realworld pilot and I call it good CRM (cockpit resource management). Is it necessary to use the digital display in order to fly the checkride as I have described in the tutorial? Absolutely Not. As I said at the end of the tutorial, I wrote it with beginners and more experienced sim-pilots alike. Why handicap newcomers to flight-simming?At no time, and in no way did I ever try to make this a "realworld" conversion for this checkride.I simply explained what is wrong with the checkride where necessary, and gave detailed instructions for how to fly it with a stock version of the game and pass it on a consistent basis. Many flight-simmers have passed not only this checkride, but other FS9 checkrides, with the help of the tutorials I created. At least that is what the several hundred emails I've received over the years have indicated.Use this tutorial or don't. I just tried to give something back to the flight-simming community by creating the tutorials in the first place. I never represented them as correct/proper by realworld standards, matter of fact I make a statement to the contrary in the tutorials themselves.Even though there is a reason (making it easier for new flight-sim pilots) for my recommendation to use the digital display, I think it is trivial nitpicking to IMPLY that the tutorial is "cheating"/not realistic. Why?1) The checkrides as included in a stock version of FS9 are NOT realistic, period. Any realworld pilot will vouch for this fact.2) There are many aircraft with glass cockpits now (right down to C-172's) That provide information via digital displays with analog gauges used as a back-up for the primary MFD's. Not to mention that the information on a GPS unit is digital as well.If it helps you, fine. If you want to nitpick, well, no need to thank me, I was only trying to help the flight-sim community when I wrote the tutorials.I had given thought to re-posting my tutorials, in their complete form with screenshots, for all to use, or at least putting them into zip files and uploading them here to the library. Thanks for saving me the work Douglas. Yup, the FS9 checkrides are not realistic, and because they are unrealistic that makes them useless to everyone, even those restricted to flight-simming, or even those young people out there who dream of someday passing a realworld checkride.I'm not even going to try and compete with the negativity.Best Regards All, even you Douglas.

[old_doggie 0]

Aviator4lifewOW. you thought my comments were directed to you. not so at all.I have no problem with addressing you directly, if that was my intent however my reply was to clarify a point to mnmon as I stated there are two different IAPs so to be aware of that. The rest of my dribble had nothing to do with you or anyone else here cept M$. All tutorials are a great aid and to write them out takes a lot of time etc. I have only written two, THE ATP and the Comm pilot I way to long in the tooth to get into any bashing exchanges and never really cared for that sort of thing.Best RegardsDouglas B-707 Ret.

[mnmon 0]

AViator4life:Me too!!! My comments were entirely directed at MS, NOT at your tutorial. I think it's impressive you figured out how to pass the checkride. Your findings just shed more light on the fact that MS messed up their programming of this little bit of FS. Mike

[Guest Aviator4life]

Douglas,At the risk of being OT here . . .Didn't think your post was directed at me. What I did think about it was that it was part of the negativity as regards this checkride and the FS9 checkrides in general.What I was trying to say, is that if retired B-707 pilots or other more "senior" r/w pilots were going to criticize the checkrides in this thread, then I'm not going to try and counter that negativity with more help.The MS FS9 checkrides are what they are. Anyone with any r/w experience knows that, goes without saying. I thought the point of this thread was to take up the challenge offered by the OP and pass the checkride. I even went so far as to offer a tutorial on how to do so, since I had one that I wrote sitting on my harddrive.No hard feelings, and no animosity here for you. I just thought that if this thread was going in another direction that I'd just bow out and not waste any more time on the subject.If it's presently the general concensus of the flight-sim community that these checkrides are useless far be it from me to convince anyone otherwise. I'm not going to try and change anyone's mind, let alone make any further efforts regarding FS9 checkrides, that's all I was trying to say. I just used your post to make a point. I should have known better that it might be misinterpreted as something personal.I agree completely with you, too many things better to do than play keyboard karate on a forum, lol! My apologies for not stating my position in a clearer way that didn't leave any room for misinterpretation. That was my bad (no sarcasm intended).All my best, clear skies, and tailwinds to 'ya!Dave