to HSI or not to HSI

For sissies as well.

Give me an airport next to a good old pig farm upwind, and I'll open
the window and smell my way down, and I never miss the MAP.



On 17 Nov 2004 17:35:06 -0800, (Doug)
wrote:

Yes, and I miss the old 4 course ranges. An approach down one of those
really made a man out of you. All this VOR and DME stuff is for
sissies too. Just gimmie a 4 course range and good set of earphones,
and I'll land 'er in any weather, by gump.


(Michael) wrote in message . com...
"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.

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.

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).

Michael

"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote
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.

Ultimately, naviagation competency is performance based. Can you do
it or can't you? If it takes tricks and drill for what ought to be
figured out, it will take longer but ultimately competency can be
achieved. The pilot in question will never be able to design
procedures or even asess their quality, but ultimately it should not
matter. He will perform them as designed, and the TERPS people will
hopefully design them such that they always work.

Then of course there are issues like the LVJ VOR-B, but I try to make
sure my students are warned about those.

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).

I have no idea why you spent 50 hours in a Frasca. I do know that in
general simulators are harder to fly than the real airplane,
especially a trainer. I know that at 20 hours of IMC time, my
instructor told me to go burn hood time with a safety pilot, because I
was ready to pass the checkride. Of course he told me that not
because there is nothing useful to teach beyond 20 hours, but because
there is nothing to teach past 20 hours that you need to pass the
checkride - and passing checkrides was really all he knew.

I spend the full 40 hours with my students not because I can't get
them through the checkride in less but because I have other
priorities, like not hearing about how they had to be scraped off the
side of a mountain. Perhaps your instructor had similar goals?

Michael

Michael wrote:
"Richard Hertz" no one@no one.com wrote
Can you explain why that is the one advantage (BC)/revers on localizer, and
why that is so?
Do you mean to say that people confuse which color sector they are in on a
localizer due to "reverse needle"?

Yes, that is exactly what I mean to say.

If so then it is a training issue, not a
technology issue.

Oh man, here we go. You've just touched off a religious debate.

In real life, I run a department that designs instrumentation for
process environments. What that means is that engineers design it,
but generally non-engineers (plant operators, meter readers,
technicians) install and use it. These days, most instrumentation has
software in it, so it should not come as a surprise that I rose into
that position from software engineering.

In the process, I learned a lot about user interfaces. There are two
kinds of user interface bug. There is the kind where the user
interface acts contrary to design, in a useless or unpredictable
manner in a given situation (coding error) and there is the kind where
it acts as designed (intentionally or unintentionally), in a manner
that is predictable and useful but, in certain situations,
counter-intuitive to the operator (design error). The first kind is
unusuable in those given situations. The second kind is usable,
provided you read the manual and are aware of how the system will
behave. There are those who believe that this means it's not an error
- that you should simply RTFM. In other words, that it is a training
issue. They are wrong.

I'd offer another design flaw -- not having the user's involved
in the design from the beginning to mitigate, even eliminate, the
design flaw. If the engineers & designers are not SMEs (Subject Matter
Experts) *AND* users, then I'd question the confidence factor
when the product is put into a normal operating environment.

Not to get into another religious discussion, but let's look at
two examples -- MS Windows -- the user if forced to operate in the
manner Microsoft dictates. Second example -- Air Traffic Control
workstation. Both current and retired ATC controllers were involved
from the very beginning - and it was a multi-year project. They
explained and demonstrated what worked and didn't work. And made
recommendations for improvement. In otherwords, User-Centric
design and implementation.

In article ,
wrote:

I say again.

Totally ridiculous.

Don't you just love people who use anonymous remailers or forged
names when involved with an allegedly legitimate discussion?

"Blanche" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:

I say again.

Totally ridiculous.

Don't you just love people who use anonymous remailers or forged
names when involved with an allegedly legitimate discussion?

Shouldn't there be some way the discussion group could just reject such
messages? We don't need 'em.

Rod

On 20 Nov 2004 08:00:00 -0700, Blanche
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

I say again.

Totally ridiculous.

Don't you just love people who use anonymous remailers or forged
names when involved with an allegedly legitimate discussion?

Actually, I love them more than the anals who are, for some mysterious
reason, seemingly put off by it.

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 10:06:18 -0500, "Rod Madsen"
wrote:


"Blanche" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:

I say again.

Totally ridiculous.

Don't you just love people who use anonymous remailers or forged
names when involved with an allegedly legitimate discussion?

Shouldn't there be some way the discussion group could just reject such
messages? We don't need 'em.

Rod


Isn't that why they make "ignore" boxes?

Or, let me see now...

Maybe you could just ignore them on your own??????

By the way, how do I know you are who you say you are?

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 16:01:48 GMT, wrote:

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 10:06:18 -0500, "Rod Madsen"
wrote:


"Blanche" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:

I say again.

Totally ridiculous.

Don't you just love people who use anonymous remailers or forged
names when involved with an allegedly legitimate discussion?

Shouldn't there be some way the discussion group could just reject such
messages? We don't need 'em.

Rod


Isn't that why they make "ignore" boxes?

Or, let me see now...

Maybe you could just ignore them on your own??????

By the way, how do I know you are who you say you are?


Come to think of it, why should I even care?

Let me answer my own question. I don't.

So please don't feel obligated to answer.

Blanche wrote:
Michael wrote:

I'd offer another design flaw -- not having the user's involved
in the design from the beginning to mitigate, even eliminate, the
design flaw. If the engineers & designers are not SMEs (Subject Matter
Experts) *AND* users, then I'd question the confidence factor
when the product is put into a normal operating environment.

Not to get into another religious discussion, but let's look at
two examples -- MS Windows -- the user if forced to operate in the
manner Microsoft dictates. Second example -- Air Traffic Control
workstation. Both current and retired ATC controllers were involved
from the very beginning - and it was a multi-year project. They
explained and demonstrated what worked and didn't work. And made
recommendations for improvement. In otherwords, User-Centric
design and implementation.

Not a valid comparison.
ATC has many safety related issues and *must* have
user input & feedback.
ATC also doesn't need to make a profit, whereas Microsoft
has a limited time to get *any* product into a mass-market.

wrote:

Isn't that why they make "ignore" boxes?

Killfile after I respond to this.

Or, let me see now...

Maybe you could just ignore them on your own??????

By the way, how do I know you are who you say you are?


Do you *really* think I'd use the name "Blanche" as an alias?
Besides, there are people on this list who I've met in
person.

It's an issue of credibility. You are advocating an approach to
instructing that altho is intriguing, without any credibility
because you're using forged/false DNS address.

Bye-bye.