Bob Moore wrote
Jose, unfortunately, way back in the '60s or '70s, the FAA introduced
"Integrated Flight Training". A program where use of the "instruments"
(not hood time) was to be introduced from the begining. Most of the
older, more experienced flight instructors know this to be unwise

Translation - those who learned in Stearmans and T-craft and were not
allowed to look at the gauges until long after they had soloed,
learning instead to fly by the seat of the pants, the feel of the
stick, and the sound of the wind felt this was unwise. And in one
sense it was.

The old "fly by the seat of the pants" paradigm produced great sticks
- people who really felt the airplane. Those who couldn't do it (many
can't) washed out. That's very important for day-VFR close-in combat
flying and competition or airshow aerobatics - and not much else in
the world of powered flying. The old system produced pilots who were
great in good day-VFR conditions, but inherently distrusted
instruments and thus never got comfortable with night and weather
flying. They were the same people whose idea of emergency instrument
training consisted of "See that cloud? Fly into it and you will DIE."

I suppose in an era when a well equipped civil airplane might have a
T&S - certainly no other gyros - and civil IFR was considered
unrealistic, that may have made sense. In the modern world, where
even primary trainers come with IFR panels, it's the integrated method
of instruction that makes sense. It makes for more precise pilots.
Yes, there is a tendency to focus inside - but any worthwhile
instructor will see it and correct the problem. Remember - those
sticky notes are not just for instrument training - they can and
should be used to curb reliance on any (or all) instruments as
necessary.

The advantage of the integrated method is that the instruments are
familiar from day one, and the use of instrument references to refine
and supplement visual references when those are inadequate to the task
is an excellent habit that is not really sufficient for IFR flying
(though it does make an inadvertent encounter far less likely to
kill), but builds a strong foundation for it. It makes it that much
easier to transition to instruments when required, rather than trying
to use the "eagle eyes" and "seat of the pants" approaches (which
plain don't work) when visual references are inadequate.

So the tradeoff is you get a pilot less able to feel the airplane and
fly it to the very edge of the performance envelope, but more
comfortable with night and marginal weather and thus more able to use
the airplane for transportation is weather that is less than ideal.
IMO that is a very sensible tradeoff.

I snipped the part from the FAA book, but I agree with it completely.
For the modern environment, where it's the airplane without gyros that
is unusual, not the one with them, it makes all kinds of sense.

Michael