zatatime wrote:
With 175 hours I can understand this would get your attention
especially being low time in make and model, and I'm glad it all
worked out well. Do yourself a favor though, and use this experience
to understand what you learn for your private are Minimums. Go find a
good instructor to teach you how to fly VFR without needing any inside
references. It sounds like you spend more time inside than out, and
the fact that you were looking at the VSI 50' off the ground is
disturbing to me.

I think flying VFR w/o instruments is a great exercise, and agree about
looking outside.

But I don't see what's disturbing about what he said, and nothing
indicated that he's spending "more time inside than out". He didn't say
he was looking at the VSI, he said: "[...] and once off the ground
(maybe 50') noticed the ASI going DOWN from 50 to 40 to 30 to ZERO." He
guesstimated his altitude as he noticed the ASI going back down to zero.
It is possible to take off, climb out, watch where you are going
(outside), and still check instruments.

I can't speak for anyone else's training, but I was *taught* to make
quick visual checks of instruments during takeoff and climb-out.
Obviously "FLY THE AIRPLANE" is the first priority, but if the ASI fails
and you are in the air, as long as the airplane still feels, looks,
sounds and is flying the way it normally does, what's wrong with a
*brief* visual check of other instruments? Why is eliminating an ENTIRE
set of tools from the toolbox just because one isn't working the best
action to take in the situation he described?

I want as much information as is available in order to make ongoing,
in-flight decisions if one instrument fails. If something is wrong or
"disturbing" about this thinking, please tell me what it is.