"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote
My instructor was an anachronism as well. He loathes the pretty maps and
pictures on the display. Thinks it is killing all understanding of IFR
flying.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. I think a moving map is great - but
unfortunately, it does allow pilots who have not grasped the
difference between heading, bearing, course, and track to obtain an
instrument rating. And it does cause more subtle problems. That's
why I like the ADF - it's a pretty lousy navaid, but it's great for
forcing the student to learn what all those things mean and
internalize the knowledge. It's sort of like the tailwheel of IFR
flying.

And my point is that if you're training someone who can't add/subtract
three digit numbers in his head, the training is going to take a long
time.

I suppose, I am not a CFII. I have no idea what to say to that -
(however,
I am not sure the method I advocate requires doing math - there is a way
to
find "left/right" by looking at a chart)

Yes, but that means doing mental geometry, and most people these days
aren't any better at that than they are at mental arithmetic. Six of
one, half dozen of the other.

So how do these folks figure out
intercept angles or other such stuff?

Poorly. With tricks using the DG and/or the CDI and rules of thumb
and memory aids. I never messed with any of that stuff when I was
learning to fly instruments, because I always considered it easier
just to figure it out, but now as an instructor I find that I must
maintain an arsenal of them.

Yes, my point of view is skewed towards a little more competency.


Surely you have to prepare them to be
ready to intercept airways and courses, etc. (There is also the timed
turns) I am astounded that this is the hard part and not those other
issues
for people who can't do math. I cringe thinking about how they must
start
smoking out their heads when they have to come up with wind corrections
or
other stuff.

Unfortunately, that's not far off the mark. There is a reason many
people need 50 hours (or more) for an instrument rating, and this is
it. I've never seen anyone need more than a few hours to develop the
skills necessary to control the airplane adequately when told what
heading and altitude to fly - meaning the skills required for an ASR
or PAR approach. Most people get there in well under 3 hours. Some
of them (those who are good at understanding geometry) move on
quickly, and are ready to pass the checkride at 15-20 hours. Others
bog down on procedures and need an additional 20-50 hours.

I must be stupid then as well. I spent about 50 hours in a frasca trainer
before ever getting in the plane to fly (but then it was quick).


Have you noted lately the popularity of such techniques as the
no-brainer NDB approach, the hold entry where you simply turn the
short way to the outbound, and all the other tricks people come up
with to avoid the need for situational awareness?

They only have to remember it ONCE - upon starting the approach.

But what if they do not?

Then they will quickly peg the needle and hopefully go missed. Or, if
they're CFII's who are making their first flight in IMC while
instructing a student, they descend below mins with the needle pegged
and wait for the student to identify a local landmark and land the
plane (no **** this really happened).

That is scary. I have also heard scary stories about 15 minute practicals
with about 5 minutes of oral beforehand and the DE was handling the radios
the whole time. It is no wonder so many people end up in the sides of
mountains.



Michael