Andrew Sarangan wrote
I agree with you about having to face weather changes on a long xc
flight. But the orginal poster implied that there were many factors that
were different about long trips.

And I think most of them relate to weather in the end.

I know what you are
thinking - the pressure to continue in deteriorating weather is greater
when you are on a trip. I agree with that. But that is a judgement
issue. You don't have to send someone on a 2000NM trip to learn a
judgement skill that they could learn at home.

Here I think we fundamentally disagree. No judgment can be learned in
the training environment, because nothing is at stake. Tomorrow is as
good as today, West is as good as North. When you actually need to be
somewhere specific at a specific time, then judgment comes into play.

However, on a short trip it's relatively simple - planning around the
weather is not generally possible (or at least not worth it - who will
take a 300 mile detour on a 100 mile trip?). On a long trip, a 300
mile detour may not add all that much. The decision matrix becomes
far more complex.

Weather is meant to be
learned at home, not in the air. You don't have to fly into a
thunderstorm or icing to know that it is not a good idea.

Well, you really do have to fly in icing to know what is acceptable.
Otherwise, your only option is to stay out of cloud every time the
temperatures are below freezing - making the instrument rating useless
in half the country for half the year. I will be the first to admit
that this is where my IFR skills are weakest - not much icing on the
Gulf Coast.

And you really do have to fly near (not in) thunderstorms to figure
out what is acceptable. Otherwise your only option is to maintain the
20 (or is it 30 now?) nm from each cell that the AIM calls for, and
that means you won't be doing much flying here on the Gulf Coast.

There is a limit to what you can teach on the ground - eventually you
have to fly. Experience matters.

OK, so what's the big deal about reroutes? We get them here quite often.

And we don't get them here much at all. And yes, you CAN train for it
here - but not the way you suggest. Forget filing an impossible route
- around here, there's no such thing. You will have to play ATC for
the student. Now, once the weather gets really ugly you will get
reroutes - but we just don't have that much of it. I've been flying
IFR for 4 years, I've been instructing, and I've made it a point to
get all the actual IMC that I can - and I still have not broken 100
hours. I make every effort to get my students actual IMC, and 3-5
hours is all I can manage. That means that if I want to really
prepare them for what happens when they leave the nest, I have to get
good at simulating. You need to see it a few times before you
simulate it.

Regarding density altitude that I 'supposedly know about' (please, you
don't know what I supposedly know), I have lived in the Rockies, and
have given mountain flight training, and I have taught IFR in the
mountains. I know very well what density altitude does. I really doubt
that a transient pilot on a long cross country will learn enough about
density altitude effects to make him experienced.

He will learn a whole lot more than if he never goes. Sure, you know
about density altitude - because you live with it. If you don't get
intimate with it, it will severely limit the utility of your flying.
Same for me and thunderstorms. Same for ice and the guys in the Great
Lakes Ice Machine. My point is not that you can get it all in one
trip, but that you will learn a whole lot more if you go than if you
don't.

Most transient pilots
do not go into airports that really require intimate knowledge of
density altitudes. Most runways are long enough for this to be a non-
issue. Have you flown into Leadville? It is the highest airport in the
US, but it is really not a big deal due to the long runway there. Then
try Glenwood Springs. That is serious. Most transient pilots don't go
there. They land at places like Santa Fe and Colorado Springs, where
they can get away with little knowledge of density altitude. The
textbook knowledge is enough to survive there.

The part you're missing though, is that while the textbook knowledge
is enough to survive, it's not enough to really be comfortable. You
don't start with the tough fields. All I can tell you is that I could
compute density altitude and takeoff and climb performance with the
best of them when I first took off out of West Texas, but the
experience of the first five minutes of that flight was a real
eye-opener. The textbook knowledge was enough for me to survive - and
accumulate additional knowledge.

I'll show my ignorance here, but if an NDB has moved by half a mile,
would there not be a NOTAM amending the approach chart?

It wasn't the NDB, it was the airport rotating beacon. And no, the
change was NOT recorded anywhere, though the locals all knew about it.
What made the process fascinating was breaking out, finding the
beacon, and then looking for the runway - in the wrong place. The
beacon had been moved to the opposite side of the runway. On a clear
day, not an issue. At night in limited vis - well, I almost went
missed due to not finding the runway.

I don't want you to get the wrong impression. I realize the value of
long trips. I have done many myself. I just don't see what is so
profound that makes them so important for IFR experience.

I guess I'm missing something. If you realize their value, then why
are you arguing against their value?

If you are
encountering new stuff on a long trip that you have never encountered
before, then you missed out some things in your training.

Absolutely. The problem is, there is so much to learn, EVERYONE
misses out on some things in training. My goal in training a student,
expecially an IFR student (and I admit that IFR training is most of
the instruction I do - call it playing to your strengths) is to give
him better training than what I had, and fewer surprises down the
road. I suppose if I ever get to the point where I know ALL there is
to know and good enough to get it all across, then I will train a
student who doesn't need to go on any long trips to learn anything.
But I'm not hopeful.

But I do agree
with you that the PTS leaves a student far short of real IFR knowledge.
The CFI-mills that produce instructors that barely satisfy the PTS is
where the problem lies. I think we agree on that. Where we disagree is
that a pilot who has made many long trips is necessarily any skillful
than someone who has received a _well-rounded_ training in a local
environment.

I suppose that could be true in theory. I just think in this case the
difference between theory and practice is a lot greater in practice
than it is in theory.

But you're right - I'm starting from a somewhat different assumption.
I know that most people DON'T get solid, well rounded training in the
local environment. Those who make long trips on a regular basis get
the holes filled in. However, as you pointed out with your remark
about the airplanes at the bottom of the canyon from out of state,
that's if they survive. It's possible that someone who has never made
a long trip still has the depth and breadth of knowledge to instruct
because HIS initial training was solid - but given the quality of
training that is generally available out there, it's not the way to
bet.

And even if that is the case, there is still a difference between
knowing about it and having done it. There are IFR pilots out there
who have significantly less intrument experience than I do who
nonetheless are much more able to handle IFR in potential icing
conditions - because MOST of their IFR time is in icing conditions,
while you can count my experiences with icing conditions on the
fingers of one hand. On paper, though, we know all the same things.

Finally, there is a difference in depth of knowledge required to teach
a thing or just do it. I've done aerobatics. I can do it. I won't
teach it, because I haven't done it enough.

Michael