Instrument proficiency

Cooter143 said:
I agree, but in the context of works and is SAFE. I've seen lots of pilots develop techniques that "work" for them, but it ignores the larger picture. I think that is probably a reason behind a significant number of GA accidents. Much of my training revolved around what could happen, not what usually happens. Unfortunately, after training, many of our habits form around what usually happens and that can be a setup for failure.
Click to expand...
"Works" to me necessarily includes safe, reliable, and gets the job, including variations on the job, done. As an instructor, of course I see things I don't "like" but that's not the test. Instead, I look for ways to see whether it works for the pilot.

To use your own example, I might well think to myself, "Gee, this pilot doesn't use the AI at all. I think that's a bad idea." The answer isn't "change it." It's let's see how it works in a busy terminal environment with establishing descents and other things. And we'll toss in a couple of reasonable things to go wrong and see if it breaks down easily.

I personally use and teach use of the AI. I even corrected a scan that wasn't working for a pilot because of faulty use of the AI. But, having hung out on this board for a while, I'm willing to bet that guys like EdFred, who says he doesn't even look at the AI any more, don;t have the problem you envision with the technique.

If I sound sensitive on the subject of instructors trying to change things, I am. My first IPC about a year after getting the rating was with a CFII who insisted a technique taught to me in my IR training was "wrong". It wasn't. It was just different from what this instructor believed was the one true way.

But my efforts to change it made the technique I was originally taught and the new "right" one he insisted on completely useless to me.
 
I'm a little confused, did you read in my post that I was telling anyone to change a technique? I thought I made it pretty clear that different things work for different people, and offered it as advice before adopting a new technique. I can't tell if your initial response was directed at me, but if so, I disagree that I've committed any cardinal sin.

I make a distinction between procedure and technique. Procedures are taught, techniques are offered. Techniques typically have their pros and cons, and I like to point those out if someone is looking for help.
 
Last edited:
Cooter143 said:
I'm a little confused, did you read in my post that I was telling anyone to change a technique? I thought I made it pretty clear that different things work for different people, and offered it as advice before adopting a new technique. I can't tell if your initial response was directed at me, but if so, I disagree that I've committed any cardinal sin.

I make a distinction between procedure and technique. Procedures are taught, techniques are offered. Techniques typically have their pros and cons, and I like to point those out if someone is looking for help.
Click to expand...
Some folks who do not use the AI could easily take your earlier comment as suggesting the change. I was just reminding others that this can be a bad thing.

And, as I mentioned in my post, I freely admit to being very sensitive on the subject. That means I sometimes see bogeymen when they are not there. So please take my remark in that context. If I unintentionally offended you I apologize.
 
Cooter143 said:
My primary scan revolves around AI, and VSI. For wings level, I scan the arrows at the top of the AI. To hold altitude, I primarily scan the VSI and my secondary scan is to my altitude indicator.
Click to expand...

I have a terrible time with the VSI. Since it's the needle that moves the most it draws my eye and I tend to fixate. It's the only needle I still chase and I have to actively force myself to keep my scan going. Now I just try to use it when I'm trimming out the airplane and to crosscheck my pitch attitude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top