When was the last time you used your ADF?

Michael wrote:

snip
What bothers me is the loss of the ADF from the training environment.
The ADF forced the student to understand the difference between
heading, bearing, track, and course.

Is it not possible to teach these same concepts using the GPS? Those
concepts are all relative to the GPS, too, no?

--
Peter

In article ,
"Peter R." wrote:

Michael wrote:

snip
What bothers me is the loss of the ADF from the training environment.
The ADF forced the student to understand the difference between
heading, bearing, track, and course.

Is it not possible to teach these same concepts using the GPS? Those
concepts are all relative to the GPS, too, no?

In theory, yes. In practice, "follow the purple line" works pretty well,
even if you don't really understand what you're doing.

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 20:09:09 -0400, Roy Smith wrote:

In article ,
"Peter R." wrote:

Michael wrote:

snip
What bothers me is the loss of the ADF from the training environment.
The ADF forced the student to understand the difference between
heading, bearing, track, and course.

Is it not possible to teach these same concepts using the GPS? Those
concepts are all relative to the GPS, too, no?

In theory, yes. In practice, "follow the purple line" works pretty well,
even if you don't really understand what you're doing.

I don't think GPS even comes close to simulating an NDB approach. GPS
gives you a line to follow. Then NDB points to the station so with a
cross wind and no practice you can end up arriving at 90 degrees to
your original heading. You do the cross wind correction without
really knowing what's going on in the GPS. Just follow the line by
pointing the nose where ever it needs to go. With the NDB *you* have
to figure out where it needs to go, and be able to make corrections.

No more of this descending in the NDB hold on partial panel with a
strong cross wind. Now that's an exercise with timed turns to a
heading, timed descents to an altitude, or combining the two to make a
timed 180 degree turn to a specific heading and altitude and you are
expected to reach the heading and altitude at the same time.

GPS just takes all the fun out of those exercises:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

In article ,
Roger wrote:

No more of this descending in the NDB hold on partial panel with a
strong cross wind. Now that's an exercise with timed turns to a
heading, timed descents to an altitude, or combining the two to make a
timed 180 degree turn to a specific heading and altitude and you are
expected to reach the heading and altitude at the same time.

GPS just takes all the fun out of those exercises:-))

Finally, a good reason to get a GPS.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 07:47:23 -0400, Bob Noel
wrote:

In article ,
Roger wrote:

No more of this descending in the NDB hold on partial panel with a
strong cross wind. Now that's an exercise with timed turns to a
heading, timed descents to an altitude, or combining the two to make a
timed 180 degree turn to a specific heading and altitude and you are
expected to reach the heading and altitude at the same time.

GPS just takes all the fun out of those exercises:-))

Finally, a good reason to get a GPS.

All I can say, particularly after having spent about two hours on the
above and similar exercises... AMEN!

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Peter R. wrote:
What bothers me is the loss of the ADF from the training environment.
The ADF forced the student to understand the difference between
heading, bearing, track, and course.

Is it not possible to teach these same concepts using the GPS? Those
concepts are all relative to the GPS, too, no?

Those concepts are relative to ANY method of navigation. It's just
that with some forms of navigation, you can get by with not really
understanding the difference most - but not all - of the time.

So yes, it's possible - but not terribly likely to happen, in the same
way that it's possible to teach a student to consistently fly and land
at the correct airspeed and to touch down at a consistent pitch
attitude and with the longitudinal axis aligned with the runway in a
C-172, but usually it doesn't happen. The proof is that most pilots
trained in a C-172 can't just sit down in a C-170 and fly it - but some
can. On the other hand, a C-170 pilot can always get in a C-172 and
fly it. That's because his skill set is more general - it always
works. But if you want an airplane for practical purposes - getting
from point A to point B reliably - the C-172 is clearly the better
airplane.

So why won't most students learn the right way in the C-172 (or with a
GPS rather than an ADF?) It's just too easy to do it to PTS standards
the wrong way. Why is it wrong? Because while it works most of the
time, there are situations where it will bite you.

In the training environment, there is a tradeoff between how good a
pilot and how good a teacher an instructor must be. In an airplane
with 2 nav-coms, an ADF, and a standard six-pack (and nothing else) you
better be a good IFR pilot if you're going to teach in IMC (there is a
special place reserved in hell for CFII's who won't teach in IMC) or
you're likely to lose SA, and maybe the airplane too. But if the
student manages to learn (even if he has to teach himself) he will
learn (some of) the right things. With a setup like that, if he can do
the (ILS, VOR, and NDB) approaches and consistenly find himself on the
map or approach plate, he has learned the difference between heading,
bearing, course, track, and radial - even if he can't really explain it
- and has developed situational awareness. This will be the case even
if his instructor can't teach. Of course he may never learn at all,
but then he won't get the rating and won't be dangerous.

Now let's say you have two 430's, a PFD, and backup AI, ASI, and
altimeter. Instructing in IMC becomes a breeze - almost any CFII can
do it. What's more, the flying is much easier. Just follow the line.
There's a problem with this, though. Just following the line won't
ALWAYS work. There are still situations where you need real SA. But
they're hard to simulate, harder to teach, and still harder to test.
It takes a really good teacher to get the student to understand why the
difference between heading, bearing, course, track, and radial is
important, and get the student to learn the differences, internalize
them, and develop true situational awareness of which positional
awareness is only a subset. The better equipment calls for a more
skilled teacher, who need not be a particularly skilled pilot.

Michael