On Feb 20, 8:05*am, Michael wrote:
On Feb 17, 9:13*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Anyhow, flying instruments has, for instance, one aspect that makes it
very different and that is; you are constantly fighting a number of
signals coming from your body. I'm sure you've heard about spatial
disorientation arising from when the signal from your inner ear
conflicts with the info coming from your eyes. This never really
entirely goes away no matter how much intsrument flying you do. ( at
least it hasn't for me)

There are two kinds of pilots in this regard.

There are those who fly by feel naturally, solo relatively quickly
(even in a taildragger), and never quite get rid of the discomfort
caused by 'seat-of'the-pants' signals in instrument conditions.
They're the ones who need to be really careful about staying
instrument current because for them it's a perishable skill.

There are also those who have a hard time with coordination and with
the flare, take a long time to solo because of it, and find instrument
flying easy because feel doesn't matter anymore. *Someone like that
could probably learn to fly takeoff to touchdown without looking
outside ab initio, as long as he ahd a good RADAR altimeter and GPS.
This is the same person who doesn't need to worry about losing his
instrument proficiency because he found getting the instrument rating
to be a cakewalk in the first place.

Of course those are the extremes - the reality is a continuum - but
you get the idea. *As we have more and more people growing up in front
of computers, I think we're going to see the pilot population shifting
towards the second. *In fact, I think over 100% of the reduction in
VFR-into-IMC accidents seen in the past few years can be attributed to
this trend (since without it things would have gotten worse).

Eventually, we're going to see student pilots who have an easier time
learning to do an ILS than a simple visual pattern. *I think this is
already starting.

Michael

Michael
I agree to a point. Perhaps 15 years ago I actually took a hard look
at the rapidly popular computer sims like Microsoft FlightSim?. To
that point I threw them into the same basket with "PONG" (date me huh?
gg). As I did some approaches and played with the program, I
realized it had genuine value for teaching procedures. When you get to
the bottom line, flying is mostly a mental game. At that time I was
actively working as an ag pilot flying both FW/RW and doing some
instruction in off times.
Back in the mid 60's I thought I was pretty good @1500 hrs. Not the
ace of the base, but better than most and I actively sought out
training and professional challenges. When I was offered a job crop
dusting, I took it. Didn't take but a few hours to learn how little I
really knew about "seat of the pants" flying and did a really FAST
catch up as I learned in the lowest reaches of the airspace system. At
the end of the season, I went back to work as a CFI/I and transfered
some of those rediscovered skills to nearly all the flying. The next
season I ran into a fog bank while in a 60deg bank/100agl in a Piper
Pawnee which has NO gyros, not even a turn and slip indicator. If it
hadn't been for all the fine tune IFR training, (including what I now
term "Primitive Panel" I had been teaching, there is no doubt I'd have
crashed. Those same skills have saved me several times in ag work
around the world.
None of us is born with feathers around our butt so flying is a
learned skill which deteriorates with dis-use. I'm still flying 5-6
hrs a day as a basic instructor with brand new Navy/USMC/USCG pilots
and teaching the very rudiments of flying. It includes about 2 hours
of instrument in the first 15 hours.
Using the idea that the youngsters of today are computer oriented, I
try to utilize that concept in some of my teaching. Frequently, and
this is the important part, while they can understand the concept of
instrument flying, when you add the visceral physical sensations (aka
life or death), it causes some brain farts and they get so far behind
the airplane I have to intercede. Once they get it figured out that
their brain can be played with and has to be approached with some
degree of discipline, they start to settle down and recognize all the
facets that go into flying.
I also recognize, as technology advances, and systems become more
complex, pilots will no longer rely on stick and rudder skills as much
as their abililty to manage computer or electronic systems. As I often
point out to my new students, I am coming to the end of my flying
career that started over 50 years ago with wood and fabric aircraft
and no electrical system, to this day and age of space travel. I'll
never go above FL 450 unless I hit the freakin lottery and buy a seat
on one of the new ventures for a rocket shot up and down. That would
be a great way to close out my logbook but it won't happen. So, I
continue to do the basic flight instruction with a building block
process that focuses more on VISUAL than the instruments. BUT it also
teaches how to best utilize the instrument input depending on the
flight condition.
Of course when we go IMC the instruments have to be relied on but they
frequently either lie or can be fooled and it takes a good instructor
to teach how to tell when any of that happens. Just looked at my log
and I've got more than 1400 actual IFR in both FW/RW. No idea of how
much IFR training I've done with students but I'm pressin hard on 6000
hrs of dual given.
Tickles hell out of me that my OP about stalls has generated so much
genuine solid discussion right to this point. I sure hope it continues
with the great input of so many, pros and newbies alike.
Best regards to you all
Rocky AKA Ol Shy & Bashful