Have we stopped teaching VOR skills?

I flew with somebody recently who just got their instrument rating a few
months ago, in a GPS-equipped airplane. His GPS and BAI skills were fine,
but when I suggested we fly one leg without the GPS, just using VORs and a
chart for en-route navigation, he said he had never done that in training.

He was taught that if the GPS should ever die, the fallback would be to use
the #2 radio to request vectors. The only real use he had made of VORs was
to fly a VOR approach (mostly partial-panel, because that's what the
checkride required), never en-route. Is this really the way new instrument
students are being taught these days? Is the VOR already dead in the
classroom?

Clearly not dead, as I can vouch from my Instrument training a little
over a year ago, but it's obvious that training standards do vary. IMO
no pilot should ever be content until he/she knows how to use every
piece of equipment on board.

Hmmm...what a coincidence.
I am presently being taught VOR as a student pilot in AZ. My instructor told
me that that will be the way I'll be taught to fly cross country.
I do plan on getting my instrument rating so it will be very useful.

Gary
"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
I flew with somebody recently who just got their instrument rating a few
months ago, in a GPS-equipped airplane. His GPS and BAI skills were fine,
but when I suggested we fly one leg without the GPS, just using VORs and a
chart for en-route navigation, he said he had never done that in training.

He was taught that if the GPS should ever die, the fallback would be to
use
the #2 radio to request vectors. The only real use he had made of VORs
was
to fly a VOR approach (mostly partial-panel, because that's what the
checkride required), never en-route. Is this really the way new
instrument
students are being taught these days? Is the VOR already dead in the
classroom?

Roy,
I found the VOR weakness along with numerous others when an
SR-22 pilot came ro me after failing his instrument checkride.

Must be relaated to SR-22 accident record.

Gene Whitt

In article et, Gene Whitt wrote:

Must be relaated to SR-22 accident record.

I've got no time in the SR-22, but I've talked to a few
who have, and they agree with Michael's assesment: it's
a complex airplane minus a few knobs (while my Arrow
is a non-complex with a few extra knobs).

I was flying into a busy airport this morning, and was
asked to keep my speed up. I went down the glideslope
at Vle and still made the first turnoff. You can't do
that in a slipery bird.


Morris

I thought Arrows had retractable gear, constant speed props and flaps?
That is complex in my book.

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
'79 Mooney 201

Journeyman wrote:

In article et, Gene Whitt wrote:

Must be relaated to SR-22 accident record.


I've got no time in the SR-22, but I've talked to a few
who have, and they agree with Michael's assesment: it's
a complex airplane minus a few knobs (while my Arrow
is a non-complex with a few extra knobs).

I was flying into a busy airport this morning, and was
asked to keep my speed up. I went down the glideslope
at Vle and still made the first turnoff. You can't do
that in a slipery bird.


Morris

In article , Jon Kraus wrote:
I thought Arrows had retractable gear, constant speed props and flaps?
That is complex in my book.

It has all that, and fits the FAA definition of complex.

But, since it's (relatively) slow and draggy, you don't have to fly it
the same way you'd fly a higher performance bird. The SR-22 should be
classed with the Mooneys and Bonanzas. The Arrow should be classed
with the Skylanes and Cherokees.

IOW, in the real world, what makes an airplane a handful to fly isn't
the presence or absence of a couple of extra knobs. It's the need
to be planning further out ahead of the plane.


Morris

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 03:13:06 GMT, Jon Kraus
wrote:

I thought Arrows had retractable gear, constant speed props and flaps?
That is complex in my book.

The Arrow is complex, but it is not high performance. (*over* 200 HP)

It is also far, far slower than an SR-22. The 22 may have fixed gear,
but it's a good 20 knots faster than many Bonanzas. The major hurtle
is learning to think farther ahead.


Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
'79 Mooney 201

Journeyman wrote:

In article et, Gene Whitt wrote:

Must be relaated to SR-22 accident record.


I've got no time in the SR-22, but I've talked to a few
who have, and they agree with Michael's assesment: it's
a complex airplane minus a few knobs (while my Arrow
is a non-complex with a few extra knobs).

Your Arrow is a complex.


I was flying into a busy airport this morning, and was
asked to keep my speed up. I went down the glideslope
at Vle and still made the first turnoff. You can't do
that in a slipery bird.

The Bo is slippery and a good short field bird and particularly the 33
series. Book figures have them landing shorter than a 172, or at
least many of them. Then again the wing loading of the Bo is
surprisingly light. My Deb is a tad lighter per sq ft than a
Cherokee. The newer ones are a tad heavier, but still relatively
light.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


Morris

Roy Smith wrote:

I flew with somebody recently who just got their instrument rating a few
months ago, in a GPS-equipped airplane. His GPS and BAI skills were fine,
but when I suggested we fly one leg without the GPS, just using VORs and a
chart for en-route navigation, he said he had never done that in training.

He was taught that if the GPS should ever die, the fallback would be to use
the #2 radio to request vectors. The only real use he had made of VORs was
to fly a VOR approach (mostly partial-panel, because that's what the
checkride required), never en-route. Is this really the way new instrument
students are being taught these days? Is the VOR already dead in the
classroom?

When I get back to my instrument training, I'm simply not going to have
a GPS in sight. GPS is easy to learn after full training on the
standard instruments.

William W. Plummer wrote:

GPSÂ*isÂ*easyÂ*toÂ*learnÂ*afterÂ*fullÂ*trainingÂ*o nÂ*the
standard instruments.

I don't see the logic behind this. You'll learn to fly an ILS; why not a
GPS?

Yes, you absolutely should learn to fly w/o the GPS. Similarly, you should
learn to fly w/o the ADF, the AI, etc.

But I'd not put off GPS training any more than I'd put off VOR training.
It's a part of instrument flying, so learn it.

[Of course, if you don't have a GPS or an ADF, that's a different matter.
There's little reason to learn to fly a 2005 GPS if you don't think you'll
be flying a GPS for several years. Sadly, there's enough difference in the
UIs to make that less than fully efficient.]

- Andrew