3G Heli Prep ← 3GHeliPrep.com
← Instrument lesson plans
IH.IX.A both lesson 30–45 minutes

Checking Instruments and Equipment

Postflight Procedures · Task Task A. Checking Instruments and Equipment

Completion Standards

Student demonstrates knowledge of all IH.IX.A items to ACS standards without reference to materials. Risk management items correctly identified. All skill elements performed to ACS tolerances.

Objective

The student will demonstrate proficiency in postflight inspection procedures and documentation requirements for an instrument-rated helicopter, including proper identification and documentation of instrument system discrepancies, equipment malfunctions, and servicing requirements discovered during or after instrument flight operations. Upon completion, the student will correctly perform a postflight inspection emphasizing instrument and avionics systems, identify discrepancies requiring maintenance action or inoperative equipment procedures, and properly document findings in accordance with 14 CFR Part 91 requirements and manufacturer guidance, meeting the standards outlined in ACS task IH.IX.A.

Content

Introduction and Importance

Postflight procedures are the final critical link in the instrument flight safety chain. Unlike VFR operations where many equipment items are recommended, instrument flight requires specific equipment functionality per 14 CFR 91.205(d) and 91.213. A thorough postflight inspection serves three essential purposes: (1) identifies discrepancies that occurred during flight before they compound into larger problems, (2) ensures proper documentation for maintenance tracking and regulatory compliance, and (3) protects the next pilot who flies the helicopter under instrument conditions.

Think of postflight inspection as insurance for the next flight—your thoroughness today might prevent someone else’s emergency tomorrow. In single-pilot IFR helicopter operations, where workload is already high and autopilot systems are often limited or absent, discovering a failed attitude indicator or intermittent GPS during flight is far more serious than in a multi-pilot or fixed-wing environment.

Regulatory Requirements for Documentation

14 CFR 91.3 establishes the pilot-in-command’s responsibility for the safe operation of the aircraft. This authority extends through postflight—you remain PIC until you properly secure the helicopter and complete required documentation.

14 CFR 91.7 requires the pilot-in-command to determine that the aircraft is in condition for safe flight. While this is primarily a preflight requirement, postflight inspection discovers conditions that affect this determination for subsequent flights.

14 CFR 91.405(a) places responsibility on the owner/operator to ensure maintenance is performed when required. Pilots serve as the eyes and ears of the maintenance system—your documentation initiates this process.

14 CFR 91.213 governs operations with inoperative equipment. When you discover inoperative instruments or equipment during postflight, you must determine:

14 CFR 43.9 and 43.11 require maintenance entries for repairs and inspections. While pilots don’t make these entries, our discrepancy reports trigger them. Understanding what requires maintenance action versus pilot-correctable issues is essential.

14 CFR 91.417 requires maintenance record retention. Aircraft logbooks must contain records of maintenance, alterations, and required inspections. Your discrepancy squawks become part of this permanent record chain.

Required IFR Equipment Review (14 CFR 91.205(d))

For operations under IFR, the following instruments and equipment are required and warrant special attention during postflight:

GRABCARD mnemonic (IFR-specific additions to VFR requirements):

Additionally required for IFR:

For helicopters operating under IFR, pay particular attention to:

Postflight Inspection Procedures for Instrument Systems

Unlike a quick visual walkaround, instrument postflight inspection requires methodical examination of systems that may have degraded during flight. Divide the inspection into three phases:

Phase 1: Cockpit Shutdown Inspection (Engine Running/Just Shut Down)

Before completely shutting down electrical systems, verify:

Phase 2: Cockpit Detailed Inspection (After Shutdown)

With rotors stopped and electrical power available from battery or GPU:

Phase 3: External Inspection of Instrument-Related Components

Common Instrument Discrepancies in Helicopter IFR Operations

Based on the operational environment, certain discrepancies occur more frequently in helicopters:

Vacuum System Issues (in helicopters with vacuum-driven instruments):

Electrical System Discrepancies:

Gyroscopic Instrument Problems:

Pitot-Static System:

Avionics Issues:

Helicopter-Specific Considerations:

Documentation Procedures and Requirements

Types of Discrepancy Documentation Systems:

  1. Aircraft Maintenance Logbook: Traditional method where discrepancies are written directly in logbook. Advantages: always with aircraft, clear historical record. Disadvantages: can be difficult to track open items in busy flight operations.

  2. Separate Discrepancy Log/Squawk Sheet: Many flight schools and commercial operators maintain a separate discrepancy log that travels with the aircraft. Provides better tracking of open items and trends.

  3. Digital Maintenance Tracking Systems: Increasingly common in commercial operations; allows real-time discrepancy reporting via tablet or phone app. Must have paper backup procedure for system failures.

  4. Cockpit Squawk List: Temporary record kept in cockpit that must be transferred to permanent records. Useful for immediate documentation during turnaround operations.

Essential Elements of Proper Discrepancy Documentation:

Every discrepancy report must contain:

Examples of Proper vs. Improper Documentation:

IMPROPER: “Attitude indicator bad” PROPER: “Attitude indicator tumbled during steep turn in IMC at 1.2 Hobbs. Reset using cage knob, took approximately 5 minutes to re-erect. No further issues during remaining 0.8 hours of flight, but erection time suggests possible vacuum system degradation. Vacuum gauge showed 4.8” throughout flight (normal range 4.5-5.5”). Recommend vacuum system inspection before next IFR flight.”

