CFII Question

[dmccormack]

That's me!

However, nearly 9000 hours later, I've found that I can fly a tailwheel plane much better and with a lot less sweat than I did in 1971 when I added that one hour to the 130 or so I had at that time. Knowing what I do now about the fundamentals of aircraft control, and having internalized that knowledge, I have a much easier time forming my mental picture of what I want the plane do and turning that picture into the control inputs necessary to make it do that.

For example, I flew my buddy's Luscombe 10 days ago -- one t/o and one landing on a narrow paved runway, and he was quite happy with that landing. But while I think I'd be OK landing a TW airplane in an emergency situation if the PIC dropped dead, I know darn well I'd need a lot more work to feel safe flying that or any other TW airplane by myself.

A Luscombe is a good test of TW proficiency, right, Deb?

At 75+ hours in the Chief, I'm feeling mildly proficient. I've flown it in some skill-challenging situations (some intentional, most not) and still am happier on grass than pavement.

I was signed off at 5.

Did I meet the letter of the law? Yes. Did I meet the insurance requirements? Yep -- after 20 hours.

That's not the same as "Totally comfortable in this airplane" which I *can* say about a couple of other models.

 

[TMetzinger]

The tailwheel portion of discussion reminds me of Steven Coonts' musings in the Cannibal Queen, where he compared his proficiency in the Stearman (with less than 100 hours at the time) to his time in the Intruder (with several thousand hours).

Good read, for those who haven't.

 

[poadeleted20]

A Luscombe is a good test of TW proficiency, right, Deb?

After flying that plane, unless I'm a lot better than I think I am, I'd disagree. For a real test, let's talk Pitts or TW-converted Yankee. I definitely had a lot more in my mouth than I could chew (no less swallow) when trying to land a TW Yankee a few years ago (emphasis on trying over landing). To be honest, that experience did more to deflate my TW confidence than anything else. When flying a Maule and a Luscome within the last couple of years, I found it much easier than I had expected, but I'm still quite wary of airplanes without a nosewheel.

 

[poadeleted20]

The tailwheel portion of discussion reminds me of Steven Coonts' musings in the Cannibal Queen, where he compared his proficiency in the Stearman (with less than 100 hours at the time) to his time in the Intruder (with several thousand hours).

Can't speak to his Stearman skills, but Cooter was a damn good A-6 pilot.

 

[dmccormack]

After flying that plane, unless I'm a lot better than I think I am, I'd disagree. For a real test, let's talk Pitts or TW-converted Yankee. I definitely had a lot more in my mouth than I could chew (no less swallow) when trying to land a TW Yankee a few years ago (emphasis on trying over landing). To be honest, that experience did more to deflate my TW confidence than anything else. When flying a Maule and a Luscome within the last couple of years, I found it much easier than I had expected, but I'm still quite wary of airplanes without a nosewheel.

I think there are certain Luscombe models with very narrow gear and high CG that were particualrly difficult.

My pre-war Chief is more difficult in crosswinds than post-wars due to very short wheel-base and very wide side surface (see "weathervane" for picture).

What helped immensely was dropping tire pressure down from 36 to 15-16 PSI.

The tires are so saggy I had somebody walk over after I taxied around their hangar party (complete with trucks parked along the taxiway and kids running out of the hangar -- yeah, real fun) that my "tires were low."

I said, "Yep -- they are -- I like 'em that way."



Oh -- and for the record -- One or two TW landings is not a sufficient sample size.

(One day I was out practicing -- five or six greasers in a row -- "OK, I have this down!")

Oops...

 

[poadeleted20]

I think there are certain Luscombe models with very narrow gear and high CG that were particualrly difficult.

Dunno -- all I know is this one was an 8A.

Oh -- and for the record -- One or two TW landings is not a sufficient sample size.

(One day I was out practicing -- five or six greasers in a row -- "OK, I have this down!")

Oops...

Ain't no problem selling me on that concept.

 

[poadeleted20]

However, the question on which R&W and I differ is whether an electric HI in a 6-pack panel excuses you from flying the "partial panel" stuff on the IR practical test or an IPC with both AI and HI covered, rather than merely simulating a vacuum or AI failure by covering only the AI. The guidance in 8900.1 and 8900.2 is neither consistent nor clear on that point. I hope to have an answer on that from AFS-600 today or tomorrow.

