"Paul Folbrecht" wrote:
If anybody thinks it's really silly for me to do IFR training with
only 1 comm and 1 nav I'd guess I'd like to hear that.

If economics forced that decision, then no, I don't think it's silly.
However, training for the rating without including GPS in the syllabus
*is* silly if you had a viable way to include it.

The arguments we're still seeing pooh-poohing GPS as a vital part of
instrument training are absurd, IMO. GPS is here; it's real; it's
practical; in many cases it's far superior to the older electronic means
of navigation. But it also has its own peculiar complexities and
pitfalls: CFIIs who ignore GPS do a disservice to their students who
will be flying in the modern world. I do not say that VOR and NDB
should be discarded - yet, but implying that GPS is a NAV system for
wimps, or that an approach GPS is not useful in real-world IFR flying is
ridiculous.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)