IMPROPER: “GPS not working right” IMPROPER: “GPS#1 wouldn’t hold course on ILS approach. Switched to GPS#2 and it worked fine. Used GPS#2 for remainder of flight.”

IMPROPER: “Radio problem” PROPER: “COM2 radio (KX155) transmit intermittent on ATIS frequency 124.8. Received ATIS clearly, but tower reported broken/scratchy transmission when attempting initial contact. Problem persisted through 3 attempts. Switched to COM1, no further issues. COM2 receive remained functional throughout flight. Recommend inspection of COM2 transmitter and antenna connections before next flight.”

IMPROPER: “Autopilot kicked off” PROPER: “Autopilot (KAP140) disconnected uncommanded during coupled GPS approach to RWAY 17 at 600 AGL, approximately 1 mile from threshold. No turbulence or unusual maneuvering at time of disconnect. Re-engaged autopilot, it disconnected again after approximately 15 seconds. Completed approach manually, no further attempts to engage autopilot. Occurred at 34.6 Hobbs. Recommend autopilot inspection, possible servo clutch or altitude hold malfunction.”

Inoperative Equipment Procedures

When postflight inspection reveals inoperative equipment, follow this decision matrix:

Step 1: Is the item required for IFR operations under 91.205(d)?

Step 2: Is the item required by the aircraft’s equipment list, KOEL, or Type Certificate Data Sheet?

Step 3: Does the aircraft have an approved MEL?

Step 4: Apply 91.213(d) provisions:

Placarding Requirements: When equipment is deactivated under 91.213(d), placard must:

Special Considerations for Instrument Equipment:

Risk Management in Postflight Documentation

Deferred Maintenance Risk: The temptation to defer reporting minor discrepancies creates cascading risk. An intermittent navigation radio today becomes a complete failure in IMC tomorrow. An attitude indicator with slow erection becomes a tumbled instrument during inadvertent IMC. Document everything—let maintenance personnel determine severity.

Incomplete Documentation Risk: Vague squawks lead to “could not duplicate” maintenance responses, wasting time and money while the real problem persists. The next pilot launches into IMC with a problem you experienced but inadequately documented. Be specific: when, where, how, frequency, conditions.

Chain-of-Custody Risk: In operations with multiple pilots, discrepancies noted by one pilot must reach the next pilot. Never assume “someone else will write it up” or “maintenance already knows.” Use the formal documentation system every time.

Flight School/Rental Environment Risks: High-utilization aircraft in training environments experience more wear and more diverse pilots with varying inspection standards. Establish a culture where every pilot completes thorough postflight and documentation. One missed discrepancy in a helicopter flying 6 legs per day affects 6 future flights.

“Get-Home-Itis” Risk: After a long IFR flight, especially in challenging conditions, the temptation to rush postflight is strong. This is precisely when discrepancies are most likely—and most likely to be missed. Build discipline: postflight is not complete until documentation is complete.

Normalization of Deviance: Small discrepancies that persist across multiple flights become “normal” and stop being reported. A GPS that occasionally loses satellites, a communication radio with periodic static, an attitude indicator that’s “always been a little slow”—these are accidents waiting for the right confluence of conditions. Fresh eyes catch these patterns; document trends.

Coordination with Maintenance

Pilot-Maintenance Communication: Your role doesn’t end with writing a squawk. In many operations, effective communication includes:

Understanding Maintenance Responses:

Follow-Up Responsibilities: After maintenance addresses a squawk:

Postflight in Different Operational Contexts

Flight Training: Document every abnormality, even those that might be pilot technique-related. “Autopilot wouldn’t hold altitude” might be a heading/altitude confusion, but it might be a real malfunction. Let maintenance determine cause.

Charter/Commercial Operations: Regulatory compliance is stricter; 14 CFR Part 135 operators have additional maintenance documentation requirements. Understand your company’s specific procedures, which typically exceed Part 91 minimums.

Personal/Privately-Owned Helicopters: You have more flexibility under Part 91, but you also have more responsibility. No chief pilot or director of maintenance to backstop your decisions. When in doubt, ground the helicopter and consult an A&P.

Cross-Country Operations Away from Home Base: Document discrepancies discovered at distant airports. Contact home maintenance for guidance. Understand your authority to authorize repairs at remote facilities. Carry key logbook pages or have digital access to maintenance records.

Special Emphasis: Instrument Database Currency

One of the most common “discrepancies” discovered during postflight is approaching database expiration:

Navigation Database Inspection:

Currency Verification:

Record Keeping Best Practices

Immediate Documentation: Write squawks immediately after flight while details are fresh. Don’t wait until end of day or week.

Photographic Evidence: For physical damage (cracked lens, loose panel, antenna damage), photos supplement written descriptions effectively.

Trend Tracking: If you fly the same helicopter regularly, keep personal notes on recurring issues. Pattern recognition helps identify progressive failures.

