David Megginson wrote
OK, now I see what you mean about the NDB approaches forcing
instructors to teach basic skills that they might otherwise neglect.

Like I said, you don't need the ADF to teach those things. On the
other hand, without the ADF, you can get by without teaching them. I
don't believe that's a good enough reason to put an ADF in every
instrument trainer - you'll recall I was the one who proposed an
instrument rating not valid for ADF approaches as the solution for
those who didn't learn the necessary skills. It's the same solution
used for taildraggers, and I think it works OK.

Perhaps raising the test
standards in that area would be a better solution.

Maybe. Or maybe in the modern world we just don't need to force
people to learn those basic skills. Look at how many pilots fly just
fine for years without really learning to use the rudder or make full
stall landings. Those things are not tremendously relevant in today's
trainers (C-172's and Cherokees) under most conditions, and they're
REALLY not relevant in today's transport category airplanes. Thus I
can easily see why one of those career-track programs wouldn't bother
teaching those skills.

The same applies to the ADF. For this reason, a lot of the
career-track operations just don't have ADF's in any of their
airplanes. And that's fine. My real goal with the ADF limitation is
to make it impossible for the graduates of those programs (who are all
CFII's) to teach IFR in the world of light GA, where the NDB approach
is alive and well, without being forced to develop those basic skills.

Michael