Answer received from AFS-640. To comply with FAA Order 8900.2 paragraph 45b(2) for a 6-pack panel, both the primary attitude and primary heading indicators must be covered. If the aircraft used for the test has a backup attitude indicator in place of the TC/T&B, that is left uncovered (else there'd be no gyro instrument at all, and at least in theory, control is completely compromised), but if the only backup gyro is a TC/T&B, that's the only gyro instrument the applicant gets to use for this task.

And lest anyone say that the less restrictive language in 8900.1 allows ASI's more latitude, AFS-640 pointed out that 8900.2 says:

This order contains procedures for authorized general aviation airman designees and inspectors to conduct certificate holder oral and practical tests and issue temporary airman certificates.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Answer received from AFS-640. To comply with FAA Order 8900.2 paragraph 45b(2) for a 6-pack panel, both the primary attitude and primary heading indicators must be covered. If the aircraft used for the test has a backup attitude indicator in place of the TC/T&B, that is left uncovered (else there'd be no gyro instrument at all, and at least in theory, control is completely compromised), but if the only backup gyro is a TC/T&B, that's the only gyro instrument the applicant gets to use for this task.

And lest anyone say that the less restrictive language in 8900.1 allows ASI's more latitude, AFS-640 pointed out that 8900.2 says:

Care to show where they put that in writing? Did they issue a notice to that effect?

 

[poadeleted20]

Care to show where they put that in writing? Did they issue a notice to that effect?

Call AFS-640 and ask them. I'm only telling you what they told me about how they interpret that portion of 8900.2.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Call AFS-640 and ask them. I'm only telling you what they told me about how they interpret that portion of 8900.2.

.

That's one persons interpretation. Unless they are willing to issue a Notice or put it on a Letterhead and sign it it carries no weight. The FAA has never used verbal policy.

Get it in writing and you may be believable.

 

[poadeleted20]

.
That's one persons interpretation. Unless they are willing to issue a Notice or put it on a Letterhead and sign it it carries no weight. The FAA has never used verbal policy.

Get it in writing and you may be believable.

I would say much the same of your personal interpretation of 8900.2, except that AFS-640 is the office charged with standardizing its implementation in the field. So, unless you can find something in writing to support your personal interpretation...

 

[RotorAndWing]

I would say much the same of your personal interpretation of 8900.2, except that AFS-640 is the office charged with standardizing its implementation in the field. So, unless you can find something in writing to support your personal interpretation...

And by someone supposedly giving you an opinion during a phone call makes it policy??

Get real.

 

[poadeleted20]

And by someone supposedly giving you an opinion during a phone call makes it policy??

And your personal interpretations of 8900.2 do carry weight? If you need it in writing, you should have the channel open to get it. Personally, on this one, I'll take their spoken word for it and be sure my trainees can pass a ride given the way AFS-640 told me it's supposed to be conducted.

Here's my concern -- if you tell instructors or applicants that there is something they don't have to do on the test, and they get jammed up because they were not prepared for the examiner doing it the way AFS-640 says they want it done, you aren't there to help them, and they suffer the consequences, not you.

As for me, I don't need that written statement on letterhead to know I should be preparing my trainees for their IR checks as AFS-640 told me -- they'll still pass even if they fly with you and you let them have more instruments than AFS-640 told me they are allowed. But I'm not going to send them up for the ride assuming the personal interpretation of 8900.2 by one Inspector in the field is valid while what AFS-640 told me is not, and see my trainee bust on something for which AFS-640 and a plain reading of 8900.2 (that part about "turn coordinator, ball, and airspeed") tells me they should know how to do but you say isn't required.

 

[RotorAndWing]

And your personal interpretations of 8900.2 do carry weight?

As an Inspector overseeing DPE's my interpretation of 8900.2 does carry weight as to their performance unless HQ gives me something in writing that states otherwise. (in writing, not verbal)

If you need it in writing, you should have the channel open to get it.

That's not how things work. If they feel it needs clarification (and they obviously don't) then a Notice is put forth down through the chain. just because a CFI wants an interpretation on something he doesn't understand does not create the need for policy change.

Personally, on this one, I'll take their spoken word for it and be sure my trainees can pass a ride given the way AFS-640 told me it's supposed to be conducted.

That's your personal choice. However you are trying to imply that this is somehow national policy. You clearly don't understand the difference.