Regulatory Compliance Timeline:

Securing the Helicopter

After completing documentation:

Schedule

SegmentActivityDuration
Instructor PreparationReview aircraft-specific discrepancy log, prepare sample squawks, gather documentation materials30 min
IntroductionRegulatory framework overview, importance of postflight documentation15 min
Ground InstructionIFR equipment requirements review (91.205(d), GRABCARD)15 min
Ground InstructionPostflight inspection procedures (three-phase method)20 min
Ground InstructionCommon helicopter IFR discrepancies and examples20 min
Ground InstructionDocumentation procedures, proper squawk writing, examples of good/poor documentation25 min
Ground InstructionInoperative equipment procedures (91.213), MEL vs. KOEL, placarding requirements20 min
Ground InstructionRisk management discussion, maintenance coordination, database currency15 min
DemonstrationInstructor demonstrates complete postflight inspection with student observing20 min
DemonstrationInstructor writes sample squawks for discovered discrepancies10 min
PracticeStudent performs supervised postflight inspection of training helicopter20 min
PracticeStudent documents discrepancies (real or instructor-introduced)15 min
PracticeStudent determines aircraft status (IFR legal, VFR only, grounded) based on findings10 min
Scenario TrainingPresent student with various discrepancy scenarios, evaluate documentation quality15 min
Review and DebriefCritique documentation, answer questions, verify understanding15 min
Total4.5 hours

Equipment

Required Aircraft and Materials:

Required FAA References:

Visual Aids and Training Materials:

Instructor Materials:

Optional Enhancement Materials:

Instructor Actions

  1. Pre-Lesson Preparation: Review the specific training helicopter’s recent maintenance history and discrepancy log. Identify any recurring issues or recent repairs that provide teaching opportunities. Prepare 3-4 realistic scenario cards with discrepancies the student will practice documenting. Verify all required references and documentation materials are available. Brief any maintenance personnel who might be present during the lesson about the training objectives.

  2. Introduction and Motivation: Begin by asking the student, “What’s the last thing you do as pilot-in-command?” Establish that PIC authority and responsibility extend through proper postflight and documentation. Share a brief real-world example: “I once flew a helicopter where the previous pilot noted ‘GPS acting funny.’ That vague squawk meant maintenance couldn’t diagnose the problem. Two flights later, the GPS failed completely during an ILS approach in IMC. Specific documentation would have grounded the aircraft and prevented that emergency.” Emphasize that in single-pilot IFR helicopter operations, discovering equipment failures during flight is far more dangerous than in other environments.

  3. Regulatory Foundation Instruction: Present the regulatory framework systematically. Start with 14 CFR 91.3 (PIC authority and responsibility), explaining that postflight documentation is a PIC duty, not optional. Move through 91.7 (airworthiness determination), 91.205(d) (required IFR equipment), 91.213 (inoperative equipment), and touch on 91.405 and 91.417 (maintenance responsibilities). Use the analogy: “These regulations work like a chain—91.3 makes you responsible, 91.7 requires you to determine the aircraft is safe, 91.205 tells you what ‘safe for IFR’ means, 91.213 tells you what to do when something breaks, and 91.405/417 ensure the maintenance system responds to your findings.”

  4. IFR Equipment Requirements Presentation: Teach the GRABCARD mnemonic for 91.205(d) requirements, emphasizing items most critical in helicopters: “In a helicopter, your attitude indicator and vacuum system are more critical than in airplanes because we have no inherent stability. Partial panel in a helicopter requires more skill and is more dangerous. During postflight, you’re checking whether all these items will be available for the next pilot’s flight.” Review each item specifically: generator/alternator (show location of alternator on training helicopter), radios (identify what’s installed and required), altimeter (demonstrate where field elevation should read when set to current altimeter setting), slip/skid ball, clock, attitude indicator, turn coordinator, heading indicator. Add helicopter-specific items: “If this helicopter’s KOEL lists the SAS as required for IFR, it’s just as mandatory as the attitude indicator.”

  5. Three-Phase Inspection Method Instruction: Teach the systematic three-phase approach. “Phase 1 happens before you shut down electrical systems completely. While you still have power, verify your attitude indicator shows proper erection, your altimeter reads field elevation when you set it to the current ATIS—should be within 75 feet—and your avionics aren’t showing any fault messages. Check for tripped circuit breakers. This is your last chance to see these systems operating before you power down.” Demonstrate on the helicopter. “Phase 2 is your detailed cockpit inspection after shutdown. Look at each instrument physically—cracked glass, loose mounting, gyro fluid leaks. Check all circuit breakers again; sometimes they trip during shutdown sequence. Verify pitot covers need to be reinstalled.” Walk through the panel systematically. “Phase 3 is external. Focus on static ports, pitot tube, antennas. Static ports are easy to miss—show me where they are on this helicopter. How would you check if one is blocked?”

  6. Common Discrepancy Discussion: Present real-world examples specific to helicopters. “The most common IFR discrepancies I see in helicopters are: vacuum system degradation—you’ll notice the attitude indicator takes longer to erect or the vacuum gauge reads lower than normal; GPS antenna issues—in some helicopters, rotor blade interference causes intermittent satellite loss; vibration-induced connector problems causing intermittent radios; and pitot-static blockages, especially after flying through visible moisture.” Show photographs of each if available. “Here’s a static port that got blocked by mud during an off-airport landing. Here’s a GPS antenna with a cracked housing—water intrusion caused total GPS failure.” For each example, ask: “How would you document this? What would you write in the squawk sheet?”

