Here's a bet for you: I bet that a metric ****load more GA pilots have crashed
due to NOT looking at the instruments (like in IMC) than have crashed due to
(over)reliance on instruments.

It's a great exercise to do a landing with the ASI, etc. out once in a while
whether a student or experienced pilot just to know that it can be done in the
event of an instrument failure. But I will tell you that when one is faced with
it, either real or simulated, it is a grave mistake to fly any sort pattern
other than an unhurried one with gentle turns. There is no good reason to
compound one problem (e.g. ASI inop) with another (steep
turn/uncoordinated/sudden pitch changes/etc.). Most accidents, including
training accidents, are caused by a series of events and bad decisions - not
just one. You know, my old C-150 was real easy to land without looking at the
ASI. It had a low stall speed, lots of warning before a stall, and a wide band
of approach speeds that would work. But my Musketeer, while easier in general to
fly and land, has a high(er) stall speed, little warning before a stall, and a
narrow band of approach speeds that will work. Can I land without an ASI? Damn
skippy I can, but I'm going to take advantage of everything in my toolbox if it
comes to it. I'll try to go to an airport with a long runway, make shallow
turns, use full flaps, keep the ball centered, and I'm not going to practice it
either. It's just not worth it.

Stepping up on an even higher soap box now: I get absolutly worn out with the
guys who want to tell everybody that they aren't a good/safe/real pilot if they
aren't completely minimalist and avoid use of any new-fangled inventions. Like
the slip/skid ball. Oh please! "Boy, you just ain't a real pilot if you can't
fly a tail dragger". Fine. I don't want to be a "real" pilot then. Tricycle gear
is easier and safer. Ask your insurance man if you want proof. Good enough for
me. "Back in my day, we had to learn to spin them aeroplanes. You just ain't no
kinda pilot if you don't do it and like it.". Well why is it now that spin
avoidance rather than spin training is taught that the occurance of stall/spin
accidents is lower? And so forth. If you want to fly a plane with no dials, then
go right ahead. Just stop telling everybody that you are superior to those of us
who divide their time properly to looking at the panel and out the window.

Off my soap box now.

Best regards,

Steve Robertson, CFI and old guy
N4732J 1967 Beechcraft A23-24 Musketeer Super III

Roger Long wrote:

Guilty as charged of poor word choice. The key point is that an overshot
turn, in most cases, doesn't have to even be salvaged. Just hold normal
pattern turn attitude and you'll come back to centerline in time to get down
on most runways used by anything larger than trainers. Holding attitude
instead of trying to increase the turn with bank and or rudder is the core
message. Even if you are going around, you want to get back to the
centerline in case someone is flying a real tight downwind. Holding that 20
degree bank until you get there will make it easier to look for them.

I got us off on instrument use which is really a separate discussion that
applies to all pattern flying; not just an overshot turn. If I were a CFI
and my student got into that position, I would sure want to think he would
take a quick check at the gauges to be sure he hadn't strayed too far out of
the envelope instead of thinking he wasn't supposed to do that and trying to
feel his way out.

Learning to rely less on the instruments, attitude flying, and all that is
an important part of training and an objective for proficiency. However,
"Don't look at the panel!", is not a dogma that should be handed out to
blindly apply to all landing situations. Learning to fly without reference
to the instruments is something the student should be initially doing with a
CFI in the right seat. Most students will be overshooting a number of final
turns before they are ready to judge RPM, airspeed, and coordination
without instruments.

Being able to get a plane landed with out looking at the instruments is one
thing. Flying a precise pattern, landing in the minimum distance, at the
lowest touchdown speed is another. Most pilots are not going to be able to
maintain the level of proficiency where they can do those things safely
without a glance at the panel at certain points in the pattern. Flying like
it was flight simulator is a different issue which should be addressed.

Pilots should practice patterns without looking at gauges. They should also
do patterns with gauge checks to be sure that they really are flying the
flight profile they are practicing.

A sad but true thing is that the kind of training most students are going to
get will require that they use the instruments as checks while they teach
themselves how to fly the pattern properly. Having CFI's who teach attitude
flying properly telling them in a forum like this that looking at the panel
is a bad thing is, in my view, a bad thing.

--
Roger Long

A Lieberman wrote in message
...
Roger Long wrote:

Sure it is, if you are a low time student pilot trying to salvage an
overshot turn before you have developed a good feel for the plane.

Hi Roger,

Just "my opinion". but salvage and student in the same sentence is a bad
choice of words.

If the low time student overshot the turn to the point where the word
salvage comes into play, I would suggest just going around and trying
again.....

Allen
(who is not a CFI).