![]() |
Quote:
Dial the clock back 20 years, and I am sure instructors were saying the same thing about HSI's, telling students to use a separate heading indicator and CDI / ADF to better prepare them. A parallel would be forcing all new drivers to learn on manual transmission based cars. Today, one can become a very competent driver without ever knowing what gear they are in. In my intial training I did partial panel with and ASI, ALT and ADI - with GPS approaches (CDI on GPS screen). Later in my training I added a second EFIS and put in battery backups for them. Glass is my primary and my backup. Larry |
Well, I was instructing 20 years ago, and I never objected to an HSI. But I did love NDB approaches! When a student could do them well, I knew that he had mastered visualizing his position and orientation - without a moving map. The auto parallel would be a 16 year old learning to drive in a car with a gps moving map. Turn it off, and he can't figure out how to get home! Don't get me wrong, I love the avionics we have now. But I do a fair number of IPCs, and I can always tell the pilots who have never flown without moving maps. If I 'fail' the map, the pilot gets mentally lost.
|
We're Getting Old
IIRC, my own early instrument instruction included some ranting about using a rotatable card on the NDB approaches - like it would destroy my capability to figure out headings and intercepts on my own.
My big challenge today is to stop over-controlling the aircraft because the digital information coming at me is showing heading and altitude changes one degree and one foot at a time. I have to keep reminding myself that maritime compasses showed 32 points (rather than 360 degrees) for a reason - holding course any closer was an exercise in futility. Terry, CFI RV9A N323TP |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:47 AM. |