  7. Documentation Standards Instruction: This is the heart of the lesson. “Effective squawk writing requires five elements: WHAT failed, WHEN it failed, HOW it manifested, what you DID about it, and what IMPACT it has on operations.” Write these on a board or present them visually. Present the poor example: “‘Attitude indicator bad’ tells maintenance nothing. They have to guess: Is it tumbled? Slow to erect? Precessing? Completely failed? Did it happen on startup or in flight?” Now present the good example: “‘Attitude indicator tumbled during steep turn in IMC at 1.2 Hobbs. Reset using cage knob, took approximately 5 minutes to re-erect. No further issues during remaining 0.8 hours of flight, but erection time suggests possible vacuum system degradation. Vacuum gauge showed 4.8” throughout flight (normal range 4.5-5.5”). Recommend vacuum system inspection before next IFR flight.’” Ask: “What’s the difference? The second one gives maintenance the exact conditions, timing, symptoms, and your analysis. They can go straight to vacuum system checks instead of guessing.”

  8. Documentation Practice Exercise: Provide the student with 3-4 scenario cards. Example: “During your ILS approach, the autopilot disconnected uncommanded at 600 feet AGL. You re-engaged it and it disconnected again 15 seconds later. You completed the approach manually. Write the squawk.” Observe the student writing. Common mistakes to watch for: vague language (“autopilot didn’t work”), missing timing information, missing phase of flight, missing what pilot did in response, missing operational impact. After each scenario, review the student’s squawk, identify strengths, and coach on improvements. “Good—you included the altitude and the fact it happened twice. Now add the time on Hobbs and be specific about what ‘disconnected’ means. Did you get a warning light? A horn? Did the servos just stop moving?”

  9. Inoperative Equipment Procedures Instruction: Draw the 91.213 decision flowchart on a board or present it visually. “When you discover something inoperative during postflight, you have to determine if the aircraft is still legal to fly. Start with the question: Is it required for IFR under 91.205(d)?” Give an example: “Your number 2 VHF communication radio is dead. Is it required for IFR?” Guide the student through the logic: “91.205(d) requires two-way radio communication capability, but it doesn’t specify two radios. So with one working radio, you still meet 91.205. Next question: Is it required by the KOEL or equipment list?” Show them where to find the equipment list in the POH. “If it’s not there, we move to the MEL question. Does this helicopter have an approved MEL? No. So we can use 91.213(d) provisions. That means we can deactivate and placard it, and the aircraft is legal if it’s still safe for the intended flight. But—and this is important—you need to consider whether single-radio operations are wise for the flight you’re planning. Regulations set minimums; good judgment might require more.”

  10. Placarding Demonstration: Show proper placarding technique using the “INOPERATIVE” stickers. “The placard must be visible to the pilot and must clearly identify the specific equipment. Not just ‘GPS INOP’ but ‘GPS #1 INOPERATIVE’ if you have two units. The placard stays until a mechanic repairs the item and makes a logbook entry. You can’t just pull the placard off because the item starts working again—that requires a proper maintenance inspection and sign-off.” Demonstrate placing a placard on an instrument. “Where would you place this so it’s visible but doesn’t obscure other instruments you need?”

  11. Risk Management Discussion: Facilitate a discussion on the risks of inadequate postflight. “What happens if you don’t document an intermittent GPS failure?” Let the student answer, then build on it: “Right—the next pilot launches into IMC, the GPS fails completely, and now they’re single-pilot, high workload, trying to fly an approach on backup navigation they maybe didn’t brief thoroughly. Your two minutes writing a good squawk could have prevented their emergency.” Discuss normalization of deviance: “If a helicopter has a ‘quirky’ radio that everyone knows has static sometimes, but nobody writes it up, what risk are we creating? Eventually someone new flies it, doesn’t know about the quirk, and is surprised when it fails completely.” Ask: “What pressures might tempt you to skip thorough postflight or documentation?” List responses (fatigue, weather moving in, getting home, pressure from scheduler). “How do we maintain standards despite these pressures?” Establish: “Postflight is part of the flight. You’re not done until documentation is complete.”

  12. Maintenance Coordination Instruction: Explain the pilot-maintenance relationship. “Your squawk initiates the maintenance process, but you’re also a resource. For complex or intermittent problems, brief maintenance verbally. Offer to be present during ground tests to help reproduce the issue. When maintenance responds with ‘could not duplicate,’ that’s not necessarily a failure—intermittent problems are real problems. Your job is to provide enough detail that if it happens again, the pattern becomes clear.” Discuss maintenance responses: “When you see ‘inspected, found satisfactory,’ what does that mean? It means they checked it and found no defect, but they’re not saying the problem didn’t happen. If you documented an intermittent issue and they couldn’t find it, watch for it on your next flight and add more detail if it recurs.”