 

[Lance F]

OP here. Ironically my vacuum pump failed on an IFR cross country flight Sunday. Fortunately it was VMC the whole way (and I have a backup electric vacuum pump) so no big deal.
I'll make two comments. 1. Even VMC, the conflicting indication of the spinning down AI was disorienting. As an instrument pilot you want so strongly to follow the AI. It was a good lesson. and 2. The electric HSI performed flawlessly inspite of what ASF-640 allegedly wants demonstrated

 

[EdFred]

OP here. Ironically my vacuum pump failed on an IFR cross country flight Sunday. Fortunately it was VMC the whole way (and I have a backup electric vacuum pump) so no big deal.
I'll make two comments. 1. Even VMC, the conflicting indication of the spinning down AI was disorienting. As an instrument pilot you want so strongly to follow the AI. It was a good lesson. and 2. The electric HSI performed flawlessly inspite of what ASF-640 allegedly wants demonstrated

Actually Lance, it's odd. I've noticed myself going away from the AI, and relying more on HSI and altimeter. If the HSI isn't moving, I'm not turning, and if the altimeter isn't moving, I'm level. I have found myself only using the AI during turns - and that's as a backup to the TC. W/O an autopilot, it's a lot easier to maintain course using the HSI than it is the AI. And if I maintain course, I am not getting into trouble.

 

[Clark1961]

Actually Lance, it's odd. I've noticed myself going away from the AI, and relying more on HSI and altimeter. If the HSI isn't moving, I'm not turning, and if the altimeter isn't moving, I'm level. I have found myself only using the AI during turns - and that's as a backup to the TC. W/O an autopilot, it's a lot easier to maintain course using the HSI than it is the AI. And if I maintain course, I am not getting into trouble.

I strongly believe this is the correct answer. The AI is almost never the primary instrument. I do like the TC, the HSI (or DG before I had the HSI), and the altimeter along with the airspeed indicator.

I know that folks like the Air Force teach using the AI but they have redundant AI's. For the rest of us, use of other systems may well be the best. My position is not to trust any system that sucks.

 

[poadeleted20]

I know that folks like the Air Force teach using the AI but they have redundant AI's. For the rest of us, use of other systems may well be the best. My position is not to trust any system that sucks.

All good arguments for replacing your TC or T&B with a backup electric AI.

 

[Clark1961]

All good arguments for replacing your TC or T&B with a backup electric AI.

I don't see it that way but we are certainly free to disagree on that point. Since installation of the Aspen I've got a sucking AI and an electronic AI. I still really depend on the TC, the HSI, the altimeter, and the airspeed.

To each their own I suspect. Can bad things still happen? Sure. I think I've got a good chance of catching the bad things with the number of supporting instruments and the redundant systems. Time will tell.

 

[poadeleted20]

I don't see it that way but we are certainly free to disagree on that point. Since installation of the Aspen

I was referring to the standard 6-pack installations. The FAA already requires a backup AI with independent power for the Aspen (and all other integrated display systems).

I've got a sucking AI and an electronic AI. I still really depend on the TC, the HSI, the altimeter, and the airspeed.

I guess I'm wondering what it is you rely on the TC for if you have two independently-powered AI's.

 

[jesse]

Actually Lance, it's odd. I've noticed myself going away from the AI, and relying more on HSI and altimeter. If the HSI isn't moving, I'm not turning, and if the altimeter isn't moving, I'm level. I have found myself only using the AI during turns - and that's as a backup to the TC. W/O an autopilot, it's a lot easier to maintain course using the HSI than it is the AI. And if I maintain course, I am not getting into trouble.

That's how I've been doing it from the start. The attitude indicator simply isn't sensitive enough for me to devote too much attention to. I use it to set the initial bank angle when making a turn and then adjust that with the turn coordinator. I tend to "tune" with the DG / altimeter / gps / cdi as that's where I notice a deviation first. That said I still reference the attitude indicator to verify information. The yoke in the Cherokee tends to block my view of the turn coordinator which is rather annoying. I always have to make an extra effort to look at it.

Once I'm coming down the localizer I use the CDI as my roll command and determine the heading on the DG which holds the localizer. The GPS can greatly shorten the time it takes to lock in.

 

[EdFred]

Yeah, I was taught with the AI being the focal point. That has changed as I found my own "style".

 

[Clark1961]

I was referring to the standard 6-pack installations. The FAA already requires a backup AI with independent power for the Aspen (and all other integrated display systems).

