Originally Posted by Pontius
Anything else is a bit like teaching someone to pass their driving test rather than how to actually drive their car properly.
A better analogy would be Budget and Thrifty that allow you to hire a truck on a car licence. Even an automatic - notwithstanding you've never before driven anything bigger than a Suzuki Swift. But that too, is completely legal..
Originally Posted by Bomber ARIS
What happens when the individual feed to an 'instrument' fails or becomes unreliable?
Depending on the individual EFIS, in Dynon's case, you get an "ADAHRS CROSS CHECK ERROR" (It even speaks into your headset so if you are eyes-out you still get notified), and it will display the two ADAHRS outputs on a single screen, with flags listing the discrepancy. You can then choose to take the offending ADAHRS offline, and it will continue to provide a full dual-screen capability, albeit driven by a single ADAHRS and annunciated as such. In my case, with the Garmin there as well for dissimilar redundancy, I still have two independent EFIS'.
Since this would allow him to fly IMC in any aircraft of the class it does not matter that his own aircraft was not fitted with 'traditional' instruments.
Originally Posted by oggers
That is the key point. It is not a question of how good the panel happens to be on your personal puddlejumper. It is a question of still being able to do what your license requires you be able to do.
I would ask you read Volume 2 of the Part 61 MOS, specifically the requirement to perform limited panel flight based upon the failure of the
primary AH, DG or ASI.
Originally Posted by CASA MOS Part 61, Vol 2
IFL Limited instrument panel manoeuvres
1 Unit description
This unit describes the skills and knowledge required to perform normal flight manoeuvres and recover from unusual attitudes in each of the following non-normal situations:
(a) without reference to the primary attitude indicator or display;
(b) without reference to the primary heading indicator or display;
(c) without reference to reliable airspeed indications.
Nothing in there any more about having to fly without using a full set of standby instruments, either traditional or EFIS. The regulations have (sensibly) changed, but this discussion shows people aren't up to speed with them.
Now, having said that, I fully agree that doing your test on an EFIS-equipped aircraft, and then attempting to fly your typically-equipped 182 in IMC is
not smart, and will more than likely end in tears if you do have a vacuum failure. I am not arguing that point at all. But that possibility is legal now, and whether it is liked or not doesn't change that. And
that is why I believe the instructor in
Centaurus' example was remiss in not trying to work with the student to provide appropriate training, rather than "what we've always done".