KRviator
Knowing the student did not have an aircraft with a traditional 6-pack, [the instructor] decided to proceed with what was essentially a box-ticking exercise, rather than impart any meaningful education to the student.
The instructor suggested practice based on the panel the sim actually had. To my mind that is quite reasonable. I don't agree that it was pointless for this student to practice partial panel, given that his license would permit him to fly types that required it and he so clearly lacked the ability. Nor do I think any meaningful education was to be had in pretending this 6-pack was actually a dual EFIS.
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.
Quote:
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.
This is not about people being up to speed with regulations. It is about a tyro who did not wish to acquire an essential generic skill for the class of aircraft he was licensed to operate. If it has really become possible to get an IR without demonstrating that skill I respect the instructor all the more for trying to address this shortcoming.