Actually, as stated, that is not true. For many flights, no AI is required. Also, the use of two Aspens is a legal installation. Both Aspens do have to have batteries but they are both electrically powered.

I guess I'm wondering what it is you rely on the TC for if you have two independently-powered AI's.

Well now, the sucking AI lacks any sort of resolution and the movement is bass-akwards. The electronic AI is a little better since it is larger and the pitch ladder actually has some resolution.

The TC still tells me the rate of turn and the quality of the turn. Those two bits of info are much more important to me than something that tells me angle of bank and pitch relative to the horizon (the AI simply indicates aircraft attitude rather than physical rates of change).

As I offered, we can certainly agree to disagree, no harm there at all. I'm sure you'll agree that there is not just one way to successfully navigating an aircraft by reference to instruments.

 

[poadeleted20]

Actually, as stated, that is not true. For many flights, no AI is required. Also, the use of two Aspens is a legal installation. Both Aspens do have to have batteries but they are both electrically powered.

I had not considered a double-Aspen configuration. But if you have only one, you must have a backup AI.

Well now, the sucking AI lacks any sort of resolution and the movement is bass-akwards.

I didn't think anyone had used one of those backwards artificial horizons since The Day the Music Died. If I had one of those, I'd throw it away and replace it with a TC before I went into the goo with it. As for resolution, well, those AI's have done us well since Jimmy Doolittle's days. And you certainly get better resolution in pitch with a backup AI than with a TC, as well as being able to discern bank angle, which a TC can't do.

The TC still tells me the rate of turn

So can an AI, if you have an airspeed indicator, and more accurately than a TC, which bounces around like a cork in a stormy ocean in any sort of turbulence, not to mention being inaccurate while rolling.

and the quality of the turn.

I'm afraid I have no idea what that means.

Those two bits of info are much more important to me than something that tells me angle of bank and pitch relative to the horizon (the AI simply indicates aircraft attitude rather than physical rates of change).

As I offered, we can certainly agree to disagree, no harm there at all. I'm sure you'll agree that there is not just one way to successfully navigating an aircraft by reference to instruments.

We can do so, but my 1000+ hours of instrument training given tells me that other folks invariably do a lot better with a backup AI than a TC when the primary AI dies.

 

[Lance F]

Intertesting discussion. Actually my instrument training (done at GATTS) was done with the AI covered the entire time. I was definitely a TC guy. Hardly ever looked at the AI.

However, that actually hurt me a little in jet flying/training. Believe me, you ain't gonna pass a type rating with the AI covered. The AI IS the primary instrument. Everything is there including the localizer and glideslope on an ILS. There is no TC. This brought me back to having the AI take a much higher %age of my scan in the Mooney.

So, AI or not? It depends.

 

[Clark1961]

I had not considered a double-Aspen configuration. But if you have only one, you must have a backup AI.

I didn't think anyone had used one of those backwards artificial horizons since The Day the Music Died. If I had one of those, I'd throw it away and replace it with a TC before I went into the goo with it. As for resolution, well, those AI's have done us well since Jimmy Doolittle's days. And you certainly get better resolution in pitch with a backup AI than with a TC, as well as being able to discern bank angle, which a TC can't do.

So can an AI, if you have an airspeed indicator, and more accurately than a TC, which bounces around like a cork in a stormy ocean in any sort of turbulence, not to mention being inaccurate while rolling.

I'm afraid I have no idea what that means.

We can do so, but my 1000+ hours of instrument training given tells me that other folks invariably do a lot better with a backup AI than a TC when the primary AI dies.

Oh boy! AI's have changed a bit since Doolittle's days. And I'm not even gonna go down the path of "it's been done that way for years and that's all that is needed". Sorry.

Turn quality is simply slip/skid indication. Not so hard when one stops to think about it. A primary AI does not address turn rate or quality. And a properly maintained TC does not bounce like a cork. Get that dampener repaired.

As a final note, considering the number of backup AI's in light aircraft perhaps it's time to change the way you teach if your students can't fly well using TC, altimeter, and airspeed. There is a reason that GATTs teaches the way they do.

 

[poadeleted20]

Turn quality is simply slip/skid indication.

Backup AI's are required to have that. In order to qualify, they must have a slip/skid indicator ("ball") incorporated.

A primary AI does not address turn rate or quality.

