When was the last time you used your ADF?

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