Private Checkride question
- Thread starter Bluehen
- Start date
sopdan
Well-Known Member
Yes, but be warned, the DE may give you a simulated battery failure causing you to have to resort to other means. (also, I don't know how it works w/ your examiner, but I always have all the planning done before we meet, so my scenario is geared more toward when you're doing calculations in flight)
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but be warned, the DE may give you a simulated battery failure causing you to have to resort to other means.
[/ QUOTE ]
If he does such a thing, terminate the checkride and demand your money back. After that, file a complaint with the FAA formally and let them know that the DE is harrassing you.
That's unfair and not the right thing to do. The PTS says that you can use an electronic flight computer, and not dumb-a$$ DE with his/her own agenda can adjust it.
If anyone knows of a DE still doing this crap, let me know and I'll formally complain to the FAA. Saying that the battery could fail is like saying that the center rivet could fall out of a normal E6B and render it useless.
It's getting old, and it's stupid.
Yes, but be warned, the DE may give you a simulated battery failure causing you to have to resort to other means.
[/ QUOTE ]
If he does such a thing, terminate the checkride and demand your money back. After that, file a complaint with the FAA formally and let them know that the DE is harrassing you.
That's unfair and not the right thing to do. The PTS says that you can use an electronic flight computer, and not dumb-a$$ DE with his/her own agenda can adjust it.
If anyone knows of a DE still doing this crap, let me know and I'll formally complain to the FAA. Saying that the battery could fail is like saying that the center rivet could fall out of a normal E6B and render it useless.
It's getting old, and it's stupid.
sopdan
Well-Known Member
I don't know of any particular DE that does it, I just hear all of the "stories." Besides, I feel proficient w/ my cheaper (though seemingly still expensive) manual E6B. In fact, on my private checkride when asked for an ETA, I just flipped to that page on the GPS and he (the DE) was cool with that. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but be warned, the DE may give you a simulated battery failure causing you to have to resort to other means.
[/ QUOTE ]
If he does such a thing, terminate the checkride and demand your money back. After that, file a complaint with the FAA formally and let them know that the DE is harrassing you.
That's unfair and not the right thing to do. The PTS says that you can use an electronic flight computer, and not dumb-a$$ DE with his/her own agenda can adjust it.
If anyone knows of a DE still doing this crap, let me know and I'll formally complain to the FAA. Saying that the battery could fail is like saying that the center rivet could fall out of a normal E6B and render it useless.
It's getting old, and it's stupid.
[/ QUOTE ]
But Lloyd, though I wouldn't bust someone for knowing the basics, I'd still ask them about it and toss and E6B their way to use, and at least advise them that they should know how to revert to the basics if they ever need to. I wouldn't pull any battery failure stuff, just give them the straight skinny of what the real world could require, if in fact they don't possess that knowlege.
PTS or not, fact is, too many of today's Sensitive New Age Pilots are way too dependant on automation.
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but be warned, the DE may give you a simulated battery failure causing you to have to resort to other means.
[/ QUOTE ]
If he does such a thing, terminate the checkride and demand your money back. After that, file a complaint with the FAA formally and let them know that the DE is harrassing you.
That's unfair and not the right thing to do. The PTS says that you can use an electronic flight computer, and not dumb-a$$ DE with his/her own agenda can adjust it.
If anyone knows of a DE still doing this crap, let me know and I'll formally complain to the FAA. Saying that the battery could fail is like saying that the center rivet could fall out of a normal E6B and render it useless.
It's getting old, and it's stupid.
[/ QUOTE ]
But Lloyd, though I wouldn't bust someone for knowing the basics, I'd still ask them about it and toss and E6B their way to use, and at least advise them that they should know how to revert to the basics if they ever need to. I wouldn't pull any battery failure stuff, just give them the straight skinny of what the real world could require, if in fact they don't possess that knowlege.
PTS or not, fact is, too many of today's Sensitive New Age Pilots are way too dependant on automation.
Again, I fully believe that an evaluator worth his salt not only evaluates, but teaches as well. In that vein, I'm two things:
1. VERY much a believer in the basics. Know how to accomplish things using "long division", so to speak. When the automation fails, one darn well better know how to fall back.
