I have been reading the various threads about spins, forced landings, etc
and talking with CFIs. The road to a PPL is preset in requirements by FAA.
I see that most people are happy to do nothing more than that. Outside of
the cost factors, I find this much more than curious considering the
consequences. You can get killed, that one keeps jumping out at me :)

I am asking the group for assistance in developing a list of instructional
and solo experiences, testing, mandatory reading.....if you ran the FAA,
what would you require in a near-perfect world that a PPL would require? I
am a zero-hour wannabe pilot FYI

For a start, I won't begin my first instruction until I can do the
following:

Pass all tests with a 95% minimum
Handle with ease all traffic control and similar commo
Dissect the anatomy of my training aircraft
Understand what and how the instrumentation works (shortcomings included)
Own all the fundamentally necessary flight gear (i.e carry-ons in flight
bag or on person)
Obtain hours in flight simulation
More...enough for now.

TIA. The group is an extremely valuable resource; I sincerely doubt I would
be so focused and confident without your past, present and future work
here.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> I have been reading the various threads about spins, forced landings, etc
> and talking with CFIs. The road to a PPL is preset in requirements by FAA.
> I see that most people are happy to do nothing more than that. Outside of
> the cost factors, I find this much more than curious considering the
> consequences. You can get killed, that one keeps jumping out at me :)
>
> I am asking the group for assistance in developing a list of instructional
> and solo experiences, testing, mandatory reading.....if you ran the FAA,
> what would you require in a near-perfect world that a PPL would require? I
> am a zero-hour wannabe pilot FYI
>
The current requirements for obtaining a PPL are pretty well honed
after these number of years. I see them being generally on target
as long as the instructor(s) is/are practicing the best and latest
techniques. So much of what a student learns is a direct result
of the competence and experience level of the CFI so if I *could*
change anything I would increase the aeronautical experience
requirements for obtaining a CFI to something more reasonable, say
at least 500.

With the addition of the Recreational Pilot and more recently the
Sport Pilot certificates, you now have several levels of entry into
aviation. The FAA has any number of excellent texts and publications
on flight training subjects. In addition you have quite a number
of excellent 3rd party textbooks and DVD courses to learn every
aspect of aviation.

> For a start, I won't begin my first instruction until I can do the
> following:
>
> Pass all tests with a 95% minimum
> Handle with ease all traffic control and similar commo
> Dissect the anatomy of my training aircraft
> Understand what and how the instrumentation works (shortcomings included)
> Own all the fundamentally necessary flight gear (i.e carry-ons in flight
> bag or on person)
> Obtain hours in flight simulation
> More...enough for now.
>
I think you are being a bit unrealistic here. Part of the reason
for working with a good CFI is that he/she can guide the learning
process to make it faster and more effective for you. Each of the
various subject areas reinforce each other and the flight training
is part of the building block process.

I'm not saying it can't be done the way you want to do it but
I think it will take you a *lot* longer to obtain your PPL if you
try to do it that way.

> TIA. The group is an extremely valuable resource; I sincerely doubt I would
> be so focused and confident without your past, present and future work
> here.

Good Luck.

"WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
...
> I have been reading the various threads about spins, forced landings, etc
> and talking with CFIs. The road to a PPL is preset in requirements by FAA.
> I see that most people are happy to do nothing more than that.

Where do you see that?

> Outside of the cost factors, I find this much more than curious
considering the
> consequences. You can get killed, that one keeps jumping out at me :)

I don't follow. Reading accident reports, I see very few incidents of pilots
getting killed because they had inadequate training (unless you consider VFR
into IMC).

>
> I am asking the group for assistance in developing a list of instructional
> and solo experiences, testing, mandatory reading.....if you ran the FAA,
> what would you require in a near-perfect world that a PPL would require?

> I am a zero-hour wannabe pilot FYI

Reminds me of the couple with no kids telling me how to raise my teenagers.
>
> For a start, I won't begin my first instruction until I can do the
> following:
>
> Pass all tests with a 95% minimum

Including the practical?

> Handle with ease all traffic control and similar commo

How do you do that without ever getting into a plane?
> Dissect the anatomy of my training aircraft
> Understand what and how the instrumentation works (shortcomings included)
> Own all the fundamentally necessary flight gear (i.e carry-ons in flight
> bag or on person)

> Obtain hours in flight simulation

See Dudley's comments regarding pre-solo students and simulators.
> More...enough for now.

I can see hour your program will save lives. Unfortunately the only reason
is that there will be few or no pilots due to unreasonable traiing
requirements.

Steve Foley wrote:

>> Understand what and how the instrumentation works (shortcomings included)
>> Own all the fundamentally necessary flight gear (i.e carry-ons in flight
>> bag or on person)
>
>> Obtain hours in flight simulation
>
> See Dudley's comments regarding pre-solo students and simulators.
>> More...enough for now.
>

Ye, a point I neglected to mention. We've already had one poster
here who had a disappointing discovery flight by going into it with
a severe case of overconfidence and unrealistic expectations due to
having spent so many hours 'perfecting' his technique on a simulator.

Except for the purpose of explaining how the COM and NAV radios and
instrumentation works by a CFI, simulator time should be avoided
by pre-solo students. Post solo, other than to experiment with
navigation methods, simulators should be avoided by students also.

By simulators, I am talking about the basic PC based units, not
the multi-million dollar, full motion simulators used to train
commercial pilots. But even they should not be used pre-solo.

On Feb 28, 4:11*am, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> I have been reading the various threads about spins, forced landings, etc
> and talking with CFIs. The road to a PPL is preset in requirements by FAA.
> I see that most people are happy to do nothing more than that. Outside of
> the cost factors, I find this much more than curious considering the
> consequences. You can get killed, that one keeps jumping out at me :)
>
> I am asking the group for assistance in developing a list of instructional
> and solo experiences, testing, mandatory reading.....if you ran the FAA,
> what would you require in a near-perfect world that a PPL would require? I
> am a zero-hour wannabe pilot FYI
>
> For a start, I won't begin my first instruction until I can do the
> following:
>
> Pass all tests with a 95% minimum
> Handle with ease all traffic control and similar commo
> Dissect the anatomy of my training aircraft
> Understand what and how the instrumentation works (shortcomings included)
> Own all the fundamentally necessary flight gear (i.e carry-ons in flight
> bag or on person)
> Obtain hours in flight simulation
> More...enough for now.
>
> TIA. The group is an extremely valuable resource; I sincerely doubt I would
> be so focused and confident without your past, present and future work
> here.
> --
> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

For your written, I recommend the King's video and computer test prep
set. They were boring, but was watchable. The practice test was
very helpful. After spending on average 1-2 hours a day in 15-20
intervals I got 95% on the test. The test itself only took me 15-20
minutes to complete. I think I would have gotten a 100% if I wasn't
so overly confident. I rushed thru it.

Wil

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:32:00 GMT, kontiki wrote:

>> For a start, I won't begin my first instruction until I can do the
>> following:
>>
>> Pass all tests with a 95% minimum
>> Handle with ease all traffic control and similar commo
>> Dissect the anatomy of my training aircraft
>> Understand what and how the instrumentation works (shortcomings included)
>> Own all the fundamentally necessary flight gear (i.e carry-ons in flight
>> bag or on person)
>> Obtain hours in flight simulation
>> More...enough for now.
>>
> I think you are being a bit unrealistic here. Part of the reason
> for working with a good CFI is that he/she can guide the learning
> process to make it faster and more effective for you. Each of the
> various subject areas reinforce each other and the flight training
> is part of the building block process.
>
> I'm not saying it can't be done the way you want to do it but
> I think it will take you a *lot* longer to obtain your PPL if you
> try to do it that way.

Thanks but I may have missed telling you that length of time is not a
criteria for me. This approach to put so-called pilots licensed and into
the air using words like quick is exactly what I find myself up against.

Not beating on those that either need to get their PPL rapidly or choose to
do so, when talking with CFIs, they are geared to quick rather than
thorough. An example is getting a college degree, you can choose the
minimalists route or many more credit hours than required as you wish.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:04:54 GMT, Steve Foley wrote:

> "WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I have been reading the various threads about spins, forced landings, etc
>> and talking with CFIs. The road to a PPL is preset in requirements by FAA.
>> I see that most people are happy to do nothing more than that.
>
> Where do you see that?

I don't understand. For the most part, I see people who want to get x hours
in y (shortest) time to get their license.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:04:54 GMT, Steve Foley wrote:

>> Dissect the anatomy of my training aircraft
>> Understand what and how the instrumentation works (shortcomings included)
>> Own all the fundamentally necessary flight gear (i.e carry-ons in flight
>> bag or on person)
>
>> Obtain hours in flight simulation
>
> See Dudley's comments regarding pre-solo students and simulators.
>> More...enough for now.
>
> I can see hour your program will save lives. Unfortunately the only reason
> is that there will be few or no pilots due to unreasonable traiing
> requirements.

1) I passed on answering your questions that honestly aren't worth my
effort or the Usenet space.

2) Read first, then post. I never claimed this to be /the/ training route,
that it would save lives or anything else you have insinuated either
purposefully or foolishly.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:34:16 GMT, kontiki wrote:

>>> Understand what and how the instrumentation works (shortcomings included)
>>> Own all the fundamentally necessary flight gear (i.e carry-ons in flight
>>> bag or on person)
>>
>>> Obtain hours in flight simulation
>>
>> See Dudley's comments regarding pre-solo students and simulators.
>>> More...enough for now.
>>
>
> Ye, a point I neglected to mention. We've already had one poster
> here who had a disappointing discovery flight by going into it with
> a severe case of overconfidence and unrealistic expectations due to
> having spent so many hours 'perfecting' his technique on a simulator.

Thanks for the heads up.

> Except for the purpose of explaining how the COM and NAV radios and
> instrumentation works by a CFI, simulator time should be avoided
> by pre-solo students. Post solo, other than to experiment with
> navigation methods, simulators should be avoided by students also.

Interesting opinion.

> By simulators, I am talking about the basic PC based units, not
> the multi-million dollar, full motion simulators used to train
> commercial pilots. But even they should not be used pre-solo.

Followed by another one.

So it is fair to say that the outcome of pre-solo sim is generally
negative?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:35:14 -0800 (PST), William Hung wrote:

> For your written, I recommend the King's video and computer test prep
> set. They were boring, but was watchable. The practice test was
> very helpful. After spending on average 1-2 hours a day in 15-20
> intervals I got 95% on the test. The test itself only took me 15-20
> minutes to complete. I think I would have gotten a 100% if I wasn't
> so overly confident. I rushed thru it.
>
> Wil

Thanks, I have heard more or less the same. What would you recommend that
/isn't/ test oriented (reading, testing and other materials); that is
learning oriented without regard to the test results?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

"WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
...


> 1) I passed on answering your questions that honestly aren't worth my
> effort or the Usenet space.

And I will to the same

<plonk>

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>
> Thanks, I have heard more or less the same. What would you recommend that
> /isn't/ test oriented (reading, testing and other materials); that is
> learning oriented without regard to the test results?

If haven't purchased any books or training materials yet I'd
recommend a complete package like the ASA Private Pilot Kit.
There are two versions of it, one for Part 61 and one for Part 141
but the 141 kit is better because the textbooks included are
more comprehensive if you are into studying on your own. Here's
a link to that: http://www.mypilotstore.com/MyPilotStore/sep/2713

Of course you can buy the items in that kit separately but you
really need all of them. There are a number of FAA publications
that are very good and can be downloaded in PDF format from
here: http://www.faa.gov/pilots/training/

--

On Feb 28, 5:04 am, "Steve Foley" > wrote:
> "WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message

> > Outside of the cost factors, I find this much more than curious
> considering the
> > consequences. You can get killed, that one keeps jumping out at me :)
>
> I don't follow. Reading accident reports, I see very few incidents of pilots
> getting killed because they had inadequate training (unless you consider VFR
> into IMC).

There are plenty of examples. The ones that jump out at me
are the landing accidents that often don't hit the headlines,
accidents caused by poor training. Landing fast and flat, running off
the end, ballooning and stalling and landing hard. Accelerated stalls
caused by pulling back hard after a buzz job. (Those are usually fatal
and hit the newspapers.) Failing to understand DA and trying to depart
an inadequate runway. A really common one is carb ice; we hear of
accidents/incidents all the time due to that one. It's not well taught
or understood. And, of course as you mentioned, VFR into IMC.

Dan

On Feb 28, 8:51*am, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:34:16 GMT, kontiki wrote:
> >>> Understand what and how the instrumentation works (shortcomings included)
> >>> Own all the fundamentally necessary flight gear (i.e carry-ons in flight
> >>> bag or on person)
>
> >>> Obtain hours in flight simulation
>
> >> See Dudley's comments regarding pre-solo students and simulators.
> >>> More...enough for now.
>
> > Ye, a point I neglected to mention. We've already had one poster
> > here who had a disappointing discovery flight by going into it with
> > a severe case of overconfidence and unrealistic expectations due to
> > having spent so many hours 'perfecting' his technique on a simulator.
>
> Thanks for the heads up.
>
> > Except for the purpose of explaining how the COM and NAV radios and
> > instrumentation works by a CFI, simulator time should be avoided
> > by pre-solo students. Post solo, other than to experiment with
> > navigation methods, simulators should be avoided by students also.
>
> Interesting opinion.
>
> > By simulators, I am talking about the basic PC based units, not
> > the multi-million dollar, full motion simulators used to train
> > commercial pilots. But even they should not be used pre-solo.
>
> Followed by another one.
>
> So it is fair to say that the outcome of pre-solo sim is generally
> negative?
> --
> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

First, so you can gauge how much to believe me: I am a recent Private
Pilot (April 2006) who works in the simulation industry.

Yes, it is fair to say that pre-solo sim is not helpful and may even
hurt. Much of what is learned in pre-solo and getting to solo (which
is the point of pre-solo) is physical cues and muscle memory. None of
that is recreated in any PC based sim environment. Also the limited
visual area and field of view (even in a 3 screen uber-setup) causes
dependence on the instruments and prevents using many of the visual
cues which are important in VFR flying. I was quite good at instrument
flying (for a PP student) but not so hot at watching for traffic,
watching the horizon for attitude, etc.

I am now working on my instrument rating and in that environment the
simulator is helpful. I can use it to practice procedures and
sequences. Control pressures, sounds, etc. are still missing. (To be
clear: the sim makes sounds, but the cues do not match what sounds are
important in the real plane. Force feedback controls also do not match
the real world - it's a matter of energy and mass as well as
programming.)

You will hear from simulation proponents how wrong this opinion is,
but those folks (at least the loudest on these groups) do not and have
not flown a real airplane. Those of us who have done both, seem to
pretty much share this opinion. Simulation has its place, but it is
_not_ pre-solo.

