My first big IFR mistake...

You totally misunderstood my point. I thought the person I was responding
to was commenting on the laziness of people and the general push towards
just getting by rather than learning how to fly.

I did not say anything about how ADF is better than GPS or something
similar. A GPS probably could get me to more places legally, but do I
really want to do a GPS approach rather than a precision approach at a
bigger airport? I don't think so. The ADF in my plane would allow me to
get to a few places that have NBS for missed approaches, and the like - I
know I can substitute a GPS, but I learned how to fly without needing the
pretty pictures to tell me where I am.


"Jeff" wrote in message
...
Richard
some parts of the country do not have many NDB's, The two around me that
I
know of are both are in different states. Utah and california, so I really
get
no use out of my ADF. I do have the garmin 430 and I kept the ADF and DME
for
backup but as I said, I never get the opportunity to use it. An approach
certified GPS will do you alot more good then the ADF.

Richard Hertz wrote:

Wow - I finally read something worth reading on this newsgroup. Thanks
Michael. (And for once I am not being facetious!)

I don't have an adf in my plane - I wish I did. I have just two VOR
receivers. An ADF would get me into a bunch of other places and it is
nice
to have the extra functionality. (especially like LOMs)

"Grumman 123, LOM inbound"
"huh?"

"Michael" wrote in message
om...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote
Wow! I can't believe all the posts recommending ways of disabling
the
ADF!

Why not? Once you buy into the idea that an instrument rating isn't
actually very useful in the sort of airplane he will be flying, and is
just a piece of paper to get, it makes all the sense in the world.
Disabling the ADF makes the piece of paper easier to get.

Dumbing down the test so that you can pass it is not a good idea and
that
philosophy is not going to make anyone good at anything.

Except passing tests.

I like the idea of using a flightsim to practice.

I do too, especially since you can (a) stop the action to think while
you're coming up to speed and (b) get a track showing what you did
immediately afterwards.

I also think that NDB approaches are the second-best exercise in
situational awareness available - NDB holds are the first. Once
situational awareness is mastered, it actually takes very little time
to learn NDB approaches. Thus my advice is this - focus on knowing
where on the approach plate you are, every minute. Know where the
wind is coming from. It's perfectly legitimate to draw a wind arrow
on the approach plate once you figure out the wind, and it can make
visualizing your correction easier. Remember, the procedure turn is
not cast in stone. You can go more than a minute outbound before
turning 180, and if there's a stiff headwind from that direction you
probably should. How many degrees you should lead your turn onto the
FAC becomes obvious when you keep wind and distance from the beacon in
mind. Keep in mind that heading, bearing (absolute and relative),
course, and track are all different things. Know the differences.

Once you get to that point, you won't need the rules, the mnemonics,
the tricks, or any of the rest of that garbage. The corrections will
become intuitive.

Thus I have a suggestion about the best way to use flight sim. If you
are not sure what the needle is telling you or how to correct, DON'T
GUESS. Stop the action and figure it out, then start again. You will

find that with time, you will not need to stop anymore. At that
point, start doing them in the plane. I think you will discover that
a couple of hours is all it will take to become proficient.

Michael

"Richard Hertz" wrote in message . net...
You totally misunderstood my point. I thought the person I was responding
to was commenting on the laziness of people and the general push towards
just getting by rather than learning how to fly.

I did not say anything about how ADF is better than GPS or something
similar. A GPS probably could get me to more places legally, but do I
really want to do a GPS approach rather than a precision approach at a
bigger airport?

You make it clear this is a rhetorical question, but I'd like to
point out that quite often in some parts of the country, the answer
is "yes", for many reasons.

For example, if you have a choice between flying a GPS approach into
an airport 20 minutes drive from your destination, or an ILS into a
bigger airport 2 hrs drive away, what do you really want to do?

If you have a choice between being based at a smaller airport where
you can afford hangar rent and typically be the only one shooting
the GPS approach, or a nearby bigger airport where you can be #7
for the ILS, what do you really want to do?

Similar considerations apply to other NP vs precision approaches -- except
that these days NDBs at smaller airports are often woefully ill-maintained
and not NOTAM'd OTS as often as they really are.

Of course, if you can afford any hangar rent at any airport and you
only fly into major metropolitan areas bristling with precision approaches,
these considerations don't apply to you

Cheers,
Sydney