I'd actually argue that this is not the approach I am taking.
Let me draw an analogy: training for spin avoidance vs. recovery in aircraft.
Some folks believe that the best thing to do for student pilots is to train them on how to avoid any situation where they might get into a spin near the ground. Students who come out of this training regimen should (in theory) be very good at avoiding spins. They have lots of practice at getting near to a stall which might result in a spin, and getting out of it. These folks believe that by staying proficient at avoidance, they can never find themselves in a situation where they need to recover from a spin. In addition, if they do find themselves in a spin near the ground, their chances of recovery are so slim that training on recovery is not worth the risk of the training.
Other folks believe that a pilot should be trained for every eventuality, no matter how rare (or avoidable) that circumstance is. Doing otherwise is shirking your responsibilities as a proficient pilot. Even though recovery from a near-the-ground spin is unlikely, your odds are much better with training than without.
This debate has split the aviation community, and the FAA at times has taken one position then the other. Both sides of the debate are correct, depending on the type of flying that you do: a pilot who is going to engage mostly in conservative flying may be better served by spin avoidance training, while a pilot who engages in aggressive flying may be better served by spin recovery training.
In the same way a person who avoids risky situations may be better off not carrying a gun (since, without frequent training on safe gun carry and operation of the weapon such carrying may have more risk than reward for this person), while a person who frequently finds themselves in risky situations may be better off with the gun.
Makes sense to me. Personally, I prefer spin avoidance over recovery proficiency. The "superior pilot uses their superior judgement to avoid needing their superior skills" approach. But I understand why some take the other side of this debate.
Chris