John

On 2008-02-28, > wrote:
> Yes, it is fair to say that pre-solo sim is not helpful and may even
> hurt. Much of what is learned in pre-solo and getting to solo (which
> is the point of pre-solo) is physical cues and muscle memory. None of
> that is recreated in any PC based sim environment.

Don't underestimate the power of muscle memory, too. My ease of flying the
Tecnam Sierra and difficulty transitioning into the Zodiac, both after 15
years out of the cockpit, are directly related to that.

I can't fly a sim worth a damn, and it's because the muscle memory expects
feel that just isn't there.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

> wrote in message
...
> On Feb 28, 5:04 am, "Steve Foley" > wrote:

> > I don't follow. Reading accident reports, I see very few incidents of
pilots
> > getting killed because they had inadequate training (unless you consider
VFR
> > into IMC).
>
> There are plenty of examples. The ones that jump out at me
> are the landing accidents that often don't hit the headlines,
> accidents caused by poor training. Landing fast and flat, running off
> the end, ballooning and stalling and landing hard. Accelerated stalls
> caused by pulling back hard after a buzz job. (Those are usually fatal
> and hit the newspapers.) Failing to understand DA and trying to depart
> an inadequate runway. A really common one is carb ice; we hear of
> accidents/incidents all the time due to that one. It's not well taught
> or understood. And, of course as you mentioned, VFR into IMC.
>
> Dan
>

If this were truly a lack of training, I would expect to see more of these
types of accidents immediately after getting a certificate.

When they occur years later, I can't see how they can be attributed to
inadequate training from years ago.

I think most good pilots agree that a private certificate is really a
license to learn.

I'd love to see a syllabus that includes "avoiding accelerated stalls after
a buzz job"<g>

"WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
...
>
> Pass all tests with a 95% minimum

That's a good goal, but, if you sweat it too much you'll never get your
rating. -Most- of the stuff you miss on the written, if you're scoring
above, say, 85%, you'll pick up in training anyway.

> Handle with ease all traffic control and similar commo

That'll save you a little money, but, you learn all that during the lessons
anyway.

> Dissect the anatomy of my training aircraft

Always good. It makes flying the airplane a lot richer of an experience.

> Understand what and how the instrumentation works (shortcomings included)

That's part of ground school (as is most of the above.) You will learn it
all before you solo one way or the other.

> Own all the fundamentally necessary flight gear (i.e carry-ons in flight
> bag or on person)

That'll take care of itself when you start training. There's a whole lot
of crap for sale that pilots generally don't need.

-c

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 07:55:54 -0800 (PST), wrote:

>> So it is fair to say that the outcome of pre-solo sim is generally
>> negative?
>> --
>> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
>
> First, so you can gauge how much to believe me: I am a recent Private
> Pilot (April 2006) who works in the simulation industry.
>
> Yes, it is fair to say that pre-solo sim is not helpful and may even
> hurt. Much of what is learned in pre-solo and getting to solo (which
> is the point of pre-solo) is physical cues and muscle memory. None of
> that is recreated in any PC based sim environment. Also the limited
> visual area and field of view (even in a 3 screen uber-setup) causes
> dependence on the instruments and prevents using many of the visual
> cues which are important in VFR flying. I was quite good at instrument
> flying (for a PP student) but not so hot at watching for traffic,
> watching the horizon for attitude, etc.
>
> I am now working on my instrument rating and in that environment the
> simulator is helpful. I can use it to practice procedures and
> sequences. Control pressures, sounds, etc. are still missing. (To be
> clear: the sim makes sounds, but the cues do not match what sounds are
> important in the real plane. Force feedback controls also do not match
> the real world - it's a matter of energy and mass as well as
> programming.)
>
> You will hear from simulation proponents how wrong this opinion is,
> but those folks (at least the loudest on these groups) do not and have
> not flown a real airplane. Those of us who have done both, seem to
> pretty much share this opinion. Simulation has its place, but it is
> _not_ pre-solo.
>
> John

John, thanks, this makes a lot of sense. I spent a chunk of years strength
and power training athletes. The f,m,a relationships you mentioned hit home
as did the cross-over training strategies (or lack thereof) in
visualization systems. Good luck on your IFR.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:56:26 GMT, Steve Foley wrote:

> "WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> 1) I passed on answering your questions that honestly aren't worth my
>> effort or the Usenet space.
>
> And I will to the same
>
> <plonk>

lol Touchy I would say.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

"WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
...

>
> So it is fair to say that the outcome of pre-solo sim is generally
> negative?

Flights sims are spectacular for teaching you the instrument panel and
navigation, but overuse can reinforce bad habits (like radio com, use of
checklists, cheating by looking at the map or GPS, taxi procedures, etc)
Their biggest downfall for student pilots is that the experiences of
peripheral vision and flight control pressures are different. The yoke on
a Cessna 152 will require a different amount and type of touch than a
typical joystick or plastic PC yoke.

Having said that, I'm a fan of MSFS and play with it one or twice a week.

-c
CP-ASEL-IA

Steve Foley wrote:
>
>I'd love to see a syllabus that includes "avoiding accelerated stalls after
>a buzz job"<g>

I had that training when I got my PPL about 20 yrs. ago. When we got to
the section on accelerated stalls, my instructor took me out and we performed
them at altitude, simulating a buzz job. He noted that the most common
scenario where a private pilot might encounter an accelerated stall would be
during a botched buzzing. The lesson stuck pretty well.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

"WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:35:14 -0800 (PST), William Hung wrote:
>
>> For your written, I recommend the King's video and computer test prep
>> set. They were boring, but was watchable. The practice test was
>> very helpful. After spending on average 1-2 hours a day in 15-20
>> intervals I got 95% on the test. The test itself only took me 15-20
>> minutes to complete. I think I would have gotten a 100% if I wasn't
>> so overly confident. I rushed thru it.
>>
>> Wil
>
> Thanks, I have heard more or less the same. What would you recommend that
> /isn't/ test oriented (reading, testing and other materials); that is
> learning oriented without regard to the test results?

The Jeppeson Private Pilot book is good. Also, Machado is enormously
popular: http://www.rodmachado.com/

Plenty of others and I'm probably missing a couple of authors who are on
this forum. I recommend them as well. :>

-c

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:30:52 GMT, Steve Foley wrote:

>> There are plenty of examples. The ones that jump out at me
>> are the landing accidents that often don't hit the headlines,
>> accidents caused by poor training. Landing fast and flat, running off
>> the end, ballooning and stalling and landing hard. Accelerated stalls
>> caused by pulling back hard after a buzz job. (Those are usually fatal
>> and hit the newspapers.) Failing to understand DA and trying to depart
>> an inadequate runway. A really common one is carb ice; we hear of
>> accidents/incidents all the time due to that one. It's not well taught
>> or understood. And, of course as you mentioned, VFR into IMC.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>
> If this were truly a lack of training, I would expect to see more of these
> types of accidents immediately after getting a certificate.

If you did, you would argue that it was a lack of experience not training
to make it fit your argument.

> When they occur years later, I can't see how they can be attributed to
> inadequate training from years ago.

Wouldn't that depend on what was learned in the training, or better yet,
not learned?

> I think most good pilots agree that a private certificate is really a
> license to learn.

The Differences Between PPLicensing And Learning /is/ the Subject of the
thread.

--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:32:44 GMT, kontiki wrote:

> WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, I have heard more or less the same. What would you recommend that
>> /isn't/ test oriented (reading, testing and other materials); that is
>> learning oriented without regard to the test results?
>
> If haven't purchased any books or training materials yet I'd
> recommend a complete package like the ASA Private Pilot Kit.
> There are two versions of it, one for Part 61 and one for Part 141
> but the 141 kit is better because the textbooks included are
> more comprehensive if you are into studying on your own. Here's
> a link to that: http://www.mypilotstore.com/MyPilotStore/sep/2713
>
> Of course you can buy the items in that kit separately but you
> really need all of them. There are a number of FAA publications
> that are very good and can be downloaded in PDF format from
> here: http://www.faa.gov/pilots/training/

Thanks, the FAA stuff I pulled, printed and the ASA I purchased.
Self-taught works for me, it fits my work (IT), home office environ, my
learning style and my preferences.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

"WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
...

>> Of course you can buy the items in that kit separately but you
>> really need all of them. There are a number of FAA publications
>> that are very good and can be downloaded in PDF format from
>> here: http://www.faa.gov/pilots/training/
>
> Thanks, the FAA stuff I pulled, printed and the ASA I purchased.
> Self-taught works for me, it fits my work (IT), home office environ, my
> learning style and my preferences.

The ASA textbook will teach you everything you need to know that doesn't
require being in the airplane to learn it. You don't need to have
mastered all of it before you solo, and it doesn't sound like you'll make
the mistake of putting the textbooks away once you've passed the written.

When people here talking about getting it done quickly or in as little
flight time as possible, it's important to distinguish between license mills
and people who just want to provide -EFFICIENT- training. There's no point
in drilling holes in the sky if you're not learning in the process.
An -effective and efficient- training program will get you through in a
shorter time because less training time will have been wasted, not because
your training is being short-changed.

-c

On Feb 28, 6:34 am, kontiki > wrote:
>
> Except for the purpose of explaining how the COM and NAV radios and
> instrumentation works by a CFI, simulator time should be avoided
> by pre-solo students. Post solo, other than to experiment with
> navigation methods, simulators should be avoided by students also.
>
> By simulators, I am talking about the basic PC based units, not
> the multi-million dollar, full motion simulators used to train
> commercial pilots. But even they should not be used pre-solo.

I tend to disagree in some ways. I will agree that some students may
make the assumption that the PC simulator is exactly like the real
thing and make the assumption that after mastering the simulator they
can jump into the aircraft and fly it just as well. However, I
believe that the PC simulator can be used to teach basic techniques
and principles such as basic aircraft control, basic aerodynamics, use
and function of instruments, etc. As long as the student understands
that the simulator and the aircraft are different, they can transition
from one to the other and apply what they learned from the simulator
to the actual aircraft.

Additionally, the student can experience things in the simulator that
he/she can't or shouldn't do in the actual aircraft. The PC simulator
is, in my opinion, a valuable tool if used correctly.

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:43:14 -0500, WJRFlyBoy wrote:

> when talking with CFIs, they are geared to quick rather than
> thorough.

I personally appreciate that attitude in a CFI considering that time really
is money in this business... your money. His job is to get you to the
checkride ready to pass and if he's good he'll know exactly what that
takes.

But your thinking is correct, there is much, much more to learn than the
minimum to pass the checkride and that will be up to you on your own. How
much extra frosting you want to put on the cake is what makes the
difference between a pilot and a good pilot.


--
Dallas

> I don't understand. For the most part, I see people who want to get x
> hours
> in y (shortest) time to get their license.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I know you're not a pilot yet, and that this is all very exciting and
intoxicating. Flying IS the best thing you can do, head and shoulders
(literally!) above every other human endeavor, but I'm about to let you in
on a little secret.

It's a secret that your government, and most of the "big watch" pilot crowd,
will never, EVER tell you. You may want to be sitting down when you read
this -- but here it is:

Flying is easy. You're making it into a much bigger deal than it is.

Not that flying can't kill you in a heartbeat -- it can. But that's true of
most skills in life, from driving on the freeway to working with power
tools. The FAA and a large segment of the pilot population would like you
to believe that it takes some sort of super-human skill and intelligence to
learn to fly, but it just ain't true.

Why is this so? How has this situation evolved?

1. The FAA is "government", which is in the regulatory business. Thus, each
year requires more regulations, lest the FAA find itself large pointless
(which, on the GA side of flying, it largely *is*). Since, by nature, no
government agency can EVER solve the problems it was set up to address (or
risk being eliminated), it *must* continue to make things more complex. It
also must find new problems to fix, since most of the original problems were
quickly resolved. If that means largely inventing new problems, all the
better.

2. The "big watch" crowd likes to boast of their flying prowess, and likes
to feel above and separate from the "folks on the ground". Obviously, if
flying were easy and accessible, this would destroy their self image, so it
plays into their game to make flying appear really, really hard. Thus, many
airports have unfriendly, elitist FBOs, and pilot groups are traditionally
exclusionary good ol' boy clubs, unfriendly and suspicious of newcomers.

After long observations and pondering, I believe this attitude evolved from
the combat pilots of World War II, who truly demonstrated superior skills
and abilities. Those guys moved to their local airports after the war, and
their natural attitudes toward newcomers (not combat pilots) was an "us and
them" mentality. To some degree, this attitude has been imprinted on every
generation of new pilots ever since.

These two groups, inadvertently working together, have almost killed general
aviation in America. As usual, the FAA's work is done under the guise of
"safety" -- the catch-word that makes EVERYTHING okay. (The only words in
our society that kick open the treasury vault quicker, and eliminates our
rights quicker, is: "It's for the children" -- which have been used for
everything from school busing to the building of government-sponsored
casinos.)

We can fix the FAA, given enough political will -- but I don't know what to
do about the big watch crowd. I belong to every pilot's group, both locally
and nationally, and I see this attitude toward newcomers slowly improving
(basically as a result of their numbers dwindling to the point of death)
but it's been a glacially slow change.

I hate to burst your bubble like this -- I, too, once thought learning to
fly was beyond my means, and must be really, really hard -- but once you've
learned the truth, you can quickly and efficiently move from standing on the
ground to soaring through the sky. Find a mentor through AOPA (if you need
help finding one, email me off-group), and get to it -- you'll never regret
it!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Deadstick wrote:

>
> I tend to disagree in some ways. I will agree that some students may
> make the assumption that the PC simulator is exactly like the real
> thing and make the assumption that after mastering the simulator they
> can jump into the aircraft and fly it just as well. However, I
> believe that the PC simulator can be used to teach basic techniques
> and principles such as basic aircraft control, basic aerodynamics, use
> and function of instruments, etc. As long as the student understands
> that the simulator and the aircraft are different, they can transition
> from one to the other and apply what they learned from the simulator
> to the actual aircraft.
>
> Additionally, the student can experience things in the simulator that
> he/she can't or shouldn't do in the actual aircraft. The PC simulator
> is, in my opinion, a valuable tool if used correctly.
>

How many hours you got there Deadstick?

In article >,
WJRFlyBoy > wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:04:54 GMT, Steve Foley wrote:
>
> > "WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> I have been reading the various threads about spins, forced landings, etc
> >> and talking with CFIs. The road to a PPL is preset in requirements by FAA.
> >> I see that most people are happy to do nothing more than that.
> >
> > Where do you see that?
>
> I don't understand. For the most part, I see people who want to get x hours
> in y (shortest) time to get their license.

How does that show that they don't want to do anything past the minimum
requirements?