2. VERY much a believer that someone that only trains to the PTS standards and nothing else, is shortchanging themselves. PTS is merely the minimums....the start, if you will, on expanding one's knowlege base of being a professional pilot. IMO, there's so much more to know outside the PTS, as like any other books on any subject, it covers only so much. The onus is upon the pilot to take that base of knowlege and build upon it.
In that vein, I'd still want to know the knowlege level on an applicant I'm evaluating. I evaluate to the PTS standards, with of course, a "big picture" mindset. Yet I'm still going to test one's basic knowlege. If they know it, cool. If not, I'm not going to bust them on it; but I'm going to, using my instructor "hat", let them know that it would be VERY wise to know the basics, and thought they're not being evaluated on it here, it would behoove them in their future to possess that knowlege if and when the time comes that it becomes their last fallback in a situation.
It's all part of being the best pilot you can.
1. VERY much a believer in the basics. Know how to accomplish things using "long division", so to speak. When the automation fails, one darn well better know how to fall back.
2. VERY much a believer that someone that only trains to the PTS standards and nothing else, is shortchanging themselves. PTS is merely the minimums....the start, if you will, on expanding one's knowlege base of being a professional pilot. IMO, there's so much more to know outside the PTS, as like any other books on any subject, it covers only so much. The onus is upon the pilot to take that base of knowlege and build upon it.
In that vein, I'd still want to know the knowlege level on an applicant I'm evaluating. I evaluate to the PTS standards, with of course, a "big picture" mindset. Yet I'm still going to test one's basic knowlege. If they know it, cool. If not, I'm not going to bust them on it; but I'm going to, using my instructor "hat", let them know that it would be VERY wise to know the basics, and thought they're not being evaluated on it here, it would behoove them in their future to possess that knowlege if and when the time comes that it becomes their last fallback in a situation.
It's all part of being the best pilot you can.
Bandit_Driver
Gold Member
Just carry a second set of batteries with you and the simulated battery failure can be easily corrected.... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bandit.gif
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
Agreed on all points, Mike D. By no means am I saying that an electronic E6B is the solution for everything. I firmly believe that any pilot worth his/her ticket should be able to perform most of the planning calculations with a pocket calc and paper, or better yet with just the pencil and paper. If you're planning to be a CFI, you need to learn the manual flight computer, or you'll be short-changing every student you ever have.
That being said, my problem with the "battery failure" thing is that a DE has no authority to "interpret" regulations in his or her favor. It's simply wrong. If we do that, we throw away our entire system of standardization.
Now, that being said, if any of my students are reading, there will be an E6B test tomorrow at 0830. Be ready, or be ready for killer PT.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
That being said, my problem with the "battery failure" thing is that a DE has no authority to "interpret" regulations in his or her favor. It's simply wrong. If we do that, we throw away our entire system of standardization.
Now, that being said, if any of my students are reading, there will be an E6B test tomorrow at 0830. Be ready, or be ready for killer PT.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
[ QUOTE ]
Agreed on all points, Mike D. By no means am I saying that an electronic E6B is the solution for everything. I firmly believe that any pilot worth his/her ticket should be able to perform most of the planning calculations with a pocket calc and paper, or better yet with just the pencil and paper. If you're planning to be a CFI, you need to learn the manual flight computer, or you'll be short-changing every student you ever have.
That being said, my problem with the "battery failure" thing is that a DE has no authority to "interpret" regulations in his or her favor. It's simply wrong. If we do that, we throw away our entire system of standardization.
Now, that being said, if any of my students are reading, there will be an E6B test tomorrow at 0830. Be ready, or be ready for killer PT.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
Fully agree, which is why I wouldn't come up with some sort of "battery failure" situation, or other gig. I'd just flat out say "here's two problems to solve. I see you've got your electronic E6B, so take problem #1 with the electonic, and I have a manual E6B you can use for the second problem. I'm not evaluating you on that second problem, just want to see your knowlege of the basics."
And go from there. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bandit.gif
Agreed on all points, Mike D. By no means am I saying that an electronic E6B is the solution for everything. I firmly believe that any pilot worth his/her ticket should be able to perform most of the planning calculations with a pocket calc and paper, or better yet with just the pencil and paper. If you're planning to be a CFI, you need to learn the manual flight computer, or you'll be short-changing every student you ever have.
