question in this thread, then proceed to spout the above and the
theory about student knowledge retention as if I should just accept
these ideas.

Not *should* but probably *would*. :-)

I simply read this as just another pilot's opinions.

Ah, very good. The question is, how to verify knowledge?

Obstacle clearance: read TERPS. Read Wally Roberts articles. Call
Flight procedures offices. Tim seems to be a "TERPS" guy, which I
infer because the information he dispenses conforms with information
to the above sources.

Radio Technique: read the AIM.

How airplanes fly: read aerodynamics textbooks.

However, the title "instrument instructor" alone doesn't do it for
me since I have met a few instrument instructors with zero IMC time.


No doubt. But what I question is the standards by which you judge
your instructors.

You certainly want someone with a reasonable amount of IMC time, so
that you will feel safe when you fly with him. But beyond that, what
benefit does it provide you?

We have a local guy with 25,000 hours who sometimes allow flight
instructors to ride right seat in his King Air to build turbine time.

This guy has been known to takeoff into IMC without a clearance. He
never uses approach plates or enroute charts, and will often descend
right through MDA until he sees the runway. He's rude and obnoxious
on the radio.

But hey, the guy is experienced! Sounds like the instructor for you.


Would an incorrect response to an IFR procedure question posted in
this newsgroup survive uncontested by the many experienced regulars?
The 100% agreement between the responders in this thread was pretty
telling.

Ah, truth by majority vote. The only terpster that replied is "Tim".