If you are doing a MEIFR you are almost certainly a wannabe professional pilot. You need to pass the IFR ride to get that right seat job in a Ho or if you are lucky a T-prop. When you get hired your learning on how to fly IFR in the real world will commence. The purpose of the IFR rating is to give you the basic skills and knowledge of IFR flying procedures. Familiarity with the Garmin 530/430 would be nice as many operators use this unit
Now it is absolutely easier to pass the ride if you have an HSI and RMI so why would anyone go to a school without one and ideally with an airplane that also has a Garmin 430. When you are paying 6 bucks a minute for the airplane why would you choose to make things more difficult for yourself by paying for an airplane that is not fully equipped.
Not much incentive to install a $20k HSI and a $20k RMI.
There is incentive if your students start going elsewhere to fly, leaving you with an almost worthless asset that you can no longer make fixed costs on--never mind upgrade it.
That's the reason why light twins are so cheap to begin with... their massive maintenance and fuel costs. As long as you have revenue that allows you to maintain and justify upgrading your aircraft, you do it even though it is a sunk cost if it will make it more suited to the mission it is supposed to perform.
Fortunately, there are lots of light twins out there that were owned by private rich guys so the savvy buyer could just pick up a well equipped aircraft to begin with for bargain basement prices. The light twin I trained on was such an aircraft... turbocharged, O2, weather radar, RNAV, IFR certified GPS, plus of course an HSI and RMI.
This is the first time I've seen it seriously suggested that one should seek out an HSI-equipped and RMI-equipped aircraft to take an instrument flight test just because it's easier to pass the test that way.
I'm honestly surprised: I'd expect the crowd here to be all in favour of training on the most basic instruments available, because it's a better demonstration of "real pilot" skills. Isn't an HSI a bit too "magenta line" for you all?
There is incentive if your students start going elsewhere to fly
No sign of that at my flight school. Can't keep the aircraft on the ground, at the moment. Haven't heard anyone bitch about the HSI/RMI lack.
---------- ADS -----------
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
I am rather fond of the old KCS-55A HSI
which is really just a combination of a DG
and a VOR head, the advantage of which
is that during an approach, it simplifies
your scan. No need to look at an additional
(nav) instrument outside of the basic 6-pack.
Ideally a student should learn to fly with
both a basic DG and VOR head, and an HSI.
HSI of course is easier but it has two crucial
details that a pilot must pay attention to,
which he should learn during his IFR training.
photofly wrote:This is the first time I've seen it seriously suggested that one should seek out an HSI-equipped and RMI-equipped aircraft to take an instrument flight test just because it's easier to pass the test that way.
I'm honestly surprised: I'd expect the crowd here to be all in favour of training on the most basic instruments available, because it's a better demonstration of "real pilot" skills. Isn't an HSI a bit too "magenta line" for you all?
The place to learn the instrument scan and basic VOR and fixed card ADF skills in in a C 172 during the instrument training phase of your CPL. These skills will get reinforced and further developed when you do the first part of your IFR rating training in the sim. If you are not competent and confident with these skills them you should not be strapping on a twin because you will be wasting your money.
I did My MEIFR in 9 hours of aircraft training time which concluded with a combined initial IFR flight test and an initial PPC with a TC examiner. By the time I got to the airplane I had every basic procedure down cold so I could get the most from the HSI and RMI.
In any case the flight test is not a meaningful indicator of your ability to actually fly A to B IFR on a real IFR day, it is simply a way for you to demonstrate the basic IFR procedures in a familiar environment.
There is incentive if your students start going elsewhere to fly
No sign of that at my flight school. Can't keep the aircraft on the ground, at the moment. Haven't heard anyone bitch about the HSI/RMI lack.
Then I would suggest the students are spending more money than they have to. Now in your case it may still be cheaper if they would have to travel to another school far away or you have a very good instructor, but if that is not the case then the students are wasting some of their money, probably because they are believing the line of BS you are spouting.
photofly wrote:Haven't heard anyone bitch about the HSI/RMI lack.
In the first stages of training, people don't know what they don't know.
The fact that they are not complaining should not lead you to think it means something.
You are more logical then that.
Big Pistons Forever wrote:...but if that is not the case then the students are wasting some of their money, probably because they are believing the line of BS you are spouting.
I haven't told them - or you - what I think, nor would they or you care very much if I did. I am merely surprised at what you think.
trampbike wrote:In the first stages of training, people don't know what they don't know.
The fact that they are not complaining should not lead you to think it means something.
You are more logical then that.
It means that there's no pressure on the guy to upgrade the avionics.
I don't really care if they know what they know, or don't know what they don't know.
---------- ADS -----------
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
photofly wrote:This is the first time I've seen it seriously suggested that one should seek out an HSI-equipped and RMI-equipped aircraft to take an instrument flight test just because it's easier to pass the test that way.
It's not about the flight test. It's about the fact that HSI and RMI are awesome tools and the guys who do their multi-IFR are very likely doing it to work in aviation afterward, and they'll definetely work with these things.
Even my VFR-only, not-for-flight-training Skymaster has a King KCS-55A. I turn the needle to represent the runway so I don't get confused in the circuit... and I follow the ILS from ten miles out at 80 knots just in case I can't see the PAPIs....
I think it's hilarious that in one thread everyone is hot for picking a school with good instructors who don't yell, and don't milk their students, and in another thread everyone is hot for picking a school at an uncontrolled airport (or maybe controlled, if that's your thing) and in *this* thread people are hot for picking a school with something as dumb and mundane as an RMI.
Who gives a stuff what you learn on, really? Surely what's on the panel in front of you has the least effect of any of these things in terms of what sort of pilot you become?
---------- ADS -----------
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Wrote the Inrat yesterday. Had two questions on holding entries. One after the missed approach and inbound to an ndb and one just standard entry. I guess you shouldn't believe everything they say at the Aerocourse because tests can change.
