Bob Moore wrote:
I'll tell you why Jon....As a 20,000+ hour former navy and retired
airline pilot who served as an instrument instructor in both
services,
and has been an FAA authorized instrument instructor for 35 years...
I'm in charge of the training session...not ATC. I try my best to
maximize my student's lesson time as opposed to following ATC's
directions to keep me clear of other traffic.

Translation - operating in actual under ATC control means you simply
can't do one-size-fits-all training. You have to be flexible, think on
your feet, work with ATC (rather than insisting that you are in
charge), and figure out how to maximize training value in a constrained
environment (meaning under ATC control). That's much harder than doing
it in the unconstrained environment (VFR in the sticks), and you simply
can't fully plan it. In other words - effectively instructing in
actual is MUCH harder than doing it under the hood, even if you don't
consider the additional degree of difficulty of needing to maintain
your own scan while teaching. The whole concept of preparing a
syllabus and sticking to it rigidly (which is the military and airline
way) goes out the window. To effectively utilize actual time, you wind
up having a different syllabus for each student.

Of course this means you must also have solid experience in the system,
become pretty good at predicting what is likely to happen, and
effectively brief your student on what to expect. Instruction in IMC
requires a much longer and more thorough ground briefing so the student
is prepared for what is coming.

Also, no matter what you do, and no matter how good you are, the fact
remains that you will need more total aircraft hours training in actual
than you will if you do it all under the hood in the sticks. It won't
be 2-3 times as much (that would take a pretty rigid instructor who
can't go with the flow) but it will be more.

No matter how you slice it, if you leave instruction in actual out of
the curriculum, you can get the student to the checkride in fewer hours
while demanding less from both the instructor and the student. There's
only one problem. You're not getting an instrument rating to fly
around under the hood, are you?

Operating in actual teaches you things that you're simply not going to
learn in a simulator or under the hood. Peter has already made some
valid points in that area, and I won't repeat them. But there are
others.

Operating in actual teaches you that it's not ceiling that's really
crucial on an approach, it's visibility (which, unlike ceiling, can't
be effectively simulated). It teaches you where the pitfalls are in a
low-vis circling approach - something you will NEVER learn flying under
the hood in CAVU. It teaches you to handle ATC when it's REALLY busy -
filing in CAVU won't. It teaches you to anticipate what's coming
(those ground briefing sessions are NOT wasted time) and how to be
prepared for it. It teaches you to deal with the twin hazards usually
associated with IMC - T-storms and ice. Really the list is too long to
cover everything. There is absolutely no validity to the idea that you
can consistently do a complete and valid instrument course without
exposure to actual IMC and turn out a pilot who can consistently
self-dispatch and operate in conditions below VFR minimums with a
reasonable margin of safety.

Michael