When has it Been too Long before you solo

[discussion about requiring hood proficiency before solo]

I am disturbed that they require any hood work at all before solo, and that they are emphasizing hood work for the private. By putting you under the
hood that soon, they are teaching you to =not= look out the window. There are already too many geegaws in the cockpit to distract people - GPS alone
is becoming a substitute for knowing how to navigate.

In early training, seat-of-the-pants and look-out-the-window flying should be emphasized, and in later training, one should be constantly reminded not
to get into the habit of fixating on the geegaws. It's too easy to do.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote
In early training, seat-of-the-pants and look-out-the-window flying
should be emphasized, and in later training, one should be constantly
reminded not to get into the habit of fixating on the geegaws.

Jose, unfortunately, way back in the '60s or '70s, the FAA introduced
"Integrated Flight Training". A program where use of the "instruments"
(not hood time) was to be introduced from the begining. Most of the
older, more experienced flight instructors know this to be unwise, but
Part 141 schools are coerced by the FAA into using a syllabus based on
this FAA program.

From the "old" FAA AC 61-21A Flight Training Handbook

Integrated Flight Instruction
In introducing the basic flight maneuvers, it is recommended that the
"Integrated Flight Instruction" method be used. This means that each
flight maneuver should be performed by using both outside visual
references and the flight instruments.
When pilots use this technique, they achieve a more precise and competent
overall piloting ability. That is, it results in less difficulty in
holding desired altitudes, controlling airspeed during takeoffs, climbs,
descents, and landing approaches, and in maintaining headings in the
traffic pattern, as well as on cross-country flights.
The use of integrated flight instruction does not, and is not intended
to, prepare pilots for flight in instrument weather conditions. It does,
however, provide an excellent foundation

for the future attainment of an instrument pilot rating, and will result
in the pilot becoming a more accurate, competent, and safe pilot.
Although integrated flight instruction should be used for all flight
maneuvers, its use is specifically discussed here in only the Basic
Flight Maneuvers.

Bob Moore
CFIing for 34 years

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 122...
Jose wrote
In early training, seat-of-the-pants and look-out-the-window flying
should be emphasized, and in later training, one should be constantly
reminded not to get into the habit of fixating on the geegaws.

Jose, unfortunately, way back in the '60s or '70s, the FAA introduced
"Integrated Flight Training". A program where use of the "instruments"
(not hood time) was to be introduced from the begining. Most of the
older, more experienced flight instructors know this to be unwise, but
Part 141 schools are coerced by the FAA into using a syllabus based on
this FAA program.


This integrated instrument time was in the syllabus at the schools I taught
at. When the student got the basic scan down his altitude and heading
control improved considerably. What it did that I didn't like was reliance
on the gauges while he was VMC (head down and locked). I would have to
cover the attitude indicator to get them to look outside again. I have had
several students take and pass the Private Pilot checkride with just 35
hours in their logbooks (following the syllabus).

Allen

I received my training at a Major University flight program that was in the
process of taking it one step further and combining 2 year (VFR / IFR)
course into a combined accelerated schedule (1 year- maybe 3 semesters, I
got out before it became official). I was learning instruments & approaches
VERY early. The only complaint I received on my PPL exam was to look out the
window more often! Since I did not go pro, or even finish the IFR - I kind
of wish I did not learn that way, so flying a minimum equip. craft wouldn't
scare the snot out of me. ;-) But I could shoot an ILS to minimums without
breaking a sweat!




"Allen" wrote in message
. com...

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 122...
Jose wrote
In early training, seat-of-the-pants and look-out-the-window flying
should be emphasized, and in later training, one should be constantly
reminded not to get into the habit of fixating on the geegaws.

Jose, unfortunately, way back in the '60s or '70s, the FAA introduced
"Integrated Flight Training". A program where use of the "instruments"
(not hood time) was to be introduced from the begining. Most of the
older, more experienced flight instructors know this to be unwise, but
Part 141 schools are coerced by the FAA into using a syllabus based on
this FAA program.


This integrated instrument time was in the syllabus at the schools I
taught
at. When the student got the basic scan down his altitude and heading
control improved considerably. What it did that I didn't like was
reliance
on the gauges while he was VMC (head down and locked). I would have to
cover the attitude indicator to get them to look outside again. I have
had
several students take and pass the Private Pilot checkride with just 35
hours in their logbooks (following the syllabus).

Allen

"Snoopy" Snoopy is wrote in message
. com...
I received my training at a Major University flight program that was in
the
process of taking it one step further and combining 2 year (VFR / IFR)
course into a combined accelerated schedule (1 year- maybe 3 semesters, I
got out before it became official). I was learning instruments &
approaches
VERY early. The only complaint I received on my PPL exam was to look out
the
window more often! Since I did not go pro, or even finish the IFR - I kind
of wish I did not learn that way, so flying a minimum equip. craft
wouldn't
scare the snot out of me. ;-) But I could shoot an ILS to minimums without
breaking a sweat!



By the time my students soloed they could maintain altitude and heading, do
constant airspeed climbs and descents and standard rate turns to headings
under the hood. They normally soloed with about 10-15 hours logged.

Allen

Bob Moore wrote
Jose, unfortunately, way back in the '60s or '70s, the FAA introduced
"Integrated Flight Training". A program where use of the "instruments"
(not hood time) was to be introduced from the begining. Most of the
older, more experienced flight instructors know this to be unwise

Translation - those who learned in Stearmans and T-craft and were not
allowed to look at the gauges until long after they had soloed,
learning instead to fly by the seat of the pants, the feel of the
stick, and the sound of the wind felt this was unwise. And in one
sense it was.

The old "fly by the seat of the pants" paradigm produced great sticks
- people who really felt the airplane. Those who couldn't do it (many
can't) washed out. That's very important for day-VFR close-in combat
flying and competition or airshow aerobatics - and not much else in
the world of powered flying. The old system produced pilots who were
great in good day-VFR conditions, but inherently distrusted
instruments and thus never got comfortable with night and weather
flying. They were the same people whose idea of emergency instrument
training consisted of "See that cloud? Fly into it and you will DIE."

I suppose in an era when a well equipped civil airplane might have a
T&S - certainly no other gyros - and civil IFR was considered
unrealistic, that may have made sense. In the modern world, where
even primary trainers come with IFR panels, it's the integrated method
of instruction that makes sense. It makes for more precise pilots.
Yes, there is a tendency to focus inside - but any worthwhile
instructor will see it and correct the problem. Remember - those
sticky notes are not just for instrument training - they can and
should be used to curb reliance on any (or all) instruments as
necessary.

The advantage of the integrated method is that the instruments are
familiar from day one, and the use of instrument references to refine
and supplement visual references when those are inadequate to the task
is an excellent habit that is not really sufficient for IFR flying
(though it does make an inadvertent encounter far less likely to
kill), but builds a strong foundation for it. It makes it that much
easier to transition to instruments when required, rather than trying
to use the "eagle eyes" and "seat of the pants" approaches (which
plain don't work) when visual references are inadequate.

So the tradeoff is you get a pilot less able to feel the airplane and
fly it to the very edge of the performance envelope, but more
comfortable with night and marginal weather and thus more able to use
the airplane for transportation is weather that is less than ideal.
IMO that is a very sensible tradeoff.

I snipped the part from the FAA book, but I agree with it completely.
For the modern environment, where it's the airplane without gyros that
is unusual, not the one with them, it makes all kinds of sense.

Michael