"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
> OBI and the ADF

Er, make that CDI.

Thks is an idea I disagree with. The rotatable azimuth is there for a reason
and should be used. The problem comes when the instrument student tries to
adjust the bezel for every heading change. A better method is to estimate
how much heading change into the wind is necessary in order to offset wind
drift and set the bezel to that heading...maybe five to ten degrees away
from the published course...and then work at maintaining that estimated
heading until it is proven wrong by moving either further into the wind or
back toward the nose. Whatever. Change the bezel a couple of degrees in the
necessary direction and go back to work on maintaining the heading using the
DG. Shouldn't have to touch the rotatable azimuth more than a couple of
times during an approach, if you are any good at guessing crosswind
component.

Bob Gardner

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> OBI and the ADF
>
> Er, make that CDI.
>
>

Bob Gardner wrote:
> Thks is an idea I disagree with. The rotatable azimuth is there for a reason
> and should be used. The problem comes when the instrument student tries to
> adjust the bezel for every heading change. A better method is to estimate
> how much heading change into the wind is necessary in order to offset wind
> drift and set the bezel to that heading...maybe five to ten degrees away
> from the published course...and then work at maintaining that estimated
> heading until it is proven wrong by moving either further into the wind or
> back toward the nose. Whatever. Change the bezel a couple of degrees in the
> necessary direction and go back to work on maintaining the heading using the
> DG. Shouldn't have to touch the rotatable azimuth more than a couple of
> times during an approach, if you are any good at guessing crosswind
> component.

Better yet, relegate ADF to the museum of 20th Century aviation
artifacts. ;-)

Even better, get an RMI either mechanical or electronic.



"Sam Spade" > wrote in message
news:iItXg.32428$tO5.10002@fed1read10...
| Bob Gardner wrote:
| > Thks is an idea I disagree with. The rotatable azimuth
is there for a reason
| > and should be used. The problem comes when the
instrument student tries to
| > adjust the bezel for every heading change. A better
method is to estimate
| > how much heading change into the wind is necessary in
order to offset wind
| > drift and set the bezel to that heading...maybe five to
ten degrees away
| > from the published course...and then work at maintaining
that estimated
| > heading until it is proven wrong by moving either
further into the wind or
| > back toward the nose. Whatever. Change the bezel a
couple of degrees in the
| > necessary direction and go back to work on maintaining
the heading using the
| > DG. Shouldn't have to touch the rotatable azimuth more
than a couple of
| > times during an approach, if you are any good at
guessing crosswind
| > component.
|
| Better yet, relegate ADF to the museum of 20th Century
aviation
| artifacts. ;-)