You mean like VORs, TACANs, LOCs, ILSs, PARs, ASRs, and NDBs? I'm just not getting your point here. I agree that the AF has better continuity on high altitude approaches, but honestly how many high altitude approaches have you seen in the herk?
The point of the partial panel training was not specifically the emergency training. That was made clear to me during a review stage ride. An IP made me fly one NDB with both engines running and no ADI/HDG failures. After the approach, he said "I bet you were bored during that approach" and I realized he was right. Partial panel training forces you to focus on learing instrument procedures to the point that you can fly them with min equipment. IMHO it's a training tool and nothing else.
Now as far as the FAR/AIM vs. 11-217 arguement goes, I agree completely.
In the interest of getting a real discussion going on that topic, what factors do you think make the distinction?
What is this TACC you speak of?
If you're talking about J-models, that makes sense. Otherwise, it makes no sense.
HD