That being said, my problem with the "battery failure" thing is that a DE has no authority to "interpret" regulations in his or her favor. It's simply wrong. If we do that, we throw away our entire system of standardization.
Now, that being said, if any of my students are reading, there will be an E6B test tomorrow at 0830. Be ready, or be ready for killer PT.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
Fully agree, which is why I wouldn't come up with some sort of "battery failure" situation, or other gig. I'd just flat out say "here's two problems to solve. I see you've got your electronic E6B, so take problem #1 with the electonic, and I have a manual E6B you can use for the second problem. I'm not evaluating you on that second problem, just want to see your knowlege of the basics."
And go from there. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bandit.gif
Acadia
Well-Known Member
I think it is up to the examiner to use any reasonable distraction and simulated failure to test how deeply an individual knows the material and can handle curve balls. Failing an electronic flight computer is no different that failing any aircraft system in my opinion. Just teach students to be ready for the possibility and it is a non-issue. If a failed electronic E6B flusters an individual then they probably are not ready to pass the test.
Also I would imagine that an examiners goal in failing an electronic flight computer is not just to make sure they are proficient with the whiz wheel, but rather to see how they deal with the sudden change from routine and do they fly the aircraft to PTS while dealing with it.
Not a big deal…
Also I would imagine that an examiners goal in failing an electronic flight computer is not just to make sure they are proficient with the whiz wheel, but rather to see how they deal with the sudden change from routine and do they fly the aircraft to PTS while dealing with it.
Not a big deal…
[ QUOTE ]
I think it is up to the examiner to use any reasonable distraction and simulated failure to test how deeply an individual knows the material and can handle curve balls. Failing an electronic flight computer is no different that failing any aircraft system in my opinion. Just teach students to be ready for the possibility and it is a non-issue. If a failed electronic E6B flusters an individual then they probably are not ready to pass the test.
Also I would imagine that an examiners goal in failing an electronic flight computer is not just to make sure they are proficient with the whiz wheel, but rather to see how they deal with the sudden change from routine and do they fly the aircraft to PTS while dealing with it.
Not a big deal…
[/ QUOTE ]
A viable reason too for something like that.
I think it is up to the examiner to use any reasonable distraction and simulated failure to test how deeply an individual knows the material and can handle curve balls. Failing an electronic flight computer is no different that failing any aircraft system in my opinion. Just teach students to be ready for the possibility and it is a non-issue. If a failed electronic E6B flusters an individual then they probably are not ready to pass the test.
Also I would imagine that an examiners goal in failing an electronic flight computer is not just to make sure they are proficient with the whiz wheel, but rather to see how they deal with the sudden change from routine and do they fly the aircraft to PTS while dealing with it.
Not a big deal…
[/ QUOTE ]
A viable reason too for something like that.
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I think it is up to the examiner to use any reasonable distraction and simulated failure to test how deeply an individual knows the material and can handle curve balls.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, (s)he can't. The practical test standards are just that - standards. There's nothing anywhere that says that a pilot ever has to touch a manual E6B. So, you're saying that a DE has the right and flexibility to test the students on his/her own terms? Where do we stop it?
[ QUOTE ]
Failing an electronic flight computer is no different that failing any aircraft system in my opinion.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, the difference is that the student isn't required to ever know the manual E6B. Nothing says that (s)he ever has to use it. Did you know that you're allowed to solve the problems with long math if you like? Of course, it'll take you 12 hours, but you don't have to use an E6B.
The PTS requires you to bring a computer and a plotter - it doesn't specify what kind of computer.
[ QUOTE ]
Just teach students to be ready for the possibility and it is a non-issue. If a failed electronic E6B flusters an individual then they probably are not ready to pass the test.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why? Where is the logic in that? What if they've never seen a manual E6B? it's quite legal and acceptable to learn from the beginning with an electronic one. What says they're not ready? Because they can't use a manual E6B that they don't have to use?
So, if you can't use a slide rule, are you truly ready for college? Even though the world is using TI-83's?
[ QUOTE ]
Also I would imagine that an examiners goal in failing an electronic flight computer is not just to make sure they are proficient with the whiz wheel, but rather to see how they deal with the sudden change from routine . . .