In article >,
Jay Maynard > wrote:

> On 2008-02-28, > wrote:
> > Yes, it is fair to say that pre-solo sim is not helpful and may even
> > hurt. Much of what is learned in pre-solo and getting to solo (which
> > is the point of pre-solo) is physical cues and muscle memory. None of
> > that is recreated in any PC based sim environment.
>
> Don't underestimate the power of muscle memory, too. My ease of flying the
> Tecnam Sierra and difficulty transitioning into the Zodiac, both after 15
> years out of the cockpit, are directly related to that.

What did you fly in the Old Days(tm)?

I'm asking only because I've been out for 30+ years (Champ/Cherokee/
C-150), and came back in January, where I've been getting refresher
instruction in the Tecnam Sierra (which I like a lot). Almost ready to
wrap up my BFR, too.

In article >,
WJRFlyBoy > wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:56:26 GMT, Steve Foley wrote:
>
> > "WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >> 1) I passed on answering your questions that honestly aren't worth my
> >> effort or the Usenet space.
> >
> > And I will to the same
> >
> > <plonk>
>
> lol Touchy I would say.

Well, you *were* pretty rude. Unless you think that blowing off someone
because they're too stupid to deal with is good manners.

Think about it.

"Deadstick" > wrote in message
...

> Additionally, the student can experience things in the simulator that
> he/she can't or shouldn't do in the actual aircraft. The PC simulator
> is, in my opinion, a valuable tool if used correctly.

Therein lies the problem. How does a student know if he's using the tool
correctly?

-c

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Deadstick" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Additionally, the student can experience things in the simulator that
>> he/she can't or shouldn't do in the actual aircraft. The PC simulator
>> is, in my opinion, a valuable tool if used correctly.
>
> Therein lies the problem. How does a student know if he's using the tool
> correctly?
>
> -c


You answered your own question...if he's a student, he's taking instruction.
Otherwise he's just a user or tinkerer.

--
BobF.
Lincoln actually got it right but was way ahead of his time when he said,
"You can have some of you computer working all of the time and all of your
computer working some of the time but..." It was he that said that, wasn't
it?

Deadstick wrote:
> On Feb 28, 6:34 am, kontiki > wrote:
>> Except for the purpose of explaining how the COM and NAV radios and
>> instrumentation works by a CFI, simulator time should be avoided
>> by pre-solo students. Post solo, other than to experiment with
>> navigation methods, simulators should be avoided by students also.
>>
>> By simulators, I am talking about the basic PC based units, not
>> the multi-million dollar, full motion simulators used to train
>> commercial pilots. But even they should not be used pre-solo.
>
> I tend to disagree in some ways. I will agree that some students may
> make the assumption that the PC simulator is exactly like the real
> thing and make the assumption that after mastering the simulator they
> can jump into the aircraft and fly it just as well. However, I
> believe that the PC simulator can be used to teach basic techniques
> and principles such as basic aircraft control, basic aerodynamics, use
> and function of instruments, etc. As long as the student understands
> that the simulator and the aircraft are different, they can transition
> from one to the other and apply what they learned from the simulator
> to the actual aircraft.
>
> Additionally, the student can experience things in the simulator that
> he/she can't or shouldn't do in the actual aircraft. The PC simulator
> is, in my opinion, a valuable tool if used correctly.
>
I would respectfully disagree with this analysis based on hundreds of
hours spent working with both primary students, flight instructors, and
Microsoft.
Sims have their use, but if used before solo can actually be detrimental
for various reasons, some of them absolutely critical to student progress.
After solo, and when used with the proper supervision, the sims have
their productive side as well.


--
Dudley Henriques

"Dallas" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:43:14 -0500, WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>
>> when talking with CFIs, they are geared to quick rather than
>> thorough.
>
> I personally appreciate that attitude in a CFI considering that time
> really
> is money in this business... your money. His job is to get you to the
> checkride ready to pass and if he's good he'll know exactly what that
> takes.


And every instructor I've ever known will be MORE than happy to take your
$30-$40 for any additional training you might elect to take. I'm not aware
of one that would turn down somebody (student, private, commercial etc) who
wants additional training.


-c

Took the words right out of my mouth. I can see a lot of time devoted to
un-learning if everyone followed the OP's method.

Bob Gardner

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Deadstick" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Additionally, the student can experience things in the simulator that
>> he/she can't or shouldn't do in the actual aircraft. The PC simulator
>> is, in my opinion, a valuable tool if used correctly.
>
> Therein lies the problem. How does a student know if he's using the tool
> correctly?
>
> -c
>
>

Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> I would respectfully disagree with this analysis based on hundreds of
> hours spent working with both primary students, flight instructors,
> and Microsoft.
> Sims have their use, but if used before solo can actually be
> detrimental for various reasons, some of them absolutely critical to
> student progress. After solo, and when used with the proper
> supervision, the sims have their productive side as well.

Hmmm. That seems to be a stronger statement about pre-solo use than I've
seen you state in the recent past. Or maybe I'm over-extending "pre-solo"
to include "pre-flight-training" that you didn't intend? That is, if time
is split thusly:

Big Bang -> birth -> simming -> initial flight training -> solo -> PPL ->
death -> Big Crunch

Then that order is okay so long as simming and pre-solo flight training
don't overlap? Or you believe simming is _only_ a net positive use after
solo and even then only under supervision? Hmmm.

Otherwise your advice appears to be at odds with what Bruce Williams wrote
in his book "Microsoft Flight Simulator as a Training Aid." That is, while
he too says pre-solo simming _can_ be detrimental, it appears he believes
that is not an immutable issue and lays out some guidelines that he
believes can make pre-flight training use a net positive. But I guess that
is not surprising, given that he wrote a book on the subject!

(There seem to be anecdotes posted by people who have felt use of MS Flight
Simulator helped them get a leg-up in their training and others who felt MS
FS actually slowed them down.)

"Bob Gardner" > wrote:
> Took the words right out of my mouth. I can see a lot of time devoted
> to un-learning if everyone followed the OP's method.

Hmmm. There are now several books that attempt to explain how to make best
use of a tool like MS Flight Simulator. Would anyone argue that the
prescriptions in those books wont help because it's a lost cause ("no
substitute for being in a real cockpit")?

Next thing you know, people will be claiming that no book can help guide
you in radio communications ("no substitute for using a real radio"), so
buying and reading such books is a waste money and time. *COUGH*

>
> Bob Gardner
>
> "gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Deadstick" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Additionally, the student can experience things in the simulator
>>> that he/she can't or shouldn't do in the actual aircraft. The PC
>>> simulator is, in my opinion, a valuable tool if used correctly.
>>
>> Therein lies the problem. How does a student know if he's using the
>> tool correctly?
>>
>> -c
>>
>>
>

> (There seem to be anecdotes posted by people who have felt use of MS Flight
> Simulator helped them get a leg-up in their training and others who felt MS
> FS actually slowed them down.)

It all depends on your approach to flying. If you think a pilot's
primary instruments are the Artificial Horizon, the ASI, the tachometer
and a myriade of other gauges, then a sim will probably help. But if you
believe that a pilot's primary instruments are the natural horizon, his
butt and the feel of the controls, then a sim will most definitely slow
down a student's progress and may even bring it to a halt.

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> I would respectfully disagree with this analysis based on hundreds of
>> hours spent working with both primary students, flight instructors,
>> and Microsoft.
>> Sims have their use, but if used before solo can actually be
>> detrimental for various reasons, some of them absolutely critical to
>> student progress. After solo, and when used with the proper
>> supervision, the sims have their productive side as well.
>
> Hmmm. That seems to be a stronger statement about pre-solo use than I've
> seen you state in the recent past. Or maybe I'm over-extending "pre-solo"
> to include "pre-flight-training" that you didn't intend? That is, if time
> is split thusly:
>
> Big Bang -> birth -> simming -> initial flight training -> solo -> PPL ->
> death -> Big Crunch
>
> Then that order is okay so long as simming and pre-solo flight training
> don't overlap? Or you believe simming is _only_ a net positive use after
> solo and even then only under supervision? Hmmm.
>
> Otherwise your advice appears to be at odds with what Bruce Williams wrote
> in his book "Microsoft Flight Simulator as a Training Aid." That is, while
> he too says pre-solo simming _can_ be detrimental, it appears he believes
> that is not an immutable issue and lays out some guidelines that he
> believes can make pre-flight training use a net positive. But I guess that
> is not surprising, given that he wrote a book on the subject!
>
> (There seem to be anecdotes posted by people who have felt use of MS Flight
> Simulator helped them get a leg-up in their training and others who felt MS
> FS actually slowed them down.)

You are mistaken in your analysis.
My opinions on this issue are quite well known and what I have said here
is in no way conflictive with any earlier opinion. I did however OMIT
part of that opinion by not including that I see no objection at all to
the sim being used BEFORE dual commences as well as after solo, so the
actual envelope I have always stressed constitutes ommission of the
simulator between the first hour of dual instruction and solo. After
solo, the sim can again be used and has specific advantages.
There is no doubt at all in my mind that people coming into dual
instruction after being exposed to the simulator have an advantage, but
considering this, I still stress leaving the sim alone between first
dual and solo for the exact reasons I've given.
You mentioned Bruce Williams book on the sim as a training tool.
I believe Mr. Williams and I are in a fair amount of agreement on how
the sim can be used by flight instructors as a training aid. In fact,
Bruce sent me the book to review. I did that for ASA and you will find a
link to my review on Bruce Williams web site.
If you wish, you may shortcut directly to that review by going to
www.simflight.com and searching my name. You will find it there.


--
Dudley Henriques

Jim Logajan wrote:
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
>> Took the words right out of my mouth. I can see a lot of time devoted
>> to un-learning if everyone followed the OP's method.
>
> Hmmm. There are now several books that attempt to explain how to make best
> use of a tool like MS Flight Simulator. Would anyone argue that the
> prescriptions in those books wont help because it's a lost cause ("no
> substitute for being in a real cockpit")?
>
> Next thing you know, people will be claiming that no book can help guide
> you in radio communications ("no substitute for using a real radio"), so
> buying and reading such books is a waste money and time. *COUGH*
>
>> Bob Gardner
>>
>> "gatt" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Deadstick" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> Additionally, the student can experience things in the simulator
>>>> that he/she can't or shouldn't do in the actual aircraft. The PC
>>>> simulator is, in my opinion, a valuable tool if used correctly.
>>> Therein lies the problem. How does a student know if he's using the
>>> tool correctly?
>>>
>>> -c
>>>
>>>
>
Flying is one thing, radio communications are quite another. The two can
not be equated in an instructional context.

--
Dudley Henriques

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
>> Took the words right out of my mouth. I can see a lot of time devoted
>> to un-learning if everyone followed the OP's method.
>
> Hmmm. There are now several books that attempt to explain how to make best
> use of a tool like MS Flight Simulator. Would anyone argue that the
> prescriptions in those books wont help because it's a lost cause ("no
> substitute for being in a real cockpit")?
>
> Next thing you know, people will be claiming that no book can help guide
> you in radio communications ("no substitute for using a real radio"), so
> buying and reading such books is a waste money and time. *COUGH*

Well, there are significant differences:

1) It's hard to learn bad flying habits from a good book (forgetting to
report your position, lean the mixture, contact ATC or check the freq of the
VOR you're tracking, etc. You can "shoot approaches" in Flight Sim without
even looking at an approach plate.)

B) Sectionals don't put a little airplane symbol on themselves to show your
position, course and altitude like MSFS maps do

III) Textbooks instruct. PC simulators are fundamentally games (unless
somebody's really practicing to fly a B777 or the Wright Flyer.)

Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> You are mistaken in your analysis.

I am indeed. :-(

> My opinions on this issue are quite well known and what I have said
> here is in no way conflictive with any earlier opinion. I did however
> OMIT part of that opinion by not including that I see no objection at
> all to the sim being used BEFORE dual commences as well as after solo,
> so the actual envelope I have always stressed constitutes ommission of
> the simulator between the first hour of dual instruction and solo.

That is as I remembered your past statements. It seems I read more into
your earlier posting than what you actually wrote. Oops.

> After solo, the sim can again be used and has specific advantages.
> There is no doubt at all in my mind that people coming into dual
> instruction after being exposed to the simulator have an advantage,
> but considering this, I still stress leaving the sim alone between
> first dual and solo for the exact reasons I've given.
> You mentioned Bruce Williams book on the sim as a training tool.
> I believe Mr. Williams and I are in a fair amount of agreement on how
> the sim can be used by flight instructors as a training aid. In fact,
> Bruce sent me the book to review. I did that for ASA and you will find
> a link to my review on Bruce Williams web site.
> If you wish, you may shortcut directly to that review by going to
> www.simflight.com and searching my name. You will find it there.

I've read your review. Thank you.

Have you had an opportunity to look through the book "Microsoft Flight
Simulator X for Pilots: Real-World Training" by Jeff Van West and Kevin
Lane-cummings? If so, any thoughts you'd be willing to share on it?

Jim Logajan wrote:

> I've read your review. Thank you.

No problem. You're welcome.
>
> Have you had an opportunity to look through the book "Microsoft Flight
> Simulator X for Pilots: Real-World Training" by Jeff Van West and Kevin
> Lane-cummings? If so, any thoughts you'd be willing to share on it?

I'm sorry I haven't. I would say without reading it that if they are
basically in line with Williams I would have no problem with it.
As I've said, MSFS in the hands of a good creative instructor should
prove to be a positive visual training tool.
The only caveat I have with any simulator is the one I have stated
concerning the period between first dual and solo.
I enjoy the sim myself and have opted to retain FS2004 rather than go to
FSX for various reasons.

--
Dudley Henriques

you can't do all of that without some training..
so if you are delaying your first training until you can do it..
have you not created a "Catch22" situation?

Or.. are you refering to not starting the flight portions of training until
you can do all of those items.
you may find that an integrated scenario works best, Ground School and
Apply, and it sticks better, then move on to the next part.

BT

"WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
...
>I have been reading the various threads about spins, forced landings, etc
> and talking with CFIs. The road to a PPL is preset in requirements by FAA.
> I see that most people are happy to do nothing more than that. Outside of
> the cost factors, I find this much more than curious considering the
> consequences. You can get killed, that one keeps jumping out at me :)
>
> I am asking the group for assistance in developing a list of instructional
> and solo experiences, testing, mandatory reading.....if you ran the FAA,
> what would you require in a near-perfect world that a PPL would require? I
> am a zero-hour wannabe pilot FYI
>
> For a start, I won't begin my first instruction until I can do the
> following:
>
> Pass all tests with a 95% minimum
> Handle with ease all traffic control and similar commo
> Dissect the anatomy of my training aircraft
> Understand what and how the instrumentation works (shortcomings included)
> Own all the fundamentally necessary flight gear (i.e carry-ons in flight
> bag or on person)
> Obtain hours in flight simulation
> More...enough for now.
>
> TIA. The group is an extremely valuable resource; I sincerely doubt I
> would
> be so focused and confident without your past, present and future work
> here.
> --
> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On 2008-02-28, Steve Hix > wrote:
> In article >,
> Jay Maynard > wrote:
>> Don't underestimate the power of muscle memory, too. My ease of flying the
>> Tecnam Sierra and difficulty transitioning into the Zodiac, both after 15
>> years out of the cockpit, are directly related to that.
> What did you fly in the Old Days(tm)?