  13. Database Currency Special Emphasis: Highlight this commonly overlooked item. “Navigation databases expire every 28 days. During postflight, you must check the database expiration date. Where do you find that on our GPS?” Show the student on the training helicopter’s GPS. “If the database will expire before the next planned IFR flight, that’s a discrepancy that must be documented. The scheduler needs to know to coordinate a database update, which usually requires an avionics shop appointment.” Explain the implications: “You can technically fly IFR with an expired database if you’re not using it for primary navigation and you’re monitoring with current charts, but most operators prohibit it. Better to catch the expiration during postflight than discover it during preflight when a client is waiting.”

  14. Physical Postflight Demonstration: Now transition to the helicopter. “I’m going to demonstrate a complete instrument-focused postflight inspection. Watch my sequence and what I check at each step. Ask questions as I go.” Start Phase 1 with master on, battery showing voltage. “Battery voltage is 24.8 volts—normal. Avionics master on. GPS showing no faults, RAIM available. Attitude indicator—watch it erect. Timing it… about 4 minutes, that’s normal for this system. Altimeter set to current ATIS—reads 598 feet, field elevation is 605, within 75 feet, acceptable. Heading indicator—I’m going to compare it to the compass. Shows 180, compass shows 182—that’s within limits, but I’ll note the 2-degree difference. Circuit breakers all in. Autopilot engaged briefly to listen for servo noise—sounds normal, disengaging. Everything looks good so far.” Continue through Phase 2: “Master off. Now inspecting instruments physically. Attitude indicator—no cracks in glass, secure mounting, no fluid leaks visible from the gyro. Turn coordinator—secure. VSI—secure. Looking at the panel overall for loose instruments or any damage… all secure. Radios—checking that all switches are off… they are. Autopilot controller—off. Checking under the panel with a flashlight for any loose wires or unusual conditions… looks normal.” Move to Phase 3: “Outside now. Static ports—here on the side of the fuselage. Looking for blockages… clear. Pitot tube on the nose—no damage, no blockages, needs the cover reinstalled. GPS antenna on the cabin roof—secure mounting, no cracks in housing. Communication antennas under the belly—both secure. Transponder antenna—secure, no damage. Everything checks out.”

  15. Documentation Demonstration: Return to cockpit or operations area. “Based on my inspection, I found no discrepancies, so my documentation is simple.” Write in the discrepancy log: “Postflight inspection complete 1.5 Hobbs, 14:30 local. All instruments and IFR equipment inspected and found serviceable. Database current through [date]. No discrepancies noted. [Signature].” Explain: “Even when you find nothing wrong, document that you completed the inspection. It creates a record that the aircraft was inspected, which is valuable for maintenance tracking and shows due diligence if questions arise later.” Then present a hypothetical: “Now suppose I had noticed the attitude indicator took 7 minutes to fully erect instead of the normal 4. Here’s how I’d document it.” Write a sample squawk with all five elements (what, when, how, did, impact).

  16. Student Performance – Supervised Inspection: “Now you perform a complete postflight inspection of this helicopter. I’ll observe but won’t guide you unless you’re about to miss something critical. Use the three-phase method we discussed. Talk through what you’re checking and what you’re looking for.” Follow the student through the inspection. Note areas where they’re thorough and areas they rush or skip. Common student mistakes to watch for: not timing attitude indicator erection, not comparing heading indicator to compass, missing circuit breakers, not checking database expiration, forgetting to inspect antennas externally. After the inspection, ask: “What’s the aircraft’s status? Any discrepancies?” If the student found legitimate discrepancies, proceed to documentation. If not, introduce a hypothetical for documentation practice.

  17. Student Performance – Documentation: “Based on your inspection [or this scenario I’m giving you], document the discrepancy.” Provide scenario if needed: “You noticed that during the flight, GPS #1 showed ‘RAIM UNAVAILABLE’ three separate times, each lasting about 30 seconds, all during the approach phase. You switched to GPS #2 and completed the approach with no issues. GPS #1 seemed to work normally during the rest of the flight. Write that up.” Watch the student write. Check for: specific equipment identification, timing (when in flight, duration), pilot actions, impact on operations, recommendation. Provide immediate feedback: “Good use of specific equipment designation—GPS #1 not just ‘GPS.’ But add the Hobbs time when this happened and be more specific about the phase of flight—were you on the final approach course? How far from the airport?”

  18. Student Performance – Airworthiness Determination: Present the student with a discrepancy scenario and ask them to determine aircraft status using the 91.213 flowchart. “Your turn coordinator has failed completely. Work through the decision process: Is the aircraft legal for IFR? What do you do?” Guide them through if they get stuck: “First question—is it required for IFR under 91.205(d)?” The correct answer: yes, rate-of-turn indicator is required. “So what does that mean?” Aircraft is not legal for IFR until repaired. “Correct. Can you operate it VFR?” Check the equipment list and KOEL. If not required for VFR, yes—but must be deactivated and placarded. Present another scenario: “The number 2 navigation radio (VOR receiver) is inoperative, but you have a working GPS and VOR #1. Same questions—is it legal for IFR?” Work through the logic: VOR #2 is not explicitly required by 91.205(d) as long as you have sufficient navigation equipment for the route. Check KOEL—if not required, the aircraft can be legal under 91.213(d) provisions. “What action is required?” Deactivate and placard. “Is the aircraft safe for the flight you’re planning, even if legal?” This introduces judgment beyond mere regulatory compliance.