[/ QUOTE ]
If an examiner did that with me, my sudden change would be to cursing him out, and ending the checkride. (S)he'd then find that I'd file a formal complaint, and spread the word to everyone in the area that (s)he's unfair, and makes his/her own rules. I'd do everything in my power to keep business from going in that direction.
Screw bridges, the DE is not the FAA.
I think it is up to the examiner to use any reasonable distraction and simulated failure to test how deeply an individual knows the material and can handle curve balls.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, (s)he can't. The practical test standards are just that - standards. There's nothing anywhere that says that a pilot ever has to touch a manual E6B. So, you're saying that a DE has the right and flexibility to test the students on his/her own terms? Where do we stop it?
[ QUOTE ]
Failing an electronic flight computer is no different that failing any aircraft system in my opinion.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, the difference is that the student isn't required to ever know the manual E6B. Nothing says that (s)he ever has to use it. Did you know that you're allowed to solve the problems with long math if you like? Of course, it'll take you 12 hours, but you don't have to use an E6B.
The PTS requires you to bring a computer and a plotter - it doesn't specify what kind of computer.
[ QUOTE ]
Just teach students to be ready for the possibility and it is a non-issue. If a failed electronic E6B flusters an individual then they probably are not ready to pass the test.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why? Where is the logic in that? What if they've never seen a manual E6B? it's quite legal and acceptable to learn from the beginning with an electronic one. What says they're not ready? Because they can't use a manual E6B that they don't have to use?
So, if you can't use a slide rule, are you truly ready for college? Even though the world is using TI-83's?
[ QUOTE ]
Also I would imagine that an examiners goal in failing an electronic flight computer is not just to make sure they are proficient with the whiz wheel, but rather to see how they deal with the sudden change from routine . . .
[/ QUOTE ]
If an examiner did that with me, my sudden change would be to cursing him out, and ending the checkride. (S)he'd then find that I'd file a formal complaint, and spread the word to everyone in the area that (s)he's unfair, and makes his/her own rules. I'd do everything in my power to keep business from going in that direction.
Screw bridges, the DE is not the FAA.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also I would imagine that an examiners goal in failing an electronic flight computer is not just to make sure they are proficient with the whiz wheel, but rather to see how they deal with the sudden change from routine . . .
[/ QUOTE ]
If an examiner did that with me, my sudden change would be to cursing him out, and ending the checkride. (S)he'd then find that I'd file a formal complaint, and spread the word to everyone in the area that (s)he's unfair, and makes his/her own rules. I'd do everything in my power to keep business from going in that direction.
Screw bridges, the DE is not the FAA.
[/ QUOTE ]
My only opinion on this would be that I wouldn't evaluate the E6B usage as stated before, but I would evaluate general reactions to changing/unusual situations, or other general distractions for the purpose of evaluating someone's organization or SA as a debrief item; since IMO, there's no emergency that's ever fair to the pilot it's happening to.
What I'm saying is that things I evaluate/debrief and things I evaluate/grade upon maybe two completely different things, or similiar things.
[ QUOTE ]
Also I would imagine that an examiners goal in failing an electronic flight computer is not just to make sure they are proficient with the whiz wheel, but rather to see how they deal with the sudden change from routine . . .
[/ QUOTE ]
If an examiner did that with me, my sudden change would be to cursing him out, and ending the checkride. (S)he'd then find that I'd file a formal complaint, and spread the word to everyone in the area that (s)he's unfair, and makes his/her own rules. I'd do everything in my power to keep business from going in that direction.
Screw bridges, the DE is not the FAA.
[/ QUOTE ]
My only opinion on this would be that I wouldn't evaluate the E6B usage as stated before, but I would evaluate general reactions to changing/unusual situations, or other general distractions for the purpose of evaluating someone's organization or SA as a debrief item; since IMO, there's no emergency that's ever fair to the pilot it's happening to.
What I'm saying is that things I evaluate/debrief and things I evaluate/grade upon maybe two completely different things, or similiar things.
E_Dawg
Moderator
Lloyd I totally see your point but at the same time if a private applicant can't even begin to get close to the right number without the electronic e6b should they really be certified? Everyone should be able to at least estimate a semi decent # using mental math. Same with gps, vors, etc...