Four-place singles: 172, Warrior, Archer, Tiger, a few hours in a Tobago.
All 1977-1984 vintage aside from the Tobago.

> I'm asking only because I've been out for 30+ years (Champ/Cherokee/
> C-150), and came back in January, where I've been getting refresher
> instruction in the Tecnam Sierra (which I like a lot). Almost ready to
> wrap up my BFR, too.

The stuff I flew feels just like the Sierra, according to my flying
reflexes.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (getting ready to order)

In rec.aviation.student WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> I have been reading the various threads about spins, forced landings, etc
> and talking with CFIs. The road to a PPL is preset in requirements by FAA.
> I see that most people are happy to do nothing more than that. Outside of
> the cost factors, I find this much more than curious considering the
> consequences. You can get killed, that one keeps jumping out at me :)
>
> I am asking the group for assistance in developing a list of instructional
> and solo experiences, testing, mandatory reading.....if you ran the FAA,
> what would you require in a near-perfect world that a PPL would require? I
> am a zero-hour wannabe pilot FYI

Outlandings and assembly/disassembly. The PTS covers both in extremely
light detail. I would like to see much greater detail applied to both. In
particular, I had never assembled or disassembled a glider, aside from
helping to hold up wingtips and such, until after my checkride. I think
every student should be taken to the point where he can be the lead on
assembly or disassembly, at least for one particular type. He should also
be able to walk through an outlanding from start to finish, including
dealing with locals and police and handling the retrieve crew.

Of course this is pretty glider-specific. The equivalent for "normal"
flying would, I imagine, be how to travel with a plane, how to deal with
courtesy cars and arrange transportation at the destination and so forth,
which I've seen talked about here as lamentably un-discussed during
training.

> For a start, I won't begin my first instruction until I can do the
> following:

In my unsolicited opinion, you're doing it all backwards. Learn to walk
before you try to run. The flying isn't the hardest part, it's the easiest
part. It's just a physical skill, like driving a car.

> Pass all tests with a 95% minimum

Your understanding will be shallow without any experience to base it on.
You may pass the test but the knowledge won't be very useful.

> Handle with ease all traffic control and similar commo

Ability to handle it in your head (or even in a sim) and ability to handle
it while managing a complex machine are two very different things. I
couldn't even begin to count the number of students I've seen who can tell
you exactly what a radio call should sound like when you talk to them on
the ground, but who completely botch it when they do it in the air.

> Dissect the anatomy of my training aircraft

This is going to be pretty hard to do if you aren't getting it and around
it. Book learning isn't going to let you do even a halfway decent
preflight, much less "dissect the anatomy" of anything.

> Understand what and how the instrumentation works (shortcomings included)

You may understand the principles involved but I don't think you'll really
understand how they work until you actually use them.

> Own all the fundamentally necessary flight gear (i.e carry-ons in flight
> bag or on person)

How will you know what to buy until you've started flying? Personally I'm
still trying to find the right bag and the right way to store things for
taking to the airport and for taking in the aircraft, and I've had my
ticket for nearly a year and have about 60 hours total time.

> Obtain hours in flight simulation

As has been discussed elsethread, pointless.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:41:49 -0500, WJRFlyBoy
> wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:30:52 GMT, Steve Foley wrote:
>
>>> There are plenty of examples. The ones that jump out at me
>>> are the landing accidents that often don't hit the headlines,
>>> accidents caused by poor training. Landing fast and flat, running off
>>> the end, ballooning and stalling and landing hard. Accelerated stalls
>>> caused by pulling back hard after a buzz job. (Those are usually fatal
>>> and hit the newspapers.) Failing to understand DA and trying to depart
>>> an inadequate runway. A really common one is carb ice; we hear of
>>> accidents/incidents all the time due to that one. It's not well taught
>>> or understood. And, of course as you mentioned, VFR into IMC.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>
>> If this were truly a lack of training, I would expect to see more of these
>> types of accidents immediately after getting a certificate.
>
>If you did, you would argue that it was a lack of experience not training
>to make it fit your argument.

He's correct. According to the safety literature I've read they figure
those type of accidents would show up soon. BUT OTOH IIRC they figure
the highest accident rate happens somewhere between 300 and 500 hours.

It's a bit more complex figuring out the reasoning though.
There are many reasons for the rate peaking in this range.

>
>> When they occur years later, I can't see how they can be attributed to
>> inadequate training from years ago.
>
>Wouldn't that depend on what was learned in the training, or better yet,
>not learned?

Not necessarily. If they made it that far then their training was
most likely adequate. Unfortunately it's more of an individual thing.
One student may solo in 10 hours, pass the PTS in 40 hours and become
an exemplary pilot. Another may take 40 to solo, a 100 for the PTS
and also do great. OTOH you most likely can find examples to the
contrary as well. It depends on the student and the instructor, not
the hours.

That a student can do everything in the minimum of time and hours says
more about their abilities than lack of proper training. Where one
student can handle 3 or 4 hours of flying a week another may not be
able to handle more than a couple before mental overload sets in.
That it takes one three or four times as long to solo or pass the test
than another is no direct indication of how much or how well either
learned the material.

I know of one student who did great, then suffered a brain fart coming
in to land. He got too low, applied full power, nose came up, he
pulled the power and turned it into a lawn dart. Put shoulders in the
wings of that 150. Some more training, he took and passed the PTS
with flying colors (no pun intended). A year later (minus one day),
he suffered another brain fart on short final, applied power, ended up
too fast, and turned that one into a lawn dart as well.

Attitude plays as much a part in this as does training. After flying
for a while we all get used to doing things a particular way. Bad
habits can develop, and so can the attitude that the pilot knows
everything needed. That is why the FAA came up with the biennial
"flight review". It's also why insurance companies give preferential
rates for taking re currency training.

I happen to be one of those who soloed in a short time and got the
license in just a few months, but I am also one who continued to
practice all the maneuvers I had to learn plus those required for the
commercial license. BTW, my ground school was a 4 credit hour college
course. Those were regular credits and not continued learning.
After my initial solo flights I was allowed to practice all maneuvers
and I did instead of just going out sightseeing. To me the maneuvers
were as much fun as playing. They were playing and I enjoyed them.

>
>> I think most good pilots agree that a private certificate is really a
>> license to learn.
>
>The Differences Between PPLicensing And Learning /is/ the Subject of the
>thread.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:38:17 -0600, Dallas wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:43:14 -0500, WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>
>> when talking with CFIs, they are geared to quick rather than
>> thorough.
>
> I personally appreciate that attitude in a CFI considering that time really
> is money in this business... your money. His job is to get you to the
> checkride ready to pass and if he's good he'll know exactly what that
> takes.
>
> But your thinking is correct, there is much, much more to learn than the
> minimum to pass the checkride and that will be up to you on your own. How
> much extra frosting you want to put on the cake is what makes the
> difference between a pilot and a good pilot.

This self-responsibility is spot on, Dallas and being a businessman that
bills on rate, I appreciate your comment and the CFIs/schools realities and
is part of the frustration in maximizing time to effort.

I finished a correspondence on email with another poster who had the
typical semi-horror story, I could see wasted $$$, time and effort and not
by any fault of his own, I don't believe. He, like me, didn't have the
assessment skills; I am trying to overcome as much of that with threads
like this one and overkill on the academic side.

Other than that, it's luck and Divine Providence, neither of which I can
claim any surplus :)
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:20:46 -0800, gatt wrote:

> "Dallas" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:43:14 -0500, WJRFlyBoy wrote:
>>
>>> when talking with CFIs, they are geared to quick rather than
>>> thorough.
>>
>> I personally appreciate that attitude in a CFI considering that time
>> really
>> is money in this business... your money. His job is to get you to the
>> checkride ready to pass and if he's good he'll know exactly what that
>> takes.
>
> And every instructor I've ever known will be MORE than happy to take your
> $30-$40 for any additional training you might elect to take. I'm not aware
> of one that would turn down somebody (student, private, commercial etc) who
> wants additional training.
>
> -c

The assumption might be that you have the right CFI, if not, it may be more
time but for what value? I'm hopeful by the time I get my PPL that I can
also access exactly where my deficiencies are and that will target the
right CFI.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:23:58 -0800, gatt wrote:

> "WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>> So it is fair to say that the outcome of pre-solo sim is generally
>> negative?
>
> Flights sims are spectacular for teaching you the instrument panel and
> navigation, but overuse can reinforce bad habits (like radio com, use of
> checklists, cheating by looking at the map or GPS, taxi procedures, etc)
> Their biggest downfall for student pilots is that the experiences of
> peripheral vision and flight control pressures are different. The yoke on
> a Cessna 152 will require a different amount and type of touch than a
> typical joystick or plastic PC yoke.
>
> Having said that, I'm a fan of MSFS and play with it one or twice a week.
>
> -c
> CP-ASEL-IA

I'm getting the understanding that how you use a sim comes best post-flight
which appeared bassackwards until your comments and others. There can't be
zero value, the trick appears to be knowing where the value is and
concentrating on that.

In my case, it prolly has as much to do with justifying to my wife that
triple-screen 24" monitor, overclocked, freon cooled PC I couldn't convince
her I needed for .xls spreadsheets.

wow - I think that is the truth.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:07:40 -0800, Bob Gardner wrote:

> I can see a lot of time devoted to
> un-learning if everyone followed the OP's method.
>
> Bob Gardner

Cruel shoe, Bob :) They weren't cast in concrete, but to be sure, here is
what I typed relevant to your comment (which may have only been aimed at
the sim time).

For a start, I won't begin my first instruction until I can do the
following:

Pass all tests with a 95% minimum
Handle with ease all traffic control and similar commo
Dissect the anatomy of my training aircraft
Understand what and how the instrumentation works (shortcomings included)
Own all the fundamentally necessary flight gear (i.e carry-ons in flight
bag or on person)
Obtain hours in flight simulation
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:18:00 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:

>> Additionally, the student can experience things in the simulator that
>> he/she can't or shouldn't do in the actual aircraft. The PC simulator
>> is, in my opinion, a valuable tool if used correctly.
>>
> I would respectfully disagree with this analysis based on hundreds of
> hours spent working with both primary students, flight instructors, and
> Microsoft.
> Sims have their use, but if used before solo can actually be detrimental
> for various reasons, some of them absolutely critical to student progress.
> After solo, and when used with the proper supervision, the sims have
> their productive side as well.

Is this the duty of a good CFI to point out where an individual student
would benefit and why?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

In article >,
Jay Maynard > wrote:

> On 2008-02-28, Steve Hix > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Jay Maynard > wrote:
> >> Don't underestimate the power of muscle memory, too. My ease of flying the
> >> Tecnam Sierra and difficulty transitioning into the Zodiac, both after 15
> >> years out of the cockpit, are directly related to that.
> > What did you fly in the Old Days(tm)?
>
> Four-place singles: 172, Warrior, Archer, Tiger, a few hours in a Tobago.
> All 1977-1984 vintage aside from the Tobago.
>
> > I'm asking only because I've been out for 30+ years (Champ/Cherokee/
> > C-150), and came back in January, where I've been getting refresher
> > instruction in the Tecnam Sierra (which I like a lot). Almost ready to
> > wrap up my BFR, too.
>
> The stuff I flew feels just like the Sierra, according to my flying
> reflexes.

The only thing that doesn't feel quite right is throttle on the right of
the stick. (I know there's a second throttle to the left, but its
position is a bit high to be comfortable.)

Other than that, I felt right at home. :}

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:42:13 -0000, Jim Logajan wrote:

> Bruce Williams wrote
> in his book "Microsoft Flight Simulator as a Training Aid." That is, while
> he too says pre-solo simming _can_ be detrimental,

Damn, I could have read that, duh on my part...
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:29:58 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:

> I enjoy the sim myself and have opted to retain FS2004 rather than go to
> FSX for various reasons.

A couple quick ones in favor of both?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:58:38 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

> I know you're not a pilot yet, and that this is all very exciting and
> intoxicating. Flying IS the best thing you can do, head and shoulders
> (literally!) above every other human endeavor, but I'm about to let you in
> on a little secret.
>
> It's a secret that your government, and most of the "big watch" pilot crowd,
> will never, EVER tell you. You may want to be sitting down when you read
> this -- but here it is:
>
> Flying is easy. You're making it into a much bigger deal than it is.

Yeah, it's a tendency of mine, I am sure you are right but I also have a
pressing, personal obligation to push the capability envelope. It extends
to my business profile, I make a living seeking the work no one wants, has
the least chance of success and don't get me started on the VLJ
reservations project that we are failing at big-time...for the moment.

Regardless, you're right and I appreciate that you took the time to force
me to re-center, thx.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:58:38 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

> The FAA and a large segment of the pilot population would like you
> to believe that it takes some sort of super-human skill and intelligence to
> learn to fly, but it just ain't true.
>
> Why is this so? How has this situation evolved?
>
> 1. The FAA is "government", which is in the regulatory business. Thus, each
> year requires more regulations, lest the FAA find itself large pointless
> (which, on the GA side of flying, it largely *is*). Since, by nature, no
> government agency can EVER solve the problems it was set up to address (or
> risk being eliminated), it *must* continue to make things more complex. It
> also must find new problems to fix, since most of the original problems were
> quickly resolved. If that means largely inventing new problems, all the
> better.

I work with the military in software, you are right but I would also, in
their defense (pun), they determine that solving problems is fraught with
inevitable delays, wasted time; they have little sense of time management
since they have little control of time. It takes ten people to make a
committee decision that you could make in ten minutes. They adjust to this
sordid reality (and do solve problems in the process).

Sometimes. :)
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:58:38 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

> 2. The "big watch" crowd likes to boast of their flying prowess, and likes
> to feel above and separate from the "folks on the ground". Obviously, if
> flying were easy and accessible, this would destroy their self image, so it
> plays into their game to make flying appear really, really hard. Thus, many
> airports have unfriendly, elitist FBOs, and pilot groups are traditionally
> exclusionary good ol' boy clubs, unfriendly and suspicious of newcomers.

lol You are right there but the good is that individuals who decide not to
be part of that crowd emerge from it. I see that here on RAS/RAP, both
entities.

> After long observations and pondering, I believe this attitude evolved from
> the combat pilots of World War II, who truly demonstrated superior skills
> and abilities. Those guys moved to their local airports after the war, and
> their natural attitudes toward newcomers (not combat pilots) was an "us and
> them" mentality. To some degree, this attitude has been imprinted on every
> generation of new pilots ever since.

