Jose wrote:

The reason not to, is that one needs to learn VOR/DME/ADF navigation and
attitude flying, and there may be a tendency to rely on the GPS, to the
detriment of the more basic =training=. One would therefore have less
than ideal basic skills.

IMO and E, the basic skills of attitude flying rely on scanning the primary
six-pack, whereas tracking a VOR, localizer, or GPS would be considered the
secondary skills. I do not see how utilizing the GPS for navigation
would negatively affect ones attitude flying skills.

But, then again I am not an instructor, nor a multi-decade experienced
pilot, so perhaps I am typing out of my derriere.

You are right, GPS is a wonderful tool, and should =also= be learned and
integrated. However, the hard part of GPS isn't the GPS or the map or
the needle... it is the interface, and they are =far= from standard.
Teach someone VOR and they are good to go in most any plane. Teach
someone GPS and they will still need a type rating(*) for each and every
other GPS system on the planet.

You do have a good point there. In thinking about my comments, I now see
that they stem from the fact that I own and fly the same aircraft. I had
overlooked the interface differences between the different IFR-certified
GPS's.

By the way, I do not advocate letting one's VOR skills atrophy in favor of
the GPS. I have had three GPS failures in my three years of active
instrument flying experience, two on approach (one GPS-software related and
one RAIM failure) and one en route (database expired at 00z while flying,
which required a reboot of the GPS and five minutes to re-acquire).

The latter failure caught me with my pants down as the VORs were not set as
a backup.


--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----