  19. Scenario-Based Evaluation: Present 2-3 complex scenarios that combine multiple elements. Example: “You’ve just completed a 2.5-hour IFR cross-country. During the flight you experienced: (1) autopilot disconnecting three times, always in turbulence; (2) one brief RAIM warning on the GPS during cruise; (3) ammeter fluctuating between 50 and 100 amps for about 10 minutes then stabilizing. The alternator warning light never illuminated. You also noticed that when you set your altimeter to the destination ATIS, it read 95 feet low when you landed at a field elevation of 1,205 feet. What do you document and how? What’s the aircraft’s IFR status?” This complex scenario tests prioritization, documentation of multiple issues, and regulatory analysis. Evaluate the student’s written response for completeness, specificity, and proper airworthiness determination.

  20. Critique and Feedback: Review all of the student’s documentation samples. Highlight strengths: “Your squawks included all five critical elements—what, when, how, did, impact. That’s excellent.” Identify areas for improvement: “On this one about the radio, you said ‘intermittent static.’ Can you be more specific? Was it constant static that came and went, or brief pops of static? Did it correlate with anything—transmissions from other aircraft, certain frequencies?” Reinforce the standard: “Your documentation might be read by a mechanic who’s never flown this helicopter. It might be read by an FAA inspector investigating an incident. It might be read by another pilot trying to decide if the aircraft is safe to fly. Write with that audience in mind.”

  21. Real-World Application Discussion: Connect the lesson to the student’s immediate flying. “Next time you fly, I want you to perform this exact postflight procedure and bring me your documentation. If you find no discrepancies, that’s fine—document that. If you find something, we’ll review your squawk together. Over the next few flights, you’re going to build the habit of thorough postflight and documentation. This isn’t something you do only on checkrides—this is every flight, every time.” Set the expectation: “Professional pilots are distinguished by their consistency in these procedures. Students skip postflight sometimes. Professionals never do.”

  22. Logbook Endorsement Discussion: Explain what endorsement will be made following successful completion: “Once you demonstrate proficiency in postflight inspection and documentation, I’ll endorse your logbook that you’ve received and demonstrated understanding of IH.IX.A. This becomes part of your instrument training record and demonstrates to your examiner that you’ve been trained in these procedures.”

  23. Common Questions and Clarifications: Invite questions. Common student questions to be prepared for: “What if I’m not sure if something is a real problem or just how the equipment normally operates?” Answer: Document your uncertainty. “Attitude indicator erection seems slow—approximately 6 minutes versus 4 minutes on previous flights. Recommend vacuum system check to verify normal operation.” “What if maintenance gets annoyed by squawks they can’t duplicate?” Answer: Your job is to document accurately, not to diagnose. Intermittent problems are real problems. Professional maintenance personnel understand this. “Do I document if I make a mistake, like thinking something was wrong but it turns out I was using it incorrectly?” Answer: Yes, document what you observed. If it’s a technique issue, maintenance will likely recognize that, but it creates a record of what happened. “What if there’s no space left in the squawk log?” Answer: Add pages or start a new log, but ensure continuity—reference the new log in the old one and vice versa. Never skip documentation because the log is full.

  24. Assignment of Post-Lesson Tasks: “For your next three flights, complete a full instrument-focused postflight using the three-phase method. Bring me your documentation after each flight for review. I want you to develop the habit of thorough inspection and complete documentation. Also, review 14 CFR 91.213 again before our next lesson and be prepared to explain the inoperative equipment decision process without referring to notes.”

Student Actions

  1. Active Participation in Ground Instruction: The student listens attentively during the regulatory framework presentation, takes notes on 14 CFR 91.3, 91.7, 91.205(d), 91.213, 91.405, and 91.417, and asks clarifying questions about how these regulations interact in the context of postflight responsibilities.

  2. GRABCARD Mnemonic Learning: The student writes down and memorizes the GRABCARD mnemonic for IFR required equipment, identifies each item on the training helicopter’s instrument panel, and explains the function of each required instrument as it relates to IFR operations.

  3. Three-Phase Inspection Method Study: The student learns the systematic three-phase approach (shutdown inspection, detailed cockpit inspection, external inspection), takes notes on specific items to check in each phase, and asks questions about sequence and priorities for helicopter-specific considerations.

  4. Analysis of Documentation Examples: The student reviews both proper and improper documentation examples provided by the instructor, identifies the differences, explains why specific details matter for maintenance troubleshooting, and articulates the five essential elements of effective squawk writing (what, when, how, did, impact).

  5. Inoperative Equipment Decision-Making Practice: The student works through the 91.213 flowchart using hypothetical scenarios, correctly identifies whether equipment is required for IFR under 91.205(d), determines appropriate actions (ground aircraft, placard and defer, or operate under MEL), and explains placarding requirements for deferred items.

  6. Risk Management Discussion Participation: The student engages in discussion of postflight documentation risks, provides examples of pressures that might tempt shortcuts, suggests mitigation strategies for maintaining documentation standards despite fatigue or schedule pressure, and acknowledges the safety implications of inadequate documentation for subsequent pilots.