Interesting historical perspective.

> These two groups, inadvertently working together, have almost killed general
> aviation in America. As usual, the FAA's work is done under the guise of
> "safety" -- the catch-word that makes EVERYTHING okay. (The only words in
> our society that kick open the treasury vault quicker, and eliminates our
> rights quicker, is: "It's for the children" -- which have been used for
> everything from school busing to the building of government-sponsored
> casinos.)

Forgot one. "Fight the evil-doers".

> We can fix the FAA, given enough political will -- but I don't know what to
> do about the big watch crowd. I belong to every pilot's group, both locally
> and nationally, and I see this attitude toward newcomers slowly improving
> (basically as a result of their numbers dwindling to the point of death)
> but it's been a glacially slow change.

Boy's Clubs are part of the less illustrious history of the male
constituency. Don't expect change, just a different set of rules.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:58:38 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

> I hate to burst your bubble like this -- I, too, once thought learning to
> fly was beyond my means, and must be really, really hard -- but once you've
> learned the truth, you can quickly and efficiently move from standing on the
> ground to soaring through the sky. Find a mentor through AOPA (if you need
> help finding one, email me off-group), and get to it -- you'll never regret
> it!
> --
> Jay Honeck

I don't bring a lot of ego bubbles, I find that they waste my time, and
others and get in the way of the task in hand which, in this case, is to be
as absolutely good as I can be at flying. Which, if like college, may be
beyond dismal but I can live with efforted failure, some say that will be
the engraving on my tombstone.

"He tried with unmatched attitude, he gave all his heart, he failed like a
1960's Japanese radio."
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:27:12 -0800, Steve Hix wrote:

>>> "WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> I have been reading the various threads about spins, forced landings, etc
>>>> and talking with CFIs. The road to a PPL is preset in requirements by FAA.
>>>> I see that most people are happy to do nothing more than that.
>>>
>>> Where do you see that?
>>
>> I don't understand. For the most part, I see people who want to get x hours
>> in y (shortest) time to get their license.
>
> How does that show that they don't want to do anything past the minimum
> requirements?

It shows in how they focus, I have sons in their early 30s, it is societal
and environmental. This is the approximate age group that makes up the
student pilot population give or take 5 years. The schools, many of them,
pander to this, slam bam thank you ma'am mentality, when is the last time
you saw an ad that had a pipe-smoking geyser with a cardigan sweater and a
look of slow process in his eyes? Not to mention that the schools are
driven by financial necessity to get em in and out.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:36:53 -0800, Steve Hix wrote:

> In article >,
> WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:56:26 GMT, Steve Foley wrote:
>>
>>> "WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> 1) I passed on answering your questions that honestly aren't worth my
>>>> effort or the Usenet space.
>>>
>>> And I will to the same
>>>
>>> <plonk>
>>
>> lol Touchy I would say.
>
> Well, you *were* pretty rude. Unless you think that blowing off someone
> because they're too stupid to deal with is good manners.
>
> Think about it.

I never mention Foley being stupid, I expressed my opinion as you can see
above. He took offense which is his perfect prerogative.

In your case, either purposefully or not, you have mistated my response to
him, time will tell if you have an agenda or honestly mistaken.

I have been on and around Usenet since the Deja News days.

Think about it.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:46:14 -0500, Roger wrote:

>>>> There are plenty of examples. The ones that jump out at me
>>>> are the landing accidents that often don't hit the headlines,
>>>> accidents caused by poor training. Landing fast and flat, running off
>>>> the end, ballooning and stalling and landing hard. Accelerated stalls
>>>> caused by pulling back hard after a buzz job. (Those are usually fatal
>>>> and hit the newspapers.) Failing to understand DA and trying to depart
>>>> an inadequate runway. A really common one is carb ice; we hear of
>>>> accidents/incidents all the time due to that one. It's not well taught
>>>> or understood. And, of course as you mentioned, VFR into IMC.
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>>
>>>
>>> If this were truly a lack of training, I would expect to see more of these
>>> types of accidents immediately after getting a certificate.
>>
>>If you did, you would argue that it was a lack of experience not training
>>to make it fit your argument.
>
> He's correct. According to the safety literature I've read they figure
> those type of accidents would show up soon. BUT OTOH IIRC they figure
> the highest accident rate happens somewhere between 300 and 500 hours.
>
> It's a bit more complex figuring out the reasoning though.
> There are many reasons for the rate peaking in this range.

Let me give you one I am intimately familiar with. Strength training
injuries.

It is customary for newbies to go thru several phases of experience (in
most any new learning paradigm)and related performance.

1) Fear - performance poor
2) Less fear - performance moderate
3) Comfort - performance gains
4) Relaxed comfort - performance excellence
5) Carelessness, lack of fear, lack of details - injury

This progression to digression is common to many complex tasks. The next
would be auto racing.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:07:40 -0800, gatt wrote:

> When people here talking about getting it done quickly or in as little
> flight time as possible, it's important to distinguish between license mills
> and people who just want to provide -EFFICIENT- training. There's no point
> in drilling holes in the sky if you're not learning in the process.
> An -effective and efficient- training program will get you through in a
> shorter time because less training time will have been wasted, not because
> your training is being short-changed.
>
> -c

Yes, well said, it is what I meant without the right words, thx.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:33:58 -0800, gatt wrote:

> "WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:35:14 -0800 (PST), William Hung wrote:
>>
>>> For your written, I recommend the King's video and computer test prep
>>> set. They were boring, but was watchable. The practice test was
>>> very helpful. After spending on average 1-2 hours a day in 15-20
>>> intervals I got 95% on the test. The test itself only took me 15-20
>>> minutes to complete. I think I would have gotten a 100% if I wasn't
>>> so overly confident. I rushed thru it.
>>>
>>> Wil
>>
>> Thanks, I have heard more or less the same. What would you recommend that
>> /isn't/ test oriented (reading, testing and other materials); that is
>> learning oriented without regard to the test results?
>
> The Jeppeson Private Pilot book is good. Also, Machado is enormously
> popular: http://www.rodmachado.com/
>
> Plenty of others and I'm probably missing a couple of authors who are on
> this forum. I recommend them as well. :>
>
> -c

Didn't have this resource and, yeah, I got my credit card and eye on a
couple or more here in the groups who I will fail to mention as my
contribution to their ego-checks. lol
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:15:21 -0800, gatt wrote:

> "WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Pass all tests with a 95% minimum
>
> That's a good goal, but, if you sweat it too much you'll never get your
> rating. -Most- of the stuff you miss on the written, if you're scoring
> above, say, 85%, you'll pick up in training anyway.
>
>> Handle with ease all traffic control and similar commo
>
> That'll save you a little money, but, you learn all that during the lessons
> anyway.
>
>> Dissect the anatomy of my training aircraft
>
> Always good. It makes flying the airplane a lot richer of an experience.
>
>> Understand what and how the instrumentation works (shortcomings included)
>
> That's part of ground school (as is most of the above.) You will learn it
> all before you solo one way or the other.
>
>> Own all the fundamentally necessary flight gear (i.e carry-ons in flight
>> bag or on person)
>
> That'll take care of itself when you start training. There's a whole lot
> of crap for sale that pilots generally don't need.
>
> -c

Good advice, thanks for your time.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:03:08 -0800, BT wrote:

> you can't do all of that without some training..
> so if you are delaying your first training until you can do it..
> have you not created a "Catch22" situation?

Yeppers but unfortunately work has prevailed and "allowed" me this time
between instruction and this date.

> Or.. are you refering to not starting the flight portions of training until
> you can do all of those items.

Both, I think if I had the chance to start now, I would hold to a
(modification) of my list. Which is =being modified by the minute the
longer I stick around the group.

> you may find that an integrated scenario works best, Ground School and
> Apply, and it sticks better, then move on to the next part.
>
> BT

Certainly, I have thought the same thing.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:29:35 -0600, Michael Ash wrote:

>> I am asking the group for assistance in developing a list of instructional
>> and solo experiences, testing, mandatory reading.....if you ran the FAA,
>> what would you require in a near-perfect world that a PPL would require? I
>> am a zero-hour wannabe pilot FYI
>
> Outlandings and assembly/disassembly. The PTS covers both in extremely
> light detail. I would like to see much greater detail applied to both. In
> particular, I had never assembled or disassembled a glider, aside from
> helping to hold up wingtips and such, until after my checkride. I think
> every student should be taken to the point where he can be the lead on
> assembly or disassembly, at least for one particular type. He should also
> be able to walk through an outlanding from start to finish, including
> dealing with locals and police and handling the retrieve crew.
>
> Of course this is pretty glider-specific. The equivalent for "normal"
> flying would, I imagine, be how to travel with a plane, how to deal with
> courtesy cars and arrange transportation at the destination and so forth,
> which I've seen talked about here as lamentably un-discussed during
> training.

lol

I am told this is "glider-boy" downspeak. :)
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:29:35 -0600, Michael Ash wrote:

>> For a start, I won't begin my first instruction until I can do the
>> following:
>
> In my unsolicited opinion, you're doing it all backwards. Learn to walk
> before you try to run. The flying isn't the hardest part, it's the easiest
> part. It's just a physical skill, like driving a car.

Opinion solicited btw.

>> Pass all tests with a 95% minimum
>
> Your understanding will be shallow without any experience to base it on.
> You may pass the test but the knowledge won't be very useful.

Chicken-egg educational scenario. Do doctors need biology degrees and
botany classes?

>> Handle with ease all traffic control and similar commo
>
> Ability to handle it in your head (or even in a sim) and ability to handle
> it while managing a complex machine are two very different things. I
> couldn't even begin to count the number of students I've seen who can tell
> you exactly what a radio call should sound like when you talk to them on
> the ground, but who completely botch it when they do it in the air.

Yes, I am hoping, as others have osted, to be able to pickup on live commo
by filtering the nonsense with the good sense. Which, coming from listening
to military and civilian commo, is light years different.

>> Dissect the anatomy of my training aircraft
>
> This is going to be pretty hard to do if you aren't getting it and around
> it. Book learning isn't going to let you do even a halfway decent
> preflight, much less "dissect the anatomy" of anything.

I have access to the mechanics who do the fixin.

>> Understand what and how the instrumentation works (shortcomings included)
>
> You may understand the principles involved but I don't think you'll really
> understand how they work until you actually use them.

True of all real life experiences book-fed first.

>> Own all the fundamentally necessary flight gear (i.e carry-ons in flight
>> bag or on person)
>
> How will you know what to buy until you've started flying? Personally I'm
> still trying to find the right bag and the right way to store things for
> taking to the airport and for taking in the aircraft, and I've had my
> ticket for nearly a year and have about 60 hours total tim

Asking and getting responses is the best I can do at this point.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

In article >,
WJRFlyBoy > wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:36:53 -0800, Steve Hix wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:56:26 GMT, Steve Foley wrote:
> >>
> >>> "WJRFlyBoy" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>>> 1) I passed on answering your questions that honestly aren't worth my
> >>>> effort or the Usenet space.
> >>>
> >>> And I will to the same
> >>>
> >>> <plonk>
> >>
> >> lol Touchy I would say.
> >
> > Well, you *were* pretty rude. Unless you think that blowing off someone
> > because they're too stupid to deal with is good manners.
> >
> > Think about it.
>
> I never mention Foley being stupid,

No, maybe you didn't state it explicitly, but you certain implied it.

Whether or not it was your intent, what you said could reasonably be
expected to generate that inference to a lot of readers.

> I expressed my opinion as you can see
> above. He took offense which is his perfect prerogative.

And you really don't understand why, do you? Or perhaps you're just
playing dumb...

> In your case, either purposefully or not, you have mistated my response to
> him, time will tell if you have an agenda or honestly mistaken.
>
> I have been on and around Usenet since the Deja News days.

And that's supposed to be important why, exactly?

> Think about it.

It's clear that in this you didn't exercise much consideration. You
can't really believe that calling someone worthless is a neutral act.

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:13:24 -0800, Steve Hix wrote:

> In article >,
> WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:36:53 -0800, Steve Hix wrote:
>>

Thanks for your comments.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Feb 28, 4:11 am, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> I have been reading the various threads about spins, forced landings, etc
> and talking with CFIs. The road to a PPL is preset in requirements by FAA.
> I see that most people are happy to do nothing more than that. Outside of
> the cost factors, I find this much more than curious considering the
> consequences. You can get killed, that one keeps jumping out at me :)
>
> I am asking the group for assistance in developing a list of instructional
> and solo experiences, testing, mandatory reading.....if you ran the FAA,
> what would you require in a near-perfect world that a PPL would require? I
> am a zero-hour wannabe pilot FYI
>
> For a start, I won't begin my first instruction until I can do the
> following:
>
> Pass all tests with a 95% minimum
> Handle with ease all traffic control and similar commo
> Dissect the anatomy of my training aircraft
> Understand what and how the instrumentation works (shortcomings included)
> Own all the fundamentally necessary flight gear (i.e carry-ons in flight
> bag or on person)
> Obtain hours in flight simulation
> More...enough for now.
>
> TIA. The group is an extremely valuable resource; I sincerely doubt I would
> be so focused and confident without your past, present and future work
> here.
> --
> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

Poor judgment kills far more than an 89% on a written...

Take the good advice here and learn from a competent CFI.

> Own all the fundamentally necessary flight gear (i.e carry-ons in flight
> bag or on person)

This one takes years...

During my primary training the biggest difficulty I had was sensing the
proper hight above runway where to begin the flare. I was really stuck there
for almost a month, either flaring too high, or landing flat. My instructor
was pretty much desperate, and I started thinking that I'm perhaps lacking
some physical ability to do that right.
What I did was, I set up MSFS with a projector and a wall-mounted screen in
my room, put the projector far enough to get the image of the exact 1:1
scale of what I see out of cockpit, and set up the plane on a very short
final, perhaps 10-12 seconds before touchdown. I was then practicing
the flare with this setup; I did around fifteen hundred flares in one week.
That helped me tremendously. I'm pretty sure that probably there were
other ways to break this plateau I had, but this one worked for me. I hardly
ever fired MSFS ever since, I got so sick of it :)

Andrey


In rec.aviation.piloting Dudley Henriques > wrote:
[...]
> part of that opinion by not including that I see no objection at all to
> the sim being used BEFORE dual commences as well as after solo, so the
> actual envelope I have always stressed constitutes ommission of the
> simulator between the first hour of dual instruction and solo. After
> solo, the sim can again be used and has specific advantages.
[...]

