Larry Dighera wrote:

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:28:15 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote in 30a7e.12275$Bb3.8317@attbi_s22::

I personally would eliminate all the stupid "look at the picture of the
VOR,
and tell me your position from the station" crap. Same with the ADF.
(Hell, I don't even *have* an ADF in my plane.)

During my IR checkride, I spent time under the hood while the DE kept
putting the airplane into unusual attitudes (he wasn't a terribly good
pilot, obviously {8^).

After I got tired of that and removed the hood, I asked "so, where are we".
He laughed and told me that I was supposed to figure it out. So I did.

This seems rather useful to me. Why eliminate it?

And you could eliminate all the "pressure altitude" versus "density
altitude" computational B.S., too. Never used it yet.

What do you mean? How can you understand density altitude w/o understanding
pressure altitude? And how safe can you be in the summer w/o understanding
density altitude and its effects?

And while we're at it, the FAA could simplify the ridiculous VFR versus
IFR ceiling/visibility rules, along with the almost laughable
alphabet-soup airspace designations.

How would you propose it be simplified? The only way I can imagine that
occurring is if some of the less restrictive rules be make more restrictive
(ie. VFR in all airspaces (but B, I'd imagine) requiring 1000' vertical and
1 mile horizontal).

I expect a lot of GA would dislike that simplification.

Or did you mean something different? I'm not sure why you mentioned IFR,
for example.

- Andrew