FAA Instrument Rating common mistakes
FAA Instrument Rating · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Computing a cross-country fuel and alternate plan without verifying that the destination and alternate weather forecasts are valid for the planned arrival window (e.g., using a TAF whose validity period ends before the ETA), then declaring the flight legal.
Candidates often grab the current METAR/TAF text and mentally average it, without checking forecaster issue time, amendment status, or the valid period against the actual arrival time. The planning habit carried over from private pilot training treats weather as a static snapshot rather than a timeline keyed to the flight.
What to do instead
Build a timeline table before every flight: departure, destination ETA, alternate ETA, and the valid period of each forecast product covering those times. Confirm the TAF period brackets the ETA plus a buffer, note any TEMPO or PROB30 groups that could affect the alternate, and recompute alternate minimums and fuel if the forecast is not valid for the window. Practice this with an instructor until it becomes a checklist step, not an afterthought.
Using the approach chart's published minimums as the sole basis for alternate selection, without applying the standard alternate minimums table or checking whether the airport is in the 'NA' (not authorized) alternate list.
The alternate minimums printed on the approach plate are easy to confuse with the standard alternate minimums in the front of the terminal procedures publication. Candidates also skip the alternate airport listing because the airport is not the destination and feels like a secondary concern.
What to do instead
For every planned alternate, open the alternate minimums section of the TPP (or the applicable chart legend) and confirm the airport is not listed 'NA' for the approach you intend. If a specific alternate minimum is published, use it; otherwise apply the standard 600-2 / 800-2 rule based on the approach type. Write the chosen minimums, the source, and the required visibility next to the alternate on the flight plan so the reasoning is auditable.
Filing an IFR flight plan with a route that does not connect the departure and destination via published airways, or that omits the departure procedure / SID transition, then expecting ATC to fill in the gaps.
Candidates trained mostly in visual flight planning think in terms of direct-to waypoints and navaids. The IFR route structure, preferred routes, and the requirement that the route be flyable by reference to navigation aids or radar vectors are not intuitive, and route strings in flight planning software can mask discontinuities.
What to do instead
Before filing, plot the route on an en route low-altitude chart and trace it end to end: departure airport to first fix, every airway with its direction and altitude, and the arrival/approach transition. Verify airway segment directions and MEAs along the way. If the route uses a SID or STAR, include the full transition in the filed string. Use the preferred route database where available, and review the cleared route against the charted route in flight.
Reading back a clearance by repeating only the key items (altitude, heading, frequency) and omitting the route, expect-further-clearance instruction, or the clearance limit.
Under workload, candidates latch onto the items they think they need next and drop the rest. The clearance readback is often rushed while heads-down in the cockpit, and candidates overestimate how much of a multi-element clearance they retained.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed readback template: clearance limit, route, altitude, expect-further-clearance time, departure frequency, squawk, and any hold or speed restriction. Write the clearance on a pad using the C-R-A-F-T sequence (Clearance limit, Route, Altitude, Frequency, Transponder) before keying the mic, then read back from the pad. If any element is missing, say 'say again' for that element rather than guessing.
Accepting a 'descend via' or 'climb via' clearance without confirming that the charted procedure, the assigned altitude, and any published speed restrictions are all understood and correctly read back.
'Via' clearances compress a lot of information into a short transmission, and candidates assume the phrase means simply 'follow the chart.' They miss that a 'descend via' clearance requires compliance with charted crossing restrictions and speeds unless deleted, and that the bottom altitude must be read back.
What to do instead
When you hear 'via,' immediately identify the procedure, the assigned bottom or top altitude, and any charted restrictions. Read back the procedure name, the assigned altitude, and any speed restriction, and state 'descend via the [name] arrival' explicitly. Brief the vertical profile and speed restrictions before starting the descent. If the clearance is ambiguous, ask ATC to confirm the bottom altitude and whether speeds are published.
Losing control of altitude and heading during the first minutes after entering instrument meteorological conditions or after a clearance change, because the scan collapses onto one instrument.
The transition from visual to instrument reference is a high-workload moment, and candidates fixate on the attitude indicator or the altimeter while neglecting the turn coordinator and airspeed. The result is a slow, unnoticed climb or descent and a heading drift that compounds with each correction.
What to do instead
Practice a deliberate scan cycle: attitude, then airspeed, altimeter, turn coordinator, heading, vertical speed, and back to attitude, with brief pauses rather than a continuous sweep. Establish a known pitch-and-power setting for level flight and trim before making radio calls. After any clearance change, make the pitch/power change first, then talk. Use the attitude indicator as the anchor and cross-check with the supporting instruments every few seconds.
Flying a partial-panel or unusual-attitude recovery by chasing the failed instrument's indications instead of cross-checking the remaining instruments and establishing a known attitude and power setting.
Candidates learn the recovery procedure as a sequence of steps but do not internalize which instruments remain reliable after a vacuum or pitot-static failure. Under stress, they revert to the full-panel scan and react to false indications, which can produce a spiral or an accelerated stall.
What to do instead
Before each flight, state aloud which instruments depend on which system (vacuum: attitude and heading; pitot-static: airspeed, altimeter, VSI). In training, cover the failed instruments and fly solely by the remaining ones: for a vacuum failure, use the turn coordinator, altimeter, airspeed, and VSI; for a pitot-static failure, use the attitude indicator and power settings. Practice recovery to level flight with a fixed power setting and trim, then verify with the reliable instruments before making any turn.
Treating the hold entry as a mental geometry puzzle in the air, resulting in an incorrect entry, an overshoot of the holding radial, or a turn in the wrong direction.
Candidates try to visualize the hold and the aircraft's position simultaneously without a systematic method, and the resulting entry decision is often made too late or based on the wrong reference (heading instead of the inbound course). Wind drift during the entry is also ignored.
What to do instead
Use a consistent, written method: determine the inbound course, draw the hold on the chart or a notepad, and apply the standard 70-degree / parallel / teardrop criteria relative to the inbound course, not the aircraft heading. Compute the entry before reaching the fix, state it aloud, and apply wind correction during the entry turn. After the first turn, verify the outbound heading against the holding radial and correct before the abeam position.
Performing the instrument approach briefing as a recitation of chart numbers rather than a decision-making brief that includes the missed approach, the go-around criteria, and the plan if the approach becomes unstable.
Candidates memorize the briefing format and fill in frequencies and minimums, but skip the 'what if' portion because it feels redundant. The result is that the missed approach is first considered at the missed approach point, when workload is highest.
What to do instead
Brief the approach in four parts: setup (frequencies, course, altitudes, minimums), the vertical and lateral path with any step-down fixes, the missed approach procedure including the initial climb and hold, and the personal minimums and unstable-approach criteria that trigger a go-around. State the missed approach altitude and heading aloud. Rehearse the missed approach once on the ground and again during the approach briefing.
Skipping a systematic preflight instrument and systems check, then discovering an inoperative attitude indicator, a failed pitot heat, or an uncharged standby instrument after takeoff.
The preflight inspection focuses on the airframe, and the instrument and avionics checks are treated as a quick glance. Candidates assume the previous pilot or the shop verified the systems, and they do not know which checks are required for IFR flight versus nice-to-have.
What to do instead
Use a written IFR-specific preflight checklist that covers pitot heat, static system, vacuum or electrical source for gyros, alternate static source, standby attitude indicator and its battery, GPS database currency and RAIM prediction, and all required avionics. Verify each item with a positive indication, not just a switch position. Record any discrepancy and resolve it before departure, and note the equipment status on the flight plan.