In rec.aviation.student WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:29:35 -0600, Michael Ash wrote:
>
>>> I am asking the group for assistance in developing a list of instructional
>>> and solo experiences, testing, mandatory reading.....if you ran the FAA,
>>> what would you require in a near-perfect world that a PPL would require? I
>>> am a zero-hour wannabe pilot FYI
>>
>> Outlandings and assembly/disassembly. The PTS covers both in extremely
>> light detail. I would like to see much greater detail applied to both. In
>> particular, I had never assembled or disassembled a glider, aside from
>> helping to hold up wingtips and such, until after my checkride. I think
>> every student should be taken to the point where he can be the lead on
>> assembly or disassembly, at least for one particular type. He should also
>> be able to walk through an outlanding from start to finish, including
>> dealing with locals and police and handling the retrieve crew.
>>
>> Of course this is pretty glider-specific. The equivalent for "normal"
>> flying would, I imagine, be how to travel with a plane, how to deal with
>> courtesy cars and arrange transportation at the destination and so forth,
>> which I've seen talked about here as lamentably un-discussed during
>> training.
>
> lol
>
> I am told this is "glider-boy" downspeak. :)

I can assure you that it is no such thing. I merely related some things
which I thought were lacking in my training, and compared them to
deficiencies I'd seen talked about in here.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

Andrey Serbinenko wrote:
> During my primary training the biggest difficulty I had was sensing the
> proper hight above runway where to begin the flare. I was really stuck there
> for almost a month, either flaring too high, or landing flat. My instructor
> was pretty much desperate, and I started thinking that I'm perhaps lacking
> some physical ability to do that right.
> What I did was, I set up MSFS with a projector and a wall-mounted screen in
> my room, put the projector far enough to get the image of the exact 1:1
> scale of what I see out of cockpit, and set up the plane on a very short
> final, perhaps 10-12 seconds before touchdown. I was then practicing
> the flare with this setup; I did around fifteen hundred flares in one week.
> That helped me tremendously. I'm pretty sure that probably there were
> other ways to break this plateau I had, but this one worked for me. I hardly
> ever fired MSFS ever since, I got so sick of it :)
>
> Andrey
>
>
> In rec.aviation.piloting Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> [...]
>> part of that opinion by not including that I see no objection at all to
>> the sim being used BEFORE dual commences as well as after solo, so the
>> actual envelope I have always stressed constitutes ommission of the
>> simulator between the first hour of dual instruction and solo. After
>> solo, the sim can again be used and has specific advantages.
> [...]
>
A very simple instructor technique for a student having the problem you
had is for the instructor to "fly" the airplane up the runway holding it
in the landing attitude just inches off the ground. By doing this, the
student gets a long look at the correct visual cue both over the nose
and peripherally for the airplane in a landing attitude.
Also, as the airplane is positioned for takeoff and before the throttle
is opened, the student should be told to look over the nose and remember
that visual cue. This is the cue that will be seen as the aircraft
touches down again.
There are many ways in the airplane to solve the problem you had. I
would never in a million years allow any student of mine to use MSFS to
solve the issue you were having.


--
Dudley Henriques

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:10:07 -0600, Michael Ash wrote:

>>> Outlandings and assembly/disassembly. The PTS covers both in extremely
>>> light detail. I would like to see much greater detail applied to both. In
>>> particular, I had never assembled or disassembled a glider, aside from
>>> helping to hold up wingtips and such, until after my checkride. I think
>>> every student should be taken to the point where he can be the lead on
>>> assembly or disassembly, at least for one particular type. He should also
>>> be able to walk through an outlanding from start to finish, including
>>> dealing with locals and police and handling the retrieve crew.
>>>
>>> Of course this is pretty glider-specific. The equivalent for "normal"
>>> flying would, I imagine, be how to travel with a plane, how to deal with
>>> courtesy cars and arrange transportation at the destination and so forth,
>>> which I've seen talked about here as lamentably un-discussed during
>>> training.
>>
>> lol
>>
>> I am told this is "glider-boy" downspeak. :)
>
> I can assure you that it is no such thing. I merely related some things
> which I thought were lacking in my training, and compared them to
> deficiencies I'd seen talked about in here.
>
> --
> Michael Ash
> Rogue Amoeba Software

Maybe I misunderstood. You are relating the advanced disassembly of a
glider with post flight travel arrangements of motorized aircraft as
comparable deficiencies in training?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:38:46 -0800 (PST), wrote:

>> TIA. The group is an extremely valuable resource; I sincerely doubt I would
>> be so focused and confident without your past, present and future work
>> here.
>> --
>> Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
>
> Poor judgment kills far more than an 89% on a written...
>
> Take the good advice here and learn from a competent CFI.


Looking for a couple...
>
>> Own all the fundamentally necessary flight gear (i.e carry-ons in flight
>> bag or on person)
>
> This one takes years...

No list to post :)
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

In rec.aviation.student WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:10:07 -0600, Michael Ash wrote:
>
>>>> Outlandings and assembly/disassembly. The PTS covers both in extremely
>>>> light detail. I would like to see much greater detail applied to both. In
>>>> particular, I had never assembled or disassembled a glider, aside from
>>>> helping to hold up wingtips and such, until after my checkride. I think
>>>> every student should be taken to the point where he can be the lead on
>>>> assembly or disassembly, at least for one particular type. He should also
>>>> be able to walk through an outlanding from start to finish, including
>>>> dealing with locals and police and handling the retrieve crew.
>>>>
>>>> Of course this is pretty glider-specific. The equivalent for "normal"
>>>> flying would, I imagine, be how to travel with a plane, how to deal with
>>>> courtesy cars and arrange transportation at the destination and so forth,
>>>> which I've seen talked about here as lamentably un-discussed during
>>>> training.
>>>
>>> lol
>>>
>>> I am told this is "glider-boy" downspeak. :)
>>
>> I can assure you that it is no such thing. I merely related some things
>> which I thought were lacking in my training, and compared them to
>> deficiencies I'd seen talked about in here.
>
> Maybe I misunderstood. You are relating the advanced disassembly of a
> glider with post flight travel arrangements of motorized aircraft as
> comparable deficiencies in training?

Sounds like you are unfamiliar with glider assembly/disassembly. There is
nothing "advanced" about it. It's something that all glider pilots are
allowed to do and all should be able to do. On the average day when my
club operates with good soaring conditions, there are several gliders
assembled in the morning and disassembled in the afternoon after the day's
flying is done. The average glider takes two or three people 15-20 minutes
to assemble or disassemble.

And yes, I am comparing it to the non-flying portions of traveling using a
powered aircraft. If you feel the comparison is not apt, perhaps you could
elaborate.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

WJRFlyBoy schrieb:

> You are relating the advanced disassembly of a glider

There is nothing advanced in assembling and disassembling a glider. Most
glider pilots are doing this before and after each flight.

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 02:13:27 -0500, WJRFlyBoy
> wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:46:14 -0500, Roger wrote:
>
<snip for brevity>
>>
>> It's a bit more complex figuring out the reasoning though.
>> There are many reasons for the rate peaking in this range.
>
>Let me give you one I am intimately familiar with. Strength training
>injuries.
>
>It is customary for newbies to go thru several phases of experience (in
>most any new learning paradigm)and related performance.
>
As a rough analogy "to me" it's not all that bad although I've never
noticed it quite that way in weight training. Then again it probably
depends on the subject's goal(s), age group, body type, and
personality. Then again we do agree pretty much on numbers 3, 4 and
5.

This would be an ideal list for adult ice skaters be it hockey or
figure skating.

>1) Fear - performance poor
>2) Less fear - performance moderate
>3) Comfort - performance gains
>4) Relaxed comfort - performance excellence
>5) Carelessness, lack of fear, lack of details - injury

In #5 I'd look at it in a more general way such as attitudes, however
both get us to the same point. These are the same attitudes that get
pilots and drivers in trouble. Invulnerability, antiauthoritarian are
two that come to mind. IOW It always happens to the other guy, not me,
and don't tell me how to do things, I've done it this way for years,
or the rules are for other people. I often see men working out in a
manner that is likely to cause injury and unless they are dedicated
enough to be working with a personal trainer do not want to hear any
suggestions from anyone and that includes the pros. At best they
might defer to the pro, but revert back to their way as soon as the
pro leaves.
Of course the ones dedicated enough to be working with a personal
trainer aren't usually the ones getting into trouble unless they are
really pushing such as the RUSSIAN power lifter whose leg broke on a
lift.

>
>This progression to digression is common to many complex tasks. The next
>would be auto racing.

In flying the student may or may not have fear to start, but they
depend on the instructor and defer to their way of doing things.

Even after leaving the nest with their newly minted PPL they still
tend to defer to that instruction. Once out on their own they enter a
new learning curve and start developing more confidence. As time
builds some become complacent in their confidence. It's now in an area
where the invulnerability and antiauthoritarian attitudes coupled with
complacency rear their ugly heads.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:29:58 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> I enjoy the sim myself and have opted to retain FS2004 rather than go to
>> FSX for various reasons.
>
> A couple quick ones in favor of both?

FS2004 is a superior product. I find no positives for FSX.

--
Dudley Henriques

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:18:00 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>>> Additionally, the student can experience things in the simulator that
>>> he/she can't or shouldn't do in the actual aircraft. The PC simulator
>>> is, in my opinion, a valuable tool if used correctly.
>>>
>> I would respectfully disagree with this analysis based on hundreds of
>> hours spent working with both primary students, flight instructors, and
>> Microsoft.
>> Sims have their use, but if used before solo can actually be detrimental
>> for various reasons, some of them absolutely critical to student progress.
>> After solo, and when used with the proper supervision, the sims have
>> their productive side as well.
>
> Is this the duty of a good CFI to point out where an individual student
> would benefit and why?

Yes. Why is obvious.

--
Dudley Henriques

In article >,
Clark > wrote:

> " > wrote in
> :
>
> > On Feb 28, 4:11 am, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> >> I have been reading the various threads about spins, forced landings,
> [snip]
> >
> >> Own all the fundamentally necessary flight gear (i.e carry-ons in
> >> flight bag or on person)
> >
> > This one takes years...
> >
> Oh hell. All it takes is a headset and a chart to get started...and pen and
> paper keeps the school happy.

To get started...

I think you're in mildly contentious agreement with danmc61 here. :}

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:21:56 -0500, Roger wrote:

> This would be an ideal list for adult ice skaters be it hockey or
> figure skating.
>
>>1) Fear - performance poor
>>2) Less fear - performance moderate
>>3) Comfort - performance gains
>>4) Relaxed comfort - performance excellence
>>5) Carelessness, lack of fear, lack of details - injury
>
> In #5 I'd look at it in a more general way such as attitudes, however
> both get us to the same point. These are the same attitudes that get
> pilots and drivers in trouble. Invulnerability, antiauthoritarian are
> two that come to mind. IOW It always happens to the other guy, not me,
> and don't tell me how to do things, I've done it this way for years,
> or the rules are for other people. I often see men working out in a
> manner that is likely to cause injury and unless they are dedicated
> enough to be working with a personal trainer do not want to hear any
> suggestions from anyone and that includes the pros. At best they
> might defer to the pro, but revert back to their way as soon as the
> pro leaves.

I wrote new programs for every training session then adjusted them
on-the-fly, on the floor. The educational piece was exacting and thorough
which allowed a single trainer to have as many as 25 trainees in session at
one time.

Then, like you said, given a month or more on their own, many would revert
to whatever is the norm for their peer group or gym or personal preference.
It is thus for human nature be it any complex task (generally) piloting
apparently is no different.

What was very interesting is those trainee/athletes that did not revert,
they were almost always the better athletes or received the highest
benefits of their training (in terms of increased athletic performance).
This clinically recorded relationship between an academically oriented
training environment and their on field success...it is what drives me,
academically, in my opening stages of learning to fly. I am hopeful that
there will be a carryover which will either remove or reduce the chances of
# 5 above.

If that makes any sense to you.

> Of course the ones dedicated enough to be working with a personal
> trainer aren't usually the ones getting into trouble unless they are
> really pushing such as the RUSSIAN power lifter whose leg broke on a
> lift.

Back to f,m,a here where the forces are very high even though the kilos are
comparative to max-lift, weight training, low.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:21:56 -0500, Roger wrote:

>>5) Carelessness, lack of fear, lack of details - injury
>
> In #5 I'd look at it in a more general way such as attitudes, however
> both get us to the same point. These are the same attitudes that get
> pilots and drivers in trouble. Invulnerability, antiauthoritarian are
> two that come to mind. IOW It always happens to the other guy, not me,
> and don't tell me how to do things, I've done it this way for years,
> or the rules are for other people......
> Even after leaving the nest with their newly minted PPL they still
> tend to defer to that instruction. Once out on their own they enter a
> new learning curve and start developing more confidence. As time
> builds some become complacent in their confidence. It's now in an area
> where the invulnerability and antiauthoritarian attitudes coupled with
> complacency rear their ugly heads.

Your analogies are right on and almost laughably correct. I mentioned auto
racing, same thing, skiing, same thing, flying...all high(er) risk
activities or at least high fatality activities (in terms of percentages of
deaths to catastrophic mistakes. All of this behavior in the face of
obvious fact is pride driven, imo.

Which comes back to my thinking that the higher the academic pursuit, the
greater exposure there is to the undeniable facts. The physics is physics,
it's your physics and mine and they are the same. There is no luck involved
if you defy the physical sciences, or the mechanical ones (checklist,
regular maintenance, pre-flight structural inspections, etc) and
vulnerabilities don't choose people unequally.

Jay Honeck made a good point, he said I was making too much out of flying,
it was easier and it was settling to have that thought.

Now I can go back to obsessing on the educational part. Now that I will be
much less likely to f**k up ( the task is easier than anticipated) and I
will be sooo far ahead of any potential complacency syndrome. lol
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:32:07 -0600, Michael Ash wrote:

>> Maybe I misunderstood. You are relating the advanced disassembly of a
>> glider with post flight travel arrangements of motorized aircraft as
>> comparable deficiencies in training?
>
> Sounds like you are unfamiliar with glider assembly/disassembly. There is
> nothing "advanced" about it. It's something that all glider pilots are
> allowed to do and all should be able to do. On the average day when my
> club operates with good soaring conditions, there are several gliders
> assembled in the morning and disassembled in the afternoon after the day's
> flying is done. The average glider takes two or three people 15-20 minutes
> to assemble or disassemble.

Never done one, seen it done only.

> And yes, I am comparing it to the non-flying portions of traveling using a
> powered aircraft. If you feel the comparison is not apt, perhaps you could
> elaborate.

You said:

>> > Of course this is pretty glider-specific. The equivalent for "normal"
>>>> flying would, I imagine, be how to travel with a plane, how to deal with
>>>> courtesy cars and arrange transportation at the destination and so forth,
>>>> which I've seen talked about here as lamentably un-discussed during
>>>> training.

