OK, Zoomy,
I also noticed that as my cars progressed they got easier and easier to drive. Not because of my practice, but because of power steering, AWD, ABS, rear camera, ect ect ect.
What an unmitigated heap of steaming crap. How does your argument hold up when driving a base model Hyundai (ie. no power steering, AWD, ABS, rear camera
etc etc etc). Spose your spelling is another example of near enough good enough, eh?
It got easier because you practised and used the skills. Same thing happens with mental arithmatic.
According to your logic, what's next? A licence based on age of the aircraft? Or an "easy to fly" licence vs a "hard" category?
I spend a significant amount of time explaining how to use a whiz wheel. I don't even charge when showing them some of the more advanced uses, such as multiplication and division. I show them alternatives to calculators as a means of cross checking flight planning. Divide the number by 10 and add half of that again to give 15%, a quick way to check variable fuel reserve as well as using a calculator for flight planning.
I explain to the student, regardless of their age, 18 or 48, why it is not a good idea to be using a device that sucks your attention into a tiny screen and funnily enough, not many older students have a problem with mental maths. People's skills have just gone rusty over the last 20 years, they haven't gotten dumber. (Maybe lazier, though.)
If the student continues to sneak calculators (even as far as onto their flight test, with the ATO quoting their head being inside the cockpit for so long as the biggest single reason they couldn't hold a heading or altitude, despite having flown the previous five navs without it no drama), I will continue to force them to use other methods and I do so with the full support of EVERY CFI I have flown under.
You know of a CFI who is happy to use calculators without any further effort, post their school up here, but only if you want to ensure their graduates don't find work, because I for one would be very cautious if I saw that particular school on a resume.
Continued reliance on a calculator will not, contrary to your babying, help a student, especially in the middle of a NVFR or IFR exercise with no autopilot. I have yet to see an ATO who prefers to see a calculator in a cockpit. Furthermore, if you are content with the ability and dedication of a pilot flying your family around commercially (or privately) who needs to take off their shoes and socks to add, then standards have hit rock bottom and started digging. I, however, refuse to promote this level of mediocrity.
Some of the "rhetoric here" is a result of
a) incredulous belief that students will refuse to make the effort to improve to the standard required of a professional pilot; and
b) "instructors" that are happy to accept this problem because it is "a result of the present".
I expect that level of complacency from hour building instructors, not anyone who is genuinely interested in producing the highest possible standard of pilot.
Not saying every student is a mental genius, but I will make the effort to help them if they want to help themselves.
