Basically, you close your eyes while the instructor tosses the airplane all over the sky for a couple minutes in an attempt to get your inner ear fluid sloshing around to disorient you, then puts the airplane into a state where, e.g., you're in a deep stall, nose up, turning left, then instructs you to open your eyes and determine the airplane's attitude from reading the instruments. Once you have the attitude correctly described, then you return it to straight & level using instruments.

This was actually some of the most fun I had during pilot training. It was like a puzzle under stress (you only have so long before you hit the ground) figuring out what the airplane was doing and describing how to get out of the situation.

The point of teaching this to VFR students is to prevent the "178 seconds" situation so you will hopefully have enough instrument experience and calmness to turn the airplane around and get back into clear air.

The point of the article is to drive home the point that using your normal human instincts and feelings will kill you in that situation. You can be completely inverted and feel just fine. Only trusting what the instruments say will get you out of trouble (edit: and cross checking them to be sure you don't rely on a failed instrument).

And actually, the situation can deteriorate faster than you realize. I recall days with my instructor where, while it was technically VFR flight, it was so hazy that I spent a lot of time using instruments because I couldn't see the horizon very well.

In the U.S. we are required to give at least 3 hours of instrument training for Private Pilot license. There is no such requirement for Sport Pilot or Recreation Pilot License

In my experience teaching hundreds of private, instrument, and commercial pilots 3 hours is not enough to develop any kind of instrument proficiency. For people who take the instrument rating course it usually takes around 20 hours to develop minimal instrument proficiency. Simulator training helps a lot when done with a qualified instructor who understands how to teach instruments in a sim (unfortunately many don't). But even the students who nail the sim portion often struggle in the real aircraft when they are faced with task saturation.

When I was taking flying lessons, for one session the instructor had me wear a visor so I could only see the instrument panel for a while, and then try holding a course. I believe it's mostly just to demonstrate that you shouldn't try it until you're trained for it.

They pretty much want to give you the skills needed to get help and get back on the ground if you find yourself in a bad situation. And to not overreact and stall or spin yourself into the ground because you didn't trust the instruments.

With that said, there isn't such a thing as knowing too much about flying. But if your aircraft isn't IFR equipped (and lots of rentals aren't), you won't be able to practice much more than the above.

'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?

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).

We ended up in cloud, I handed over control to my instructor and spent the next 10 minutes wondering what I would have done if he wasn't with me (hint: not good).

So I slept on it, text my instructor a couple of days later and told him I want to be able to do what he did. He told me I need an Instrument Rating (Restricted) rating, which allows me to fly in and above cloud.

So that's my learning for the next 10 weeks or so. I've got to take one written exam, one flying exam, and then I'm cleared for flying cloudy days.

Like the situation OP says: you scan instruments to analyze the situation, determine what to do to recover and apply that procedure. If it doesn't work, or something else goes wrong during that procedure, you adapt to another procedure. Remember, that during every flight with an instructor, you're being trained on one thing or another, so after a while all the "emergencies" seem routine. You'll be turning onto Final to land and suddenly your instructor will decide that your flaps failed so you have to land without them, or just as you're flaring for a landing he'll tell you to go around, etc.

It certainly results in well-trained pilots, but it also gets very boring.

I have anecdotally heard that some other countries train pilots as "button pushers" without really understanding what the plane is doing or having a solid understanding of flight principles.

I remember sitting in on a lesson while my brother was getting his private pilot's license. The instructor would randomly idle the engine in flight and have my brother practice the procedures for a engine loss in flight (put the plane into the ideal glide position, identify all possible landing spots, runway or field, etc...)

Also, I don't think student pilots typically train on autopilots. Those kinds of technology components are usually learned either on one's own or with an instructor/co-pilot after completing basic training. The basic pilot training focuses on safe pilotage from takeoff to landing, including land nav and radio communications, and ignores pretty much all modern technology.