I don't see the comparisons between a manual task that requires physical,
hands-on work and picking up a telephone or using a computer. Relative to
capabilities, the glider would be world's different than the travel
arrangements for me. Others, maybe you, if you were stunted socially, I can
see the latter being more difficult. I am stunted mechanically.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:35:15 +0100, Stefan wrote:

> WJRFlyBoy schrieb:
>
>> You are relating the advanced disassembly of a glider
>
> There is nothing advanced in assembling and disassembling a glider. Most
> glider pilots are doing this before and after each flight.

I think we might be talking about two different types of gliders but I am
sure that I overstated their difficulty now that I have seen several
videos.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On 29 Feb 2008 20:59:29 GMT, Clark wrote:

> " > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Feb 28, 4:11 am, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>>> I have been reading the various threads about spins, forced landings,
> [snip]
>>
>>> Own all the fundamentally necessary flight gear (i.e carry-ons in
>>> flight bag or on person)
>>
>> This one takes years...
>>
> Oh hell. All it takes is a headset and a chart to get started...and pen and
> paper keeps the school happy.

Aw, c'mon, I may be a newbie but I saw Top Gun.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:21:56 -0500, Roger wrote:
>
>>> 5) Carelessness, lack of fear, lack of details - injury
>> In #5 I'd look at it in a more general way such as attitudes, however
>> both get us to the same point. These are the same attitudes that get
>> pilots and drivers in trouble. Invulnerability, antiauthoritarian are
>> two that come to mind. IOW It always happens to the other guy, not me,
>> and don't tell me how to do things, I've done it this way for years,
>> or the rules are for other people......
>> Even after leaving the nest with their newly minted PPL they still
>> tend to defer to that instruction. Once out on their own they enter a
>> new learning curve and start developing more confidence. As time
>> builds some become complacent in their confidence. It's now in an area
>> where the invulnerability and antiauthoritarian attitudes coupled with
>> complacency rear their ugly heads.
>
> Your analogies are right on and almost laughably correct. I mentioned auto
> racing, same thing, skiing, same thing, flying...all high(er) risk
> activities or at least high fatality activities (in terms of percentages of
> deaths to catastrophic mistakes. All of this behavior in the face of
> obvious fact is pride driven, imo.
>
> Which comes back to my thinking that the higher the academic pursuit, the
> greater exposure there is to the undeniable facts. The physics is physics,
> it's your physics and mine and they are the same. There is no luck involved
> if you defy the physical sciences, or the mechanical ones (checklist,
> regular maintenance, pre-flight structural inspections, etc) and
> vulnerabilities don't choose people unequally.
>
> Jay Honeck made a good point, he said I was making too much out of flying,
> it was easier and it was settling to have that thought.
>
> Now I can go back to obsessing on the educational part. Now that I will be
> much less likely to f**k up ( the task is easier than anticipated) and I
> will be sooo far ahead of any potential complacency syndrome. lol

I am now working directly with professional members of the air show
demonstration community as an adviser on human factors relating to
accidents in our venue. That coupled with a 50 year background in flight
instruction and flight safety have given me at least a bit of expertise
on the topic you are discussing.

First of all, I would like to respectfully submit to you that you might
be approaching this issue seeking entirely too much structure.

Although the learning curve involved in flying (and driving a race car
for example) might seem structured if one takes a look at the FAA
suggested procedures for flight instructors teaching you to fly,and
considering the fact that a certain path must be taken to achieve the
certificate, contrary to all this"structure", in reality, these
activities involve a constantly changing lifetime learning curve
achieved both on the ground and in the highly dynamic atmosphere of a
machine in motion.

What all this pedantic text above amounts to is simply that when you
enter this arena to learn, it's optimum for you as a student to
seriously consider an integrated learning curve rather than the black
and white...1...2...3..method.

There are two ways to look at getting your license. You can crash it
through by getting the "steps" out of the way quickly, or you can enter
relaxed and integrate your flying with your other requirements.

You can do it either way.

The reason I suggest the less structured and less rigid path is because
flying itself, as well as driving a race car for that matter, is itself
the antithesis of structure. It's true you need the "checklist" type of
structure and that doesn't change all through your flying career, but
the very act of flying an airplane requires that you be able to preempt
and react to a constantly changing dynamic in real time.

So the optimum way to approach this endeavor is to start right at the
beginning in realizing that it is this world you will be in while
flying. So the stress on your learning curve right from the start should
be pointed directly at training to be able to think and act on the fly.
Training in this way points to a relaxed and integrated curve that mixes
ground school with flying so that things mesh together naturally.

When you look at flight training as this never ending learning curve I'm
describing to you here, you might begin to see that it's not getting
through the program that will keep you alive in the air, but what you
RETAIN and form into HABIT PATTERNS that is the important factor.

I always tell a new pilot one thing that I hope they never forget;
that is that what they learn that might save their life one day while
flying might very well NOT have been learned yet.

--
Dudley Henriques

In rec.aviation.student WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 14:32:07 -0600, Michael Ash wrote:
>
>>> Maybe I misunderstood. You are relating the advanced disassembly of a
>>> glider with post flight travel arrangements of motorized aircraft as
>>> comparable deficiencies in training?
>>
>> Sounds like you are unfamiliar with glider assembly/disassembly. There is
>> nothing "advanced" about it. It's something that all glider pilots are
>> allowed to do and all should be able to do. On the average day when my
>> club operates with good soaring conditions, there are several gliders
>> assembled in the morning and disassembled in the afternoon after the day's
>> flying is done. The average glider takes two or three people 15-20 minutes
>> to assemble or disassemble.
>
> Never done one, seen it done only.

Just out of curiosity, what did you see which made you term it as
"advanced"? Certainly I've seen difficult assemblies. There's a big
difference between a couple of experienced people assembling a single
seater for the Nth time and a group trying to assemble a heavy two-seater
which might get this treatment twice a year. Maybe you just got "lucky"
and saw a painful one.

>> And yes, I am comparing it to the non-flying portions of traveling using a
>> powered aircraft. If you feel the comparison is not apt, perhaps you could
>> elaborate.
>
> You said:
>
>>> > Of course this is pretty glider-specific. The equivalent for "normal"
>>>>> flying would, I imagine, be how to travel with a plane, how to deal with
>>>>> courtesy cars and arrange transportation at the destination and so forth,
>>>>> which I've seen talked about here as lamentably un-discussed during
>>>>> training.
>
> I don't see the comparisons between a manual task that requires physical,
> hands-on work and picking up a telephone or using a computer. Relative to
> capabilities, the glider would be world's different than the travel
> arrangements for me. Others, maybe you, if you were stunted socially, I can
> see the latter being more difficult. I am stunted mechanically.

The comparison isn't on what you actually do, it's on how it relates to
your training. Both are highly "practical" knowledge which don't relate
directly to flying. Technically speaking you don't need to know how to
assemble or disassemble a glider to fly one (although the PTS does require
a small bit of knowledge here), just like you don't need to know how to
deal with the logistics at the destination when travelling in an airplane
to fly one. But in both cases, you'll have a tough time doing too much
with your certificate without this knowledge.

In case I didn't explain myself too clearly, here's a post made to this
group a couple of months ago by one of the instructors talking about this
sort of logistical knowledge, and lamenting that it isn't generally
covered during training:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.student/msg/3b48afef1266fbff

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:48:36 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:

>> Which comes back to my thinking that the higher the academic pursuit, the
>> greater exposure there is to the undeniable facts. The physics is physics,
>> it's your physics and mine and they are the same. There is no luck involved
>> if you defy the physical sciences, or the mechanical ones (checklist,
>> regular maintenance, pre-flight structural inspections, etc) and
>> vulnerabilities don't choose people unequally.
>>
>> Jay Honeck made a good point, he said I was making too much out of flying,
>> it was easier and it was settling to have that thought.
>>
>> Now I can go back to obsessing on the educational part. Now that I will be
>> much less likely to f**k up ( the task is easier than anticipated) and I
>> will be sooo far ahead of any potential complacency syndrome. lol
>
> I am now working directly with professional members of the air show
> demonstration community as an adviser on human factors relating to
> accidents in our venue. That coupled with a 50 year background in flight
> instruction and flight safety have given me at least a bit of expertise
> on the topic you are discussing.
>
> First of all, I would like to respectfully submit to you that you might
> be approaching this issue seeking entirely too much structure.

I have to agree with that, mof, it's is purposeful (if not eventually
wasteful). Throttle back, looking for cruising, something I'm not charmed
at. Nice checkpoint, I appreciate the observation.

> Although the learning curve involved in flying (and driving a race car
> for example) might seem structured if one takes a look at the FAA
> suggested procedures for flight instructors teaching you to fly,and
> considering the fact that a certain path must be taken to achieve the
> certificate, contrary to all this"structure", in reality, these
> activities involve a constantly changing lifetime learning curve
> achieved both on the ground and in the highly dynamic atmosphere of a
> machine in motion.

A given, no argument there.

> What all this pedantic text above amounts to is simply that when you
> enter this arena to learn, it's optimum for you as a student to
> seriously consider an integrated learning curve rather than the black
> and white...1...2...3..method.
>
> There are two ways to look at getting your license. You can crash it
> through by getting the "steps" out of the way quickly, or you can enter
> relaxed and integrate your flying with your other requirements.
>
> You can do it either way.
>
> The reason I suggest the less structured and less rigid path is because
> flying itself, as well as driving a race car for that matter, is itself
> the antithesis of structure. It's true you need the "checklist" type of
> structure and that doesn't change all through your flying career, but
> the very act of flying an airplane requires that you be able to preempt
> and react to a constantly changing dynamic in real time.

I can only speak with experience to racing, having a great deal of seat
time in cars on courses that turn both left and right. Good, surviving
drivers either are blessed with mechanical expertise or hire it or both.
The approach to every race is highly structured followed by the dynamics,
ever-changing, of the car, driver, competition, track, weather, blah
squared.

> So the optimum way to approach this endeavor is to start right at the
> beginning in realizing that it is this world you will be in while
> flying. So the stress on your learning curve right from the start should
> be pointed directly at training to be able to think and act on the fly.
> Training in this way points to a relaxed and integrated curve that mixes
> ground school with flying so that things mesh together naturally.

Yes, would agree again.

> When you look at flight training as this never ending learning curve I'm
> describing to you here, you might begin to see that it's not getting
> through the program that will keep you alive in the air, but what you
> RETAIN and form into HABIT PATTERNS that is the important factor.
>
> I always tell a new pilot one thing that I hope they never forget;
> that is that what they learn that might save their life one day while
> flying might very well NOT have been learned yet.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

The definition difference between intelligence and wisdom.

I appreciate your comments.

Not a better duck, a different duck, I come from several fields of endeavor
all of which I started from little experience to very advanced tasking. I
have been blessed with the finest pro bono and paid instruction in these
fields and as the subject of this thread suggests, I am frustrated with my
inability to find a suitable CFI. Or CFIs actually. My goals for flying
don't stop at singles, I have built enough "attaboys" for as much VLJ time
as I can muster. Middle 50s, how much longer will I have? To me, every day
is a truly wasted one if progress is not made to that end.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:45:05 -0600, Michael Ash wrote:

>>> Sounds like you are unfamiliar with glider assembly/disassembly. There is
>>> nothing "advanced" about it. It's something that all glider pilots are
>>> allowed to do and all should be able to do. On the average day when my
>>> club operates with good soaring conditions, there are several gliders
>>> assembled in the morning and disassembled in the afternoon after the day's
>>> flying is done. The average glider takes two or three people 15-20 minutes
>>> to assemble or disassemble.
>>
>> Never done one, seen it done only.
>
> Just out of curiosity, what did you see which made you term it as
> "advanced"? Certainly I've seen difficult assemblies. There's a big
> difference between a couple of experienced people assembling a single
> seater for the Nth time and a group trying to assemble a heavy two-seater
> which might get this treatment twice a year. Maybe you just got "lucky"
> and saw a painful one.

lol I went looking for videos of ass/disass and found nothing advanced
about them. Relative, I did see a guy putting tape on a unmanned glider,
which to me, is advanced.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:45:05 -0600, Michael Ash wrote:

>> I don't see the comparisons between a manual task that requires physical,
>> hands-on work and picking up a telephone or using a computer. Relative to
>> capabilities, the glider would be world's different than the travel
>> arrangements for me. Others, maybe you, if you were stunted socially, I can
>> see the latter being more difficult. I am stunted mechanically.
>
> The comparison isn't on what you actually do, it's on how it relates to
> your training. Both are highly "practical" knowledge which don't relate
> directly to flying. Technically speaking you don't need to know how to
> assemble or disassemble a glider to fly one (although the PTS does require
> a small bit of knowledge here), just like you don't need to know how to
> deal with the logistics at the destination when travelling in an airplane
> to fly one. But in both cases, you'll have a tough time doing too much
> with your certificate without this knowledge.
>
> In case I didn't explain myself too clearly, here's a post made to this
> group a couple of months ago by one of the instructors talking about this
> sort of logistical knowledge, and lamenting that it isn't generally
> covered during training:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.student/msg/3b48afef1266fbff

NOW it comes clear, good link to set me straight on with you.

I particularly felt kinship with:

"This is one of the funny things about flight training. Here is
something every pilot needs to know, but it is not in the PTS and most
instructors don't cover it. You get your certificate and they turn you
loose and you have absolutely no concept of how to turn flying into a
practical tool. And then people wonder why so many pilots quit flying
right after they get their certificate."

Another line item entry in a lengthening list of "The Differences Between
PPLicensing And Learning"

I travel frequently (one reason I am learning to fly) and planning ahead is
not only 2nd nature, my wife does it. :)
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:yvDxj.1287$TT4.1154@attbi_s22:

>> I don't understand. For the most part, I see people who want to get x
>> hours
>> in y (shortest) time to get their license.
>
> You say that like it's a bad thing.
>
> I know you're not a pilot yet, and that this is all very exciting and
> intoxicating. Flying IS the best thing you can do, head and shoulders
> (literally!) above every other human endeavor, =


You are a complete moron.


Bertie

On Mar 1, 8:30*pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:

>
> I can only speak with experience to racing, having a great deal of seat
> time in cars on courses that turn both left and right.

Are you gay Ricky Booby?

