Excellent point, and I would agree that your technique has merit and is valid for use. However, as you stated, it’s a question of whether or not an examiner would accept this method. This may depend on the examiner, and I’ve noticed that some of the old school examiners seem to have the mentality of, ‘I learned it this way, and so should everyone else’. They appear reluctant to change and resist the benefits of modern technology for reasons that don’t convince me.
Not to long ago I had a similar situation with a student. As my student was performing a series of compass and timed turns, he reach over to the Garmin-430 and turned it to the page that shows the electronic version of the compass card, representing the aircraft’s ground track. He then asked me why he simply couldn’t use this instead of struggling with compass turns?
To be honest, I really didn’t have a good answer for him, other than to say that it’s a skill required by PTS. His point was definitely valid, since compass turns are assuming either a DG or a vacuum system failure, not an electrical failure which may or may not rob you of your GPS heading data.
Let’s keep in mind that PTS is a government document, and the government is often slow to change or keep up with the times. The PTS was written back before the days of modern GPS and glass cockpits, so it reflects practicing for a worse case scenario, and we can’t always assume everyone has access to modern day GPS or glass cockpits. But I do agree that the document could be revised to reflect these changes if our aircraft are equipped and so capable. Because after all, what could be more fun than a partial panel NDB approach?
I share your sediments,