  7. Observation During Instructor Demonstration: The student closely observes the instructor’s complete postflight inspection, notes the systematic sequence used for each phase, asks questions about specific inspection techniques (e.g., how to check for static port blockage, how to assess antenna security), and takes notes on inspection standards and acceptable tolerances.

  8. Observation of Documentation Process: The student watches the instructor write both a “no discrepancies” entry and a detailed squawk for a hypothetical problem, notes the format and level of detail used, compares the demonstration to the five-element standard previously taught, and asks questions about organizational preferences for documentation style.

  9. Hands-On Postflight Inspection Performance: The student performs a complete three-phase postflight inspection of the training helicopter under instructor observation, verbalizes what they are checking at each step, correctly identifies the location of critical components (static ports, pitot tube, antennas, circuit breakers), uses proper techniques for inspection (checking altimeter against field elevation, timing attitude indicator erection, verifying database currency), and completes the inspection in a logical, thorough sequence.

  10. Physical Inspection Skills: The student demonstrates the ability to check attitude indicator erection time by timing the process and comparing to normal standards, verify altimeter accuracy by setting to current altimeter setting and comparing to known field elevation (within 75 feet), compare heading indicator to magnetic compass for precession check (within reasonable limits), locate and inspect all static ports for blockage or damage, inspect pitot tube for damage and blockage, verify security of all navigation and communication antennas, check circuit breakers for tripped conditions, and verify GPS database expiration dates.

  11. Discrepancy Documentation Performance: The student writes detailed discrepancy reports for any findings during the inspection (or for instructor-provided scenarios), includes all five essential elements in each squawk (what failed, when it failed, how it manifested, what pilot did, operational impact), uses specific equipment identification (not “GPS” but “GPS #1”), provides measurable details (timing, altitudes, frequencies, durations), describes conditions when the discrepancy occurred (IMC, turbulence, phase of flight), states what actions were taken in response, and makes clear recommendations for maintenance action.

  12. Airworthiness Determination: The student applies the 91.213 decision process to discrepancies found during inspection, correctly determines whether discovered discrepancies render the helicopter illegal for IFR operations, identifies when placarding is required and what the placard must state, explains when an item can be deferred under 91.213(d) versus when it requires immediate repair, and makes appropriate airworthiness determinations for VFR versus IFR operations.

  13. Scenario Response and Problem Solving: The student responds to complex scenario-based questions presenting multiple simultaneous discrepancies, prioritizes multiple discrepancies by severity and regulatory impact, writes appropriate documentation for each issue, makes sound judgments about aircraft operational status, and explains their reasoning using regulatory citations and risk assessment.

  14. Critical Thinking Application: The student demonstrates judgment beyond minimum regulatory compliance by considering whether a legally airworthy helicopter is prudent to fly given specific mission requirements, explains situations where personal minimums might exceed regulatory minimums, identifies when a discrepancy should ground the aircraft even if technically deferrable, and articulates the difference between “legal” and “safe” in equipment serviceability decisions.

  15. Practical Database Currency Verification: The student locates database expiration information on the training helicopter’s GPS unit(s), verifies current cycle number and expiration date, explains the regulatory implications of expired databases for IFR operations, and states when database expiration must be documented as a discrepancy.

  16. Maintenance Coordination Understanding: The student explains how to effectively communicate complex or intermittent discrepancies to maintenance personnel, describes appropriate follow-up when maintenance responds “could not duplicate,” understands the distinction between pilot-correctable items and maintenance-required items, and explains the importance of verbal briefing to supplement written squawks for complex issues.

  17. Post-Lesson Review and Questions: The student asks clarifying questions about any aspects of postflight procedures or documentation requirements, seeks specific guidance on the operator’s documentation procedures if different from the training examples, and confirms understanding of completion standards before being evaluated.

  18. Completion of Assigned Follow-Up Tasks: After the lesson, the student performs complete instrument-focused postflights on the next three training flights, documents each postflight in the aircraft discrepancy log (even if no discrepancies found), submits documentation to instructor for review after each flight, reviews 14 CFR 91.213 before the next lesson, and practices explaining the inoperative equipment decision process without reference materials.

  19. Self-Assessment and Professional Development: The student honestly assesses their own understanding of postflight and documentation requirements, identifies any areas where they need additional practice or clarification, commits to consistent application of thorough postflight procedures on every flight, and recognizes postflight documentation as a professional standard rather than just a training requirement.

Completion Standards

The student demonstrates proficiency in postflight procedures and documentation in accordance with ACS standards for IH.IX.A when they:

  1. Regulatory Knowledge (IH.IX.A.K1): Correctly explains procedures for documenting in-flight and postflight discrepancies in accordance with 14 CFR 91.405 and 91.417, identifies the pilot-in-command’s responsibility under 14 CFR 91.3 and 91.7 for documenting airworthiness concerns, describes the elements required in a proper discrepancy report (equipment identification, timing, symptoms, pilot actions, operational impact), explains the difference between maintenance logbook entries and pilot discrepancy reports, and understands the maintenance record retention requirements and how pilot squawks initiate the maintenance documentation chain.

