Three hours doesn't prepare you to do a decoupled IFR approach or anything, but it give you enough to do a 180.
'Most noninstrument pilots can be placed in one of the three following categories: (1) the noninstrument pilot who knows he could not fly instruments and takes every precaution to avoid instrument weather; (2) the noninstrument pilot who "knows" he could not fly instruments, takes every precaution to avoid instrument weather, but believes his knowledge and experience would enable him, if caught, to fly out of instrument weather; (3) the noninstrument pilot who believes, primarily through ignorance of the problems involved, he could fly through instrument weather.'
Are you instrument rated? Have you taken further training beyond the requirements? What's your confidence that you could successfully perform a 180 degree turn out of cloud in the plane that you fly the most? Would you keep your hands on the controls or not?
in the study the attitude indicator (artificial horizon), heading indicator, and vertical speed indicator were covered, simulating a partial failure of the vacuum system as well as a partial failure of the pitot/static system.
Again, I think this makes sense in the context of the study. The goal wasn't to simulate failure, rather because those were (at least at the time) not required to be installed.
The interesting part to me about the study (I'm not a pilot, but have played with simulators such as XPlane and probably plan to get a license some day when I can afford the time and expense) is that none of the test pilots were able to perform a life saving maneuver when starting, and after 6 hours of direct training all were able to. And yet, oddly, this isn't (to my knowledge) part of the current pilot training. Why not?
Training for a PPL currently requires 3.0 hours of instrument time, including maneuvers like climbs, descents, and turn to a heading. It also requires unusual attitude recovery, a drill where you cover your eyes and the instructor puts the plane at a cockeyed angle and you have to recover using only instruments. You must successfully perform these maneuvers in order to pass your FAA checkride.
Basically in order to get your PPL you have to not just be able to turn a 180 on instruments, but demonstrate some level of precision in other maneuvers...so I think that while the study demands six hours, the FAA has determined that the job can be done in three.
As to your questions for me: I'm not instrument rated. I've taken about two hours of instruction on instruments beyond the required 3.0, most of that time was on the flight were I got my high performance endorsement...in a Bonanza, coincidentally. I'm confident I could do an instrument-only 180 in the Piper Cherokee I fly most frequently because I've recently done instrument work in a more challenging aircraft. A month from now with no further instrument work I'd be significantly less confident.
Hands off the yoke? Probably not all the way, but I've been trained to keep a very light touch as anything more, at least in cruise flight, means you need to check your power/pitch settings (eg throttle/trim).
The completely "hands off" (the yoke) startled me. They concluded that this was the safest approach to teach: all turns with rudder, and a predetermined trim and power. Post instruction, they allowed pilots to try their own approach, and say that the two who tried to control oscillations with the yoke "realized almost at once [that this resulted in more extreme oscillations] and both subjects immediately released the yoke and continued through the remainder of the steps with 'Hands Off'."
Having just read Langewiesche's Stick and Rudder, with the emphasis that all turns should always be coordinated, I found this very surprising. The study suggested that the instructor use this explanation: "Bear in mind that this whole procedure is a 'gimmick' designed to save your life. If it is easier and safer for us to make a 'sloppy' turn in order to get the job done, then that is the best way under the circumstances."
You're welcome. I'm like most pilots, my favorite subject is flying. There's an old joke: how do you know if there's a pilot in the room? Because he'll tell you.
You know, the hands off 180 definitely something I'm going to try next time I'm up with a CFI/I. Also if you get the opportunity in this life to learn to fly, do it. It's expensive as hell but it's also a very rewarding and fun challenge and is a great way to travel.
'Most noninstrument pilots can be placed in one of the three following categories: (1) the noninstrument pilot who knows he could not fly instruments and takes every precaution to avoid instrument weather; (2) the noninstrument pilot who "knows" he could not fly instruments, takes every precaution to avoid instrument weather, but believes his knowledge and experience would enable him, if caught, to fly out of instrument weather; (3) the noninstrument pilot who believes, primarily through ignorance of the problems involved, he could fly through instrument weather.'
Are you instrument rated? Have you taken further training beyond the requirements? What's your confidence that you could successfully perform a 180 degree turn out of cloud in the plane that you fly the most? Would you keep your hands on the controls or not?
in the study the attitude indicator (artificial horizon), heading indicator, and vertical speed indicator were covered, simulating a partial failure of the vacuum system as well as a partial failure of the pitot/static system.
Again, I think this makes sense in the context of the study. The goal wasn't to simulate failure, rather because those were (at least at the time) not required to be installed.
The interesting part to me about the study (I'm not a pilot, but have played with simulators such as XPlane and probably plan to get a license some day when I can afford the time and expense) is that none of the test pilots were able to perform a life saving maneuver when starting, and after 6 hours of direct training all were able to. And yet, oddly, this isn't (to my knowledge) part of the current pilot training. Why not?