Agree on the second, but not on the first. If you know your airspeed and your bank angle, you know your turn rate. Further, it's a lot easier to roll to a target bank angle (and thus a target turn rate) using an AI than to a target turn rate with a TC, which sums both yaw and roll rates to come up with its indications. Until you master the technique and the response of the plane you're in, you'll be overbanking or underbanking and correcting on each roll-in/roll-out. On that score, it's easier to fly accurately with an old turn needle than with a TC.

And a properly maintained TC does not bounce like a cork. Get that dampener repaired.

In turbulence, they do, and when rolling in and out of turns, they do rock back and forth, no matter how "properly maintained" they are. I've seen too many do it to believe otherwise.

As a final note, considering the number of backup AI's in light aircraft perhaps it's time to change the way you teach if your students can't fly well using TC, altimeter, and airspeed.

My students who don't have backup AI's can fly well enough to meet IR PTS standards TC/ball/airspeed/altimeter before I sign them off, but it's a whole lot easier with a backup AI.

There is a reason that GATTs teaches the way they do.

Yeah -- they're teaching to fly partial panel all the time so you can more easily pass the IR practical test. OTOH, there are 30 years of real-world reasons why PIC teaches the way they do, and the airlines and military do the same. What do you think GATTS knows about real world IFR flying that PIC's 5000-hour-minimum instructors, the airlines, and the military don't?

 

[Trapper John]

Why did we ever change from the old turn-and-slip indicator to the turn coordinator?

 

[dmccormack]

Why did we ever change from the old turn-and-slip indicator to the turn coordinator?

Good question. I've read more apologies for the TC than actual reason why it's an improvement.

 

[TMetzinger]

As an Inspector overseeing DPE's my interpretation of 8900.2 does carry weight as to their performance unless HQ gives me something in writing that states otherwise. (in writing, not verbal)



That's not how things work. If they feel it needs clarification (and they obviously don't) then a Notice is put forth down through the chain. just because a CFI wants an interpretation on something he doesn't understand does not create the need for policy change.



That's your personal choice. However you are trying to imply that this is somehow national policy. You clearly don't understand the difference.

I'm beginning to have the same opinion about flight standards in the FAA as Ghandi supposedly had when asked what he thought about Western Civilization:

"It's a very nice idea".

 

[Clark1961]

Yeah -- they're teaching to fly partial panel all the time so you can more easily pass the IR practical test. OTOH, there are 30 years of real-world reasons why PIC teaches the way they do, and the airlines and military do the same. What do you think GATTS knows about real world IFR flying that PIC's 5000-hour-minimum instructors, the airlines, and the military don't?

I'll let the rest of it go because I know you're a hard headed curmudgeon.

I will not let your claim about GATTS go. Simply put: GATTS does not teach the way they do just to pass the IR practical test. You and I both know it doesn't take that long to learn to pass the PTS partial panel. Now, why do you really think they do the vast majority of their instruction with the AI covered?

What GATTS knows (and accepts) is that the aircraft their students fly in don't have back-up AIs. They also know enough to teach their students how to deal with the limitations of their aircraft instead of wishing there was a backup AI.

What the airlines and the Air Force teach has to to with meeting a schedule and completing a mission. That is very different from what the average light aircraft driver has to deal with. As for PIC, I've read Dolan's book and think it's okay but certainly isn't a particularly helpful approach to real world instrument flying in light aircraft.

Do you have enough of an open mind to understand that other approaches to instrument navigation may well be appropriate? In other words, as a PIC instructor you're obviously biased and I doubt your ability to admit other approaches may well be superior.

 

[Everskyward]

I will not let your claim about GATTS go. Simply put: GATTS does not teach the way they do just to pass the IR practical test. You and I both know it doesn't take that long to learn to pass the PTS partial panel. Now, why do you really think they do the vast majority of their instruction with the AI covered?

What GATTS knows (and accepts) is that the aircraft their students fly in don't have back-up AIs. They also know enough to teach their students how to deal with the limitations of their aircraft instead of wishing there was a backup AI.

But there's a difference between what you might learn during the time you get your rating and how you fly in real life. I don't know anything about GATTS, but what I am getting from this thread is that they want you to use the TC to a greater extent than the AI. Do you suppose that they really mean for you to do that all the time because you are going to lose the vacuum pump someday? That would be like saying that because you do most of your multiengine training on one engine that you should fly around like that all the time, or that people who have a backup AI and other instruments should use those instruments instead of the normal ones. I can accept that some people like the TC better than the AI although I was never one of them. As Lance points out though, that's probably a good thing because I haven't flown an airplane with one in years. There is a ball, however, or some kind of slip/skid indicator, just no TC.

