The Reddit thread centers on a common instrument-rating candidate's struggle: combining a standard-rate turn with a constant climb or descent rate under simulated instrument conditions, a maneuver frequently probed on the instrument practical test. The poster, training in a G1000-equipped aircraft, describes difficulty maintaining a 500 fpm climb or descent while simultaneously holding rate-one bank, and notes that fixation on the VSI—compounded by that instrument's inherent lag—degraded overall performance. The instructor's guidance to control vertical speed with power, airspeed with pitch, and bank angle with the turn coordinator or attitude indicator reflects standard instrument scan doctrine, though the student found the explanation difficult to internalize, partly due to a language barrier with the CFI.
This scenario illustrates a foundational instrument flying concept that examiners and DPEs test precisely because it exposes weak instrument scan habits. The maneuver requires simultaneous management of three parameters—bank, pitch, and power—each controlled by a different control input but cross-checked against multiple instruments rather than any single gauge. The VSI is a rate instrument with inherent lag, meaning pilots who chase it will always be behind the airplane; the ACS and most instrument instructors emphasize using the attitude indicator as the primary reference for establishing a pitch picture, then verifying trend with the VSI and altimeter, rather than using the VSI as the primary control instrument. This is a classic "control and performance" versus "primary and supporting" instrument scan issue, and it's one of the more common technique breakdowns examiners see on checkrides, particularly among pilots transitioning from steam-gauge scan habits to glass-panel avionics, or vice versa.
For working and career-track pilots, this thread underscores why fundamental attitude instrument flying (AIF) proficiency remains non-negotiable even as flight decks grow more automated. Airline and Part 135/91K pilots routinely hand-fly departures, holds, and non-precision approaches without automation during equipment malfunctions, GPS degradation, or during recurrent sim training scenarios designed to test raw stick-and-rudder instrument skills. A pilot who defaults to chasing the VSI rather than maintaining a disciplined scan will struggle in high-workload environments—engine-out procedures, unusual attitude recovery, or single-pilot IFR in turbulence—where instantaneous, accurate attitude control is paramount. Type-rating and instrument-proficiency-check failures often trace back to exactly this kind of scan breakdown rather than a lack of aeronautical knowledge.
The thread also touches on the broader industry reality of flight training standardization gaps, particularly at flight schools employing instructors for whom English is a second language or who may not consistently articulate procedures using standardized terminology (e.g., FAA's "control and performance" concept). As flight training pipelines expand rapidly to meet pilot demand—driven by airline hiring, fractional/business aviation growth, and instructor churn—inconsistent teaching methodology becomes a recurring pain point for students preparing for checkrides. This makes independent study of standardized references, such as the FAA's Instrument Flying Handbook and Airplane Flying Handbook, increasingly valuable as a supplement to inconsistent verbal instruction, and reinforces why DPEs and airlines alike prize pilots who can articulate and demonstrate correct instrument cross-check techniques regardless of which flight school or instructor trained them.