Acadia
Well-Known Member
Nothing was said about needing to use a manual E6B. An examiner might fail an electronic flight computer to distract the individual. The student at the very least should be able to do some quick basic math in place of a computer or by using rules of thumb. The PTS certainly allows room all kinds of failures and distractions and nobody is suggesting that a student might fail the ride for lack of knowing how to use an manual E6B. However they might fail if they cant deal with not having an electronic flight computer and blow some other PTS in the process.
I think failing a flight computer would fit very nicely under the "Use of Distractions during practical test". If from there the student is all over the place flying and they have no other basic means to even produce a rough estimate of whatever they were trying to compute then they are not fit to pass the ride.
I think failing a flight computer would fit very nicely under the "Use of Distractions during practical test". If from there the student is all over the place flying and they have no other basic means to even produce a rough estimate of whatever they were trying to compute then they are not fit to pass the ride.
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Lloyd I totally see your point but at the same time if a private applicant can't even begin to get close to the right number without the electronic e6b should they really be certified? Everyone should be able to at least estimate a semi decent # using mental math. Same with gps, vors, etc...
[/ QUOTE ]
Ed, I think we're saying the same thing.... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Now, we're discussing mental ability. I completely agree that if you can't figurte out how much fuel you'll use with simple math, you probably shouldn't be a pilot....
Unfortunately, the PTS doesn't require a whole lot of G2 - and there's little we can do to change that.
I'm not saying that the student should rely on the electronic E6B (hell, I've never used one). I just think that they shouldn't be forced into using a manual one if an electronic will suit their needs just fine.
Personally, I think anybody that can't use an IFR-approved GPS because it's "too complicated" shouldn't have an instrument ticket. However, I can't implement that rule. Just because I have a silly (I'm not serious....but pertty close) opinion doesn't mean that I can adjust the rules.
"The way we used to do it..." doesn't buy a gallon of gas with me. Pilots used to praise the NDB, and dream of VOR stations being built on the field. I teach students to fly the way they're going to fly. If a student is never going to touch a manual E6B after the checkride, let's teach it and stop stressing over it. if a student really desires an electronic E6B, so be it - as long as (s)he can get the numbers, I'm satisfied. I don't really care if (s)he guesses right every time. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
Lloyd I totally see your point but at the same time if a private applicant can't even begin to get close to the right number without the electronic e6b should they really be certified? Everyone should be able to at least estimate a semi decent # using mental math. Same with gps, vors, etc...
[/ QUOTE ]
Ed, I think we're saying the same thing.... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Now, we're discussing mental ability. I completely agree that if you can't figurte out how much fuel you'll use with simple math, you probably shouldn't be a pilot....
Unfortunately, the PTS doesn't require a whole lot of G2 - and there's little we can do to change that.
I'm not saying that the student should rely on the electronic E6B (hell, I've never used one). I just think that they shouldn't be forced into using a manual one if an electronic will suit their needs just fine.
Personally, I think anybody that can't use an IFR-approved GPS because it's "too complicated" shouldn't have an instrument ticket. However, I can't implement that rule. Just because I have a silly (I'm not serious....but pertty close) opinion doesn't mean that I can adjust the rules.
"The way we used to do it..." doesn't buy a gallon of gas with me. Pilots used to praise the NDB, and dream of VOR stations being built on the field. I teach students to fly the way they're going to fly. If a student is never going to touch a manual E6B after the checkride, let's teach it and stop stressing over it. if a student really desires an electronic E6B, so be it - as long as (s)he can get the numbers, I'm satisfied. I don't really care if (s)he guesses right every time. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
mtsu_av8er
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Just tell the Examiner "Dont Touch my Shtuff" or "Dont cross this line,,,,I Mean it". Problem Solved. Include this in Your briefing to him.
[/ QUOTE ]
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
I wonder how the examiner would react.... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
Just tell the Examiner "Dont Touch my Shtuff" or "Dont cross this line,,,,I Mean it". Problem Solved. Include this in Your briefing to him.
[/ QUOTE ]
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
I wonder how the examiner would react.... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lloyd I totally see your point but at the same time if a private applicant can't even begin to get close to the right number without the electronic e6b should they really be certified? Everyone should be able to at least estimate a semi decent # using mental math. Same with gps, vors, etc...
[/ QUOTE ]
Ed, I think we're saying the same thing.... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Now, we're discussing mental ability. I completely agree that if you can't figurte out how much fuel you'll use with simple math, you probably shouldn't be a pilot....
