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

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

In article , William W. Plummer wrote:

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.

I appreciate the attitude. If you can mentally translate from keeping
the needle centered to your position along an airway, you can do it
whether the needle represents a VOR signal, localizer signal, or
GPS. That's the basic IFR nav skill to master.

Once you have the basics, though, don't underestimate the complexity
of current GPS interfaces. I swear, you need a degree in computer
science to operate those things (fortunately for me...). I've had
the plane for a year now, and I'm still learning things about the
GPS.

On today's trip, I used the flight plan for the first time since
my flight home when I bought the plane. That time, I had another
pilot flying, so I could have as much heads down time as I needed.
This time, I did the flight plan on the ground before starting the
engine.

Despite the complexity of the capabilities, it does make things
easier once you get comfortable with it. Anyone can use the moving
map and direct-to feature right away, particularly for VFR flight,
but the more advanced features take practice to master.


Morris (just a direct-to kinda guy)

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

There needs to be a balance between reliance on Gee-wiz boxes and knowing
how to use ALL of the installed & legal equipment. My DE (no longer active
as of May 31) wouldn't know what to do w/ the nav pages of a GNS 4/530. She
failed an instrument student for not being able to nav to an intersection
w/o the gps. (Agreed)

But the same student can have same gps and not know anything beyond direct .
Forget about flight plan or select approach, OBS, CDI. You get the picture.

--

Thx, {|;-)

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.

VOsborne2 at charter dot net
"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
gonline.com...
William W. Plummer wrote:

GPS is easy to learn after full training on 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

Journeyman wrote:

If you can mentally translate from keeping the needle centered to your
position along an airway, you can do it whether the needle represents a
VOR signal, localizer signal, or GPS. That's the basic IFR nav skill to
master.

Well, but maybe that's the real question? Is visualizing location in space
by interpreting a CDI needle indeed a basic IFR skill? It certainly was
when I did my instrument training, but is it still? Will it always be?
The moving map GPS gives so much more information. Right now, we're in a
transition stage where a well-stocked GA panel consists of a moving map GPS
backed up by a conventional nav/com. Maybe 10 years from now, the standard
will be two moving map GPS units (or something more exotic), and the CDI as
we know it today will be as obsolete as the ADF is quickly becomming?