On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 16:16:28 GMT, Judah wrote:

Not an unreasonable positions, but the post to which I responded did
not support the position. You listed a bunch of things not to do that
are, in fact, done in the context of training.

You rhretorically asked whether one does actually does A, B, C, D, or
do they just simulate/study it. I said that I have actually done A,
made a facetious comment about B, said C was done in a simulator, and
made a comment about training for D-avoidance (actually having done
more than my fair share of "bounce, Bounce, GO AROUND!" on tailwheel).

IOW, you chose some less-than-optimal examples to support your position.


Absolutely. I don't think we're disagreeing at all. Quite the contrary. I

*shrug* The larger issue is there are things one should "train for"
that one can't actually do. On that, we agree. I don't have an
issue with what we call that "training".


Incidentally, have you ever seen a gyro fail? Or had a pitot tube blocked?

One of the benefits of IFR training in a sim, the instructor can fail an
instrument in a way closer to how it would likely to fail IRL. He
nailed me for not turning on pitot heat, and I didn't notice it had
iced over until he started giving me climbs and descents.


It's very different in reality than having an instructor put a black cover
on the instrument... When it happened to me, I had a blocked pitot tube and

Agreed.


Yet no one ever actually demonstrated it to me.

Was it luck? Or was it adequate training?

I believe that people can learn things without ever actually seeing them
demonstrated...

Clearly, it was training or education or study or something. Call it what
you will.


Morris