 

[Clark1961]

But there's a difference between what you might learn during the time you get your rating and how you fly in real life. I don't know anything about GATTS, but what I am getting from this thread is that they want you to use the TC to a greater extent than the AI. Do you suppose that they really mean for you to do that all the time because you are going to lose the vacuum pump someday? That would be like saying that because you do most of your multiengine training on one engine that you should fly around like that all the time, or that people who have a backup AI and other instruments should use those instruments instead of the normal ones. I can accept that some people like the TC better than the AI although I was never one of them. As Lance points out though, that's probably a good thing because I haven't flown an airplane with one in years. There is a ball, however, or some kind of slip/skid indicator, just no TC.

With design failure less than 1,000 hours for a dry pump, loss of the vacuum pump during flight is in the realm of engineering certainty. How should we train for that random event? I certainly don't have the answer but do note that GATTS offers one particular approach along with other training guidelines which enhance the probability of safely completing a flight in a light aircraft.

My choice was to install an Aspen along with training to not depend on the AI. Other folks will chose other approaches which fit their expectations. I know I'll never fly anything more than a light aircraft. If you're gonna fly airlines of military then your choices are going to be very different.

What's the right answer for everyone? I really don't think there is one answer. I know there are several workable approaches and that they are okay as long as the pilot stays within the limitations of the system they have chosen.

 

[Lance F]

... because I haven't flown an airplane with one in years.

Yeah you have. Just last Saturday. (Of course, you couldn't see if from your seat.)

 

[poadeleted20]

Why did we ever change from the old turn-and-slip indicator to the turn coordinator?

I wish I knew so I could better answer frustrated instrument trainees.

 

[poadeleted20]

In other words, as a PIC instructor you're obviously biased and I doubt your ability to admit other approaches may well be superior.

I'm just telling you what folks learn better and faster. Any bias I have is based on over 1000 hours of instrument flight training (and uncounted hours of instrument sim training) given, including over a dozen trainees a year for the last four years. How much IR training have you given lately?

 

[poadeleted20]

With design failure less than 1,000 hours for a dry pump, loss of the vacuum pump during flight is in the realm of engineering certainty. How should we train for that random event? I certainly don't have the answer but do note that GATTS offers one particular approach along with other training guidelines which enhance the probability of safely completing a flight in a light aircraft.

You can train for that event, or you can make it a non-event by replacing your TC with an electric backup AI (like all the "big planes" do). I'm here to tell you based on years of training people for their instrument ratings that the second method is a lot more efficient and is retained far longer.

 

[TMetzinger]

I'm with Ron. I demo'ed partial panel with a TC, and kept proficient at it. The first thing I did after at trip where I lost the Mooney AI in real world actual conditions was order an electric AI. Sure, I was able to safely complete the flight with the TC, and HSI, but it was more work than I wanted to do again if I could spend a few grand and avoid it.

I take it as a given that any instrument pilot should be proficient on flying using his backup gyros, whatever they are. But Ron is 100% right that replacing the TC/T&B with a second AI is a better choice. There's a reason that all the glass airplanes have backup AIs, and not a TC, for their emergency instruments. A TC would probably be cheaper, but an AI is definitely safer for the average pilot.

 

[Everskyward]

Yeah you have. Just last Saturday. (Of course, you couldn't see if from your seat.)

See, I didn't even miss it.

Actually I didn't look at the AI either. The only thing I missed was the half of the ASI that I couldn't see.

 

[Clark1961]

I'm just telling you what folks learn better and faster. Any bias I have is based on over 1000 hours of instrument flight training (and uncounted hours of instrument sim training) given, including over a dozen trainees a year for the last four years. How much IR training have you given lately?

No, Ron, your bias isn't just based on being a CFII, it includes your association with PIC. How on Earth can you attempt to claim otherwise? Your lack of perspective is appalling.

As for what folks learn "better and faster," well folks learn what they are taught. Are you the least bit surprised that folks learn what you teach?

Put simply, if all you have is a hammer then the whole world looks like a nail to you. Me, I'd rather have a whole toolbox full of tools...as always, YMWV.