  2. Required Equipment Knowledge: Demonstrates comprehensive understanding of 14 CFR 91.205(d) required IFR equipment by reciting the GRABCARD mnemonic and identifying each item on the training helicopter, explains helicopter-specific required equipment including stability augmentation systems if required by KOEL or flight manual supplement, identifies which items must be operational for IFR versus VFR operations, and correctly applies knowledge of equipment requirements when determining aircraft airworthiness status after discovering discrepancies.

  3. Inoperative Equipment Procedures (91.213): Correctly applies the 14 CFR 91.213 decision-making process to determine aircraft operational status when equipment is inoperative, accurately determines whether discovered discrepancies render the helicopter illegal for IFR operations, explains when items can be deferred under 91.213(d) provisions versus when they require immediate repair, properly describes placarding requirements (content, placement, duration), and demonstrates sound judgment in distinguishing between “legal” and “safe” when making operational decisions about aircraft with deferred maintenance.

  4. Systematic Inspection Performance (IH.IX.A.S1): Conducts a complete three-phase postflight inspection with emphasis on instrument and avionics systems in a logical, thorough sequence, verifies attitude indicator proper operation and erection time (typically 4-5 minutes for vacuum-driven systems, noting any significant deviation), checks altimeter accuracy by setting to current altimeter setting and verifying it reads field elevation within ±75 feet, compares heading indicator to magnetic compass for excessive precession (noting deviations exceeding normal limits), verifies GPS database currency and expiration dates, inspects circuit breakers for tripped conditions, examines all instruments for physical damage (cracked glass, loose mounting, fluid leaks), inspects static ports for blockage or damage, inspects pitot tube for damage and obstruction, verifies security and condition of all navigation and communication antennas, and completes the inspection without omitting critical items or components.

  5. Documentation Proficiency (IH.IX.A.S1): Documents all discrepancies discovered during postflight inspection using proper format and complete information, includes all five essential elements in every discrepancy report: (1) specific equipment identification, (2) timing and conditions when problem occurred, (3) detailed description of how problem manifested, (4) pilot actions taken in response, and (5) impact on operations and recommendations, writes discrepancies with sufficient detail that maintenance personnel can understand the problem without additional verbal briefing (though verbal coordination remains appropriate for complex issues), uses specific rather than vague language (e.g., “GPS #1 displayed RAIM UNAVAILABLE for 30 seconds at 1.2 Hobbs during final approach course” rather than “GPS didn’t work right”), correctly documents “no discrepancies found” inspections to create inspection record, properly identifies servicing requirements if discovered during inspection (low oil, fuel contamination, etc.), and writes all documentation legibly with proper date, time, aircraft identification, and pilot signature.

  6. Risk Management (IH.IX.A.R1): Understands and articulates the risks associated with inadequate postflight inspection including failures discovered during subsequent IMC flight, equipment degradation that compounds into larger problems, and inadequate documentation preventing proper maintenance diagnosis, recognizes the increased risk in single-pilot IFR helicopter operations where discovering equipment failures during flight creates higher workload and danger than in other environments, identifies pressures that might tempt shortcuts in postflight procedures (fatigue, weather, schedule, “get-home-itis”) and explains personal strategies for maintaining standards despite these pressures, understands the risk of normalization of deviance where recurring minor discrepancies stop being reported and become “normal” until catastrophic failure occurs, and demonstrates commitment to thorough postflight and complete documentation on every flight as a professional standard.

  7. Aircraft Status Determination: Makes accurate airworthiness determinations based on discovered discrepancies, correctly identifies when aircraft is grounded for all operations versus legal for VFR but not IFR versus legal for IFR with proper deferrals, explains their determination using specific regulatory citations (91.205, 91.213, aircraft KOEL), applies sound judgment to determine when aircraft should not be flown even if technically legal, and properly communicates aircraft status to scheduler, dispatcher, or next pilot with clear explanation of limitations.

  8. Professional Standards and Habits: Completes postflight inspection and documentation on every flight without exception, maintains consistent documentation standards regardless of fatigue, time pressure, or other operational factors, demonstrates thoroughness in inspection without rushing or omitting steps, shows attention to detail in written documentation with proper spelling, grammar, and technical accuracy, understands their role in the maintenance communication chain and takes that responsibility seriously, and views postflight procedures as an integral part of professional pilot duties rather than an optional add-on or checkride-only requirement.

  9. Practical Application Skills: Demonstrates the ability to perform these procedures in realistic operational contexts including after long flights when fatigued, when weather is moving in and time is limited, when multiple discrepancies are discovered requiring prioritization and complex documentation, and when operating away from home base where coordination with maintenance is more difficult, showing that the skills will transfer to real-world instrument flying operations beyond the training environment.

The student meets the completion standards for ACS task IH.IX.A when they consistently perform postflight inspections with emphasis on instrument and avionics systems in accordance with manufacturer recommendations and regulatory requirements, document all discrepancies with sufficient detail for maintenance action, correctly determine aircraft airworthiness status for VFR and IFR operations, and demonstrate sound judgment and professional standards in all aspects of postflight procedures and documentation.

Want the complete lesson plan library as a downloadable Word document?

Download the Free CFI Lesson Plan Binder