How can you conduct IR training in an aircraft which does not have the equipment to conduct an IR practical test?
What model is your ADF, a good ADF is a pleasure to use but it sounds like yours is not a good one?
More likely because a FMS is far more than a light airplane needs and is more complicated than most anyone flying a light airplane wants to learn. The Cirrus Perspective system is out there at the far edge of that already, and most of the people I train on G1000's don't use but half its capability as it is.
How can you conduct IR training in an aircraft which does not have the equipment to conduct an IR practical test?
I'll stand by my answer based on a couple of thousand hours of IR training given -- there's absolutely no practical reason for the OP to re-install the ADF which was removed in order to pursue IR training and complete the IR practical test.
But what's the point if the first thing he does after training is stick in a GPS? He will have spent hours of training on the ADF (typically one full day for ground, sim, and flight when I'm doing the 10-day program) with no long-term gain. But I know there are some instructors of my vintage who still think that knowing how to use an ADF is an essential skill even if the pilot will never use one again after training, and there's little I can do to change that mind-set.Well gosh Ron, didn't realize this was going to turn into a measuring cost, lol. I only have a few hundred hours of IR training given. I guess you beat me.
I can provide instrument training all day and twice on Sunday with no equipment at all (self contained PAR/ASR). Although, he does have access to an ASR down at ILM. I didn't say it was effective or the best of ideas. The point was why limit an instrument student to the same 3 approaches over and over at his home field, when you can expose him to a lot more variety if he merely plugs his ADF back in? Granted, with his most recent post, his ADF might suffer from reliability issues (which neither of us knew at the time) so the cost would go up.
Searching through Foreflight, within 60nm (up to an hour away) of New Bern, I count 8 approaches at 5 airfields he can fly with only his VOR. That's actually not too bad for instrument training. If I add ADF to his equipment, I count 26 approaches he can legally fly at 16 airfields. That's a really good variety and a lot options to choose from (real life or for training). If this spread is consistent within 500nm (a bag of gas) of New Bern, I say having the ADF increases his options substantially when on a long IFR cross country and the need to land arises. I also think having the extra piece of equipment makes flight planning for those long cross countries easier (less stressful) if one knows they're likely going to need to shoot an approach at the end (or worse, in the middle). Divert options? Yes please. Finally, he's more likely to have the ability to land at his destination. That's a pretty good Return on Investment for merely dropping a couple hundred bucks reinstalling an ADF. Sounds like a practical investment to me, but then again, I don't have as much as experience as you. :wink2:
But they still can at the flick of a switch make the system unusable by the rest of us while keeping it usable for the military.
Well, that's the point, isn't it? You won't be able to do GPS approaches, and maybe not use it for even enroute/terminal nav.
Yeah, kinda like my nuclear war planning colleague John said back in the 80's about nuclear winter. He said, "I'm a not near as worried about surviving nuclear winter as I am about surviving the nuclear summer which precedes it -- SPF 50 won't protect you from 1 million degrees Fahrenheit." Nevertheless, I can see them flipping that switch if there's a terrorist cruise missile threat, and that wouldn't quite be the same overall impact as playing "Global Thermonuclear War" with Joshua.
Seems likely that whatever would prompt reactivating SA would also involve grounding all civilian aircraft ala 9/11. Of course the airplanes needing and approach to comply might be stuck without an LPV to get on the ground.
In that situation, I doubt we'd care.
I've never heard of a DPE asking for that on an IR practical test, but it certainly is theoretically possible. For non-GPS aircraft, they pretty much always do a VOR approach for the "primary flight instrument(s) inoperative" task.
That would not be true if you're based at Easton MD (KESN) -- either GPS or DME is required to fly an instrument approach there. And there are plenty of other airports like that.