Unfortunately, the PTS doesn't require a whole lot of G2 - and there's little we can do to change that.
I'm not saying that the student should rely on the electronic E6B (hell, I've never used one). I just think that they shouldn't be forced into using a manual one if an electronic will suit their needs just fine.
Personally, I think anybody that can't use an IFR-approved GPS because it's "too complicated" shouldn't have an instrument ticket. However, I can't implement that rule. Just because I have a silly (I'm not serious....but pertty close) opinion doesn't mean that I can adjust the rules.
"The way we used to do it..." doesn't buy a gallon of gas with me. Pilots used to praise the NDB, and dream of VOR stations being built on the field. I teach students to fly the way they're going to fly. If a student is never going to touch a manual E6B after the checkride, let's teach it and stop stressing over it. if a student really desires an electronic E6B, so be it - as long as (s)he can get the numbers, I'm satisfied. I don't really care if (s)he guesses right every time. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
Caution with that though, some newbies will take that to mean "to heck with knowing the basics". We used to DR too, and it's not done much anymore, but there could very well be situations where that will be needed. And it goes back to not just knowing what the book says to know, but going beyond that. Even as an evaluator, I'll put on the IP hat, to insure I'm not sending someone out the door that only barely knows the minimums....that's an accident waiting to happen. Most newbies I've seen don't use NDBs, and maybe only flew once or twice with one in training. But if they could potentially rent a plane that has one, they ought to know how it works, since it's the equipment in the plane.
My point is that there's many pilots that think "I only need to know this, this, and that only....all the rest is old hat BS..." which is one of the most dangerous fallacies of automation for these new pilots. So many people want the "easy road", not many don't want to do the real work it takes to learn the job right.....and that's from the basics, not from starting out on FMSs, etc. Know the basics before you go to the advanced.
It surprises the heck out of me to hear that there's pilots that have never used an E6B. Then again, I grew up learning LORAN.
[ QUOTE ]
Lloyd I totally see your point but at the same time if a private applicant can't even begin to get close to the right number without the electronic e6b should they really be certified? Everyone should be able to at least estimate a semi decent # using mental math. Same with gps, vors, etc...
[/ QUOTE ]
Ed, I think we're saying the same thing.... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Now, we're discussing mental ability. I completely agree that if you can't figurte out how much fuel you'll use with simple math, you probably shouldn't be a pilot....
Unfortunately, the PTS doesn't require a whole lot of G2 - and there's little we can do to change that.
I'm not saying that the student should rely on the electronic E6B (hell, I've never used one). I just think that they shouldn't be forced into using a manual one if an electronic will suit their needs just fine.
Personally, I think anybody that can't use an IFR-approved GPS because it's "too complicated" shouldn't have an instrument ticket. However, I can't implement that rule. Just because I have a silly (I'm not serious....but pertty close) opinion doesn't mean that I can adjust the rules.
"The way we used to do it..." doesn't buy a gallon of gas with me. Pilots used to praise the NDB, and dream of VOR stations being built on the field. I teach students to fly the way they're going to fly. If a student is never going to touch a manual E6B after the checkride, let's teach it and stop stressing over it. if a student really desires an electronic E6B, so be it - as long as (s)he can get the numbers, I'm satisfied. I don't really care if (s)he guesses right every time. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
Caution with that though, some newbies will take that to mean "to heck with knowing the basics". We used to DR too, and it's not done much anymore, but there could very well be situations where that will be needed. And it goes back to not just knowing what the book says to know, but going beyond that. Even as an evaluator, I'll put on the IP hat, to insure I'm not sending someone out the door that only barely knows the minimums....that's an accident waiting to happen. Most newbies I've seen don't use NDBs, and maybe only flew once or twice with one in training. But if they could potentially rent a plane that has one, they ought to know how it works, since it's the equipment in the plane.
My point is that there's many pilots that think "I only need to know this, this, and that only....all the rest is old hat BS..." which is one of the most dangerous fallacies of automation for these new pilots. So many people want the "easy road", not many don't want to do the real work it takes to learn the job right.....and that's from the basics, not from starting out on FMSs, etc. Know the basics before you go to the advanced.
It surprises the heck out of me to hear that there's pilots that have never used an E6B. Then again, I grew up learning LORAN.