Cheers

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:09:45 -0500, WJRFlyBoy
> wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:21:56 -0500, Roger wrote:
>
>>>5) Carelessness, lack of fear, lack of details - injury
>>
>> In #5 I'd look at it in a more general way such as attitudes, however
>> both get us to the same point. These are the same attitudes that get
>> pilots and drivers in trouble. Invulnerability, antiauthoritarian are
>> two that come to mind. IOW It always happens to the other guy, not me,
>> and don't tell me how to do things, I've done it this way for years,
>> or the rules are for other people......
>> Even after leaving the nest with their newly minted PPL they still
>> tend to defer to that instruction. Once out on their own they enter a
>> new learning curve and start developing more confidence. As time
>> builds some become complacent in their confidence. It's now in an area
>> where the invulnerability and antiauthoritarian attitudes coupled with
>> complacency rear their ugly heads.
>
>Your analogies are right on and almost laughably correct. I mentioned auto
>racing, same thing, skiing, same thing, flying...all high(er) risk
>activities or at least high fatality activities (in terms of percentages of
>deaths to catastrophic mistakes. All of this behavior in the face of
>obvious fact is pride driven, imo.
>
>Which comes back to my thinking that the higher the academic pursuit, the
>greater exposure there is to the undeniable facts. The physics is physics,
>it's your physics and mine and they are the same. There is no luck involved
>if you defy the physical sciences, or the mechanical ones (checklist,
>regular maintenance, pre-flight structural inspections, etc) and
>vulnerabilities don't choose people unequally.
>
>Jay Honeck made a good point, he said I was making too much out of flying,
>it was easier and it was settling to have that thought.
>
>Now I can go back to obsessing on the educational part. Now that I will be
>much less likely to f**k up ( the task is easier than anticipated) and I
>will be sooo far ahead of any potential complacency syndrome. lol

I agree with Dudley though in the learning, student, and instructor
have to be flexible. Be careful on being too structured as it's easy
to become mired in the structure rather than pursuing the learning.
Again, as Dudley said far better than I, learning to fly is a very
dynamic situation in a dynamic environment.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:48:36 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>>> Which comes back to my thinking that the higher the academic pursuit, the
>>> greater exposure there is to the undeniable facts. The physics is physics,
>>> it's your physics and mine and they are the same. There is no luck involved
>>> if you defy the physical sciences, or the mechanical ones (checklist,
>>> regular maintenance, pre-flight structural inspections, etc) and
>>> vulnerabilities don't choose people unequally.
>>>
>>> Jay Honeck made a good point, he said I was making too much out of flying,
>>> it was easier and it was settling to have that thought.
>>>
>>> Now I can go back to obsessing on the educational part. Now that I will be
>>> much less likely to f**k up ( the task is easier than anticipated) and I
>>> will be sooo far ahead of any potential complacency syndrome. lol
>> I am now working directly with professional members of the air show
>> demonstration community as an adviser on human factors relating to
>> accidents in our venue. That coupled with a 50 year background in flight
>> instruction and flight safety have given me at least a bit of expertise
>> on the topic you are discussing.
>>
>> First of all, I would like to respectfully submit to you that you might
>> be approaching this issue seeking entirely too much structure.
>
> I have to agree with that, mof, it's is purposeful (if not eventually
> wasteful). Throttle back, looking for cruising, something I'm not charmed
> at. Nice checkpoint, I appreciate the observation.
>
>> Although the learning curve involved in flying (and driving a race car
>> for example) might seem structured if one takes a look at the FAA
>> suggested procedures for flight instructors teaching you to fly,and
>> considering the fact that a certain path must be taken to achieve the
>> certificate, contrary to all this"structure", in reality, these
>> activities involve a constantly changing lifetime learning curve
>> achieved both on the ground and in the highly dynamic atmosphere of a
>> machine in motion.
>
> A given, no argument there.
>
>> What all this pedantic text above amounts to is simply that when you
>> enter this arena to learn, it's optimum for you as a student to
>> seriously consider an integrated learning curve rather than the black
>> and white...1...2...3..method.
>>
>> There are two ways to look at getting your license. You can crash it
>> through by getting the "steps" out of the way quickly, or you can enter
>> relaxed and integrate your flying with your other requirements.
>>
>> You can do it either way.
>>
>> The reason I suggest the less structured and less rigid path is because
>> flying itself, as well as driving a race car for that matter, is itself
>> the antithesis of structure. It's true you need the "checklist" type of
>> structure and that doesn't change all through your flying career, but
>> the very act of flying an airplane requires that you be able to preempt
>> and react to a constantly changing dynamic in real time.
>
> I can only speak with experience to racing, having a great deal of seat
> time in cars on courses that turn both left and right. Good, surviving
> drivers either are blessed with mechanical expertise or hire it or both.
> The approach to every race is highly structured followed by the dynamics,
> ever-changing, of the car, driver, competition, track, weather, blah
> squared.
>
>> So the optimum way to approach this endeavor is to start right at the
>> beginning in realizing that it is this world you will be in while
>> flying. So the stress on your learning curve right from the start should
>> be pointed directly at training to be able to think and act on the fly.
>> Training in this way points to a relaxed and integrated curve that mixes
>> ground school with flying so that things mesh together naturally.
>
> Yes, would agree again.
>
>> When you look at flight training as this never ending learning curve I'm
>> describing to you here, you might begin to see that it's not getting
>> through the program that will keep you alive in the air, but what you
>> RETAIN and form into HABIT PATTERNS that is the important factor.
>>
>> I always tell a new pilot one thing that I hope they never forget;
>> that is that what they learn that might save their life one day while
>> flying might very well NOT have been learned yet.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> The definition difference between intelligence and wisdom.
>
> I appreciate your comments.
>
> Not a better duck, a different duck, I come from several fields of endeavor
> all of which I started from little experience to very advanced tasking. I
> have been blessed with the finest pro bono and paid instruction in these
> fields and as the subject of this thread suggests, I am frustrated with my
> inability to find a suitable CFI. Or CFIs actually. My goals for flying
> don't stop at singles, I have built enough "attaboys" for as much VLJ time
> as I can muster. Middle 50s, how much longer will I have? To me, every day
> is a truly wasted one if progress is not made to that end.

I have a friend who was a VP for Dupont. He was a specialist head hunter
and one of the best.
He had a criteria concerning the hiring of 4.0 people. When he recruited
out of colleges, he passed on 4.0 people. The intensity to maintain at
that level resulted in a burn out rate the company couldn't justify.

This is an interesting observation coming from someone seeking the best
of the best, and it has a degree of parity in flying.

Flying most certainly is a multi-tasking environment, but peaking in
this environment can be deadly. What can happen is that by crashing the
program hard, you reach an early peak and the learning curve can
stagnate or even begin a decline as learning gives way to practical use
of what has already learned. Notice the past tense "already learned".

This stagnation/declining plateau can be dealt with more effectively by
students (we're all students) approaching their flying learning curve as
being open ended. Not only is this a much more relaxed curve, it's
geared toward fluidity. There is no pressing need to peak and the
learning becomes more linear and exhibits a more extended line.

Approached correctly, it's possible to achieve the perfect learning
curve for a pilot; that being the changing from a curve that peaks to a
linear line that goes to infinity.

At your age, flying is not only possible but easily doable. It's fine to
have a positive goal oriented incentive and structure to reach that goal.
Once in the system however, separate the strategy goal from the tactical
approach involved in achieving that goal. Get into an integrated
program that allows interfacing between ground school and flying the
airplane. What you are reading in the books will make much more sense as
that plays out in the air and visa versa.

Just remember, when you reach your strategic goal and begin to use your
flying for the purpose intended from the beginning, don't peak at that
point. This is the danger area for pilots. You peak there and stagnate
and the learning declines. It won't stop completely if you do this, as
even a Chimp as I'm sure you're aware, if left at a typewriter long
enough, will eventually write War and Peace :-)



--
Dudley Henriques

In rec.aviation.student WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:45:05 -0600, Michael Ash wrote:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.student/msg/3b48afef1266fbff
>
> NOW it comes clear, good link to set me straight on with you.

Good, I'm glad that made sense. It's much better when it's explained by
someone who knows what he's talking about.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

On Feb 29, 5:44 pm, Steve Hix >
wrote:

> > > This one takes years...
>
> > Oh hell. All it takes is a headset and a chart to get started...and pen and
> > paper keeps the school happy.
>
> To get started...
>
> I think you're in mildly contentious agreement with danmc61 here. :}

Yep.. the gear progression is:
1) not enough
2) too much
3) way too much
4) headset and pen (use scrap paper under seat)

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 04:08:29 -0500, Roger wrote:

> I agree with Dudley though in the learning, student, and instructor
> have to be flexible. Be careful on being too structured as it's easy
> to become mired in the structure rather than pursuing the learning.
> Again, as Dudley said far better than I, learning to fly is a very
> dynamic situation in a dynamic environment.
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

Point and advice taken, thx Roger.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Mar 1, 2:42*am, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> "This is one of the funny things about flight training. Here is
> something every pilot needs to know, but it is not in the PTS and most
> instructors don't cover it. You get your certificate and they turn you
> loose and you have absolutely no concept of how to turn flying into a
> practical tool. And then people wonder why so many pilots quit flying
> right after they get their certificate."
>
> Another line item entry in a lengthening list of "The Differences Between
> PPLicensing And Learning"

Instead of thinking about it as a list, I suggest you consider this
systematically. There is a connection between all the things you will
need to know, but probably won't learn. Once you understand the
connection, you should be able to find the holes in your training.
Here it is:

If it's not something an airline pilot NEEDS to know, then you
probably won't learn it - even if the flying you do requires it. The
reason is simple. Most flight schools are geared to training future
airline pilots. Most flight instructors come out of this training,
and with no other flight experience at all, begin to teach students.
There are a few exceptions, but not many.

Airline pilots don't need to learn about making arrangements for
fueling and storing the plane, getting transportation to the hotel,
organizing maintenance or making simple field repairs, evaluating the
suitability of various airports for various operations, developing (as
opposed to following) procedures and checklists, organizing the
necessary transition and recurrent training, determining what
equipment is necessary for a given operation, and a whole host of
other things. There is an entire organizational structure for that.
Now this is not to say that an airline pilot will not know these
things - he might, and some must (the people who develop procedures
and recurrent training curricula, for example, come frome the pilot
ranks) - but an airline pilot can go through his entire career and
retire as the captain of a 7x7 without ever learning these things, and
do just fine. Thus you won't learn these things if you don't make an
effort to seek them out.

Michael

On Mar 5, 10:47 am, Michael > wrote:
> On Mar 1, 2:42 am, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
> > "This is one of the funny things about flight training. Here is
> > something every pilot needs to know, but it is not in the PTS and most
> > instructors don't cover it. You get your certificate and they turn you
> > loose and you have absolutely no concept of how to turn flying into a
> > practical tool. And then people wonder why so many pilots quit flying
> > right after they get their certificate."
>
> > Another line item entry in a lengthening list of "The Differences Between
> > PPLicensing And Learning"
>
> If it's not something an airline pilot NEEDS to know, then you
> probably won't learn it - even if the flying you do requires it. The
> reason is simple. Most flight schools are geared to training future
> airline pilots. Most flight instructors come out of this training,
> and with no other flight experience at all, begin to teach students.
> There are a few exceptions, but not many.

I don't know if that explains it all. It may explain some, but I think
the other consideration is that there is a huge vat of data that is
available. The question becomes -- what portion of this vat needs to
be applied in this mind to ensure survival in the the typical
situations this person will encounter?

It's impossible and stupid to assume you need to "know everything"
before you can safely fly. Should you know some? Of course. Must you
know all? Obviously not, as none of us currently flying do, and
somehow we survived to this point.

So somewhere we have to make judgments about what place along the
spectrum is the "knows enough and can perform it well enough" point.
The FAA has done this with the PTS for various certificates and
ratings.

Anyone with an Instrument rating will tell you right quick the rating
itself does NOT ensure you will survive IMC. It only means you have
enough knowledge/skills/attitudes to function within the system. We
all know that and assent to it because we also know the burden to
*continue learning* is ours alone.

So if a newly minted IFR pilot has any sense he/she learns by flying
in gradually more challenging conditions (hats off to the old geezers
who will say they took off into a monster CB in a Champ and spun down
through a hole to a 3 point on a grass field -- but you're the
exception).

In fact, that should be one of the appeals of aviation -- you never
stop learning.

If you think you're going to make a list and say "I must know all that
and then I'll learn to fly" you have a flawed approach that will
ensure your early demise or your non participation.

And if you're expecting the FAA or any other organization to hold your
hand and mandate "this is what you should learn next," you're missing
out on the other great appeal of flying -- freedom.

But the other concern I would have in the "make a list before I do
anything" case is that it's a symptom of procrastination based on fear
-- you may be secretly afraid of failure or even flying and want to
line up all the ducks before actually confronting it.

So stop posting, find a CFI who you think you can work with, and start
flying.


Dan

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 02:42:21 -0500, WJRFlyBoy
> wrote:

<snip fro brevity>
>
>"This is one of the funny things about flight training. Here is
>something every pilot needs to know, but it is not in the PTS and most
>instructors don't cover it. You get your certificate and they turn you
>loose and you have absolutely no concept of how to turn flying into a
>practical tool. And then people wonder why so many pilots quit flying
>right after they get their certificate."
>
I've never looked at it this way. My cross country, long cross
country and visiting controlled airports taught me how to flight plan,
fly long distances, and into strange airports of the different
classes. Checking the AFD, calling ahead to check for fuel, ground
transportation, fees, and security now days just came natural.

>Another line item entry in a lengthening list of "The Differences Between
>PPLicensing And Learning"
>
>I travel frequently (one reason I am learning to fly) and planning ahead is
>not only 2nd nature, my wife does it. :)

These are the reasons "I think" made traveling in the airplane so
natural for me. Shortly after getting my PPL I was making trips to
Georgia, Florida, Colorado and points in between. Traveling up to
several days just didn't seem like any big thing. To me it's no
different that a long trip in a car as far as preperation except it's
a lot more fun and relaxing. I will admit weather had caused me to
make a couple of trips exceptions to that statement.

However I will add (which I've said before) my ground school was a
very thorough 4 Credit hour college course. That course was offered
every term and it was always full. OTOH had all of them received
their pilot's license no airport around here would have any parking
space left for cars.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 08:13:04 -0800 (PST), Dan wrote:

>>> "This is one of the funny things about flight training. Here is
>>> something every pilot needs to know, but it is not in the PTS and most
>>> instructors don't cover it. You get your certificate and they turn you
>>> loose and you have absolutely no concept of how to turn flying into a
>>> practical tool. And then people wonder why so many pilots quit flying
>>> right after they get their certificate."
>>
>>> Another line item entry in a lengthening list of "The Differences Between
>>> PPLicensing And Learning"
>>
>> If it's not something an airline pilot NEEDS to know, then you
>> probably won't learn it - even if the flying you do requires it. The
>> reason is simple. Most flight schools are geared to training future
>> airline pilots. Most flight instructors come out of this training,
>> and with no other flight experience at all, begin to teach students.
>> There are a few exceptions, but not many.
>
> I don't know if that explains it all. It may explain some, but I think
> the other consideration is that there is a huge vat of data that is
> available. The question becomes -- what portion of this vat needs to
> be applied in this mind to ensure survival in the the typical
> situations this person will encounter?

Yes, that's the nazz right there. That's where I am headed, the small end
of the funnel still has to have a beginning (the mouth). The trick is in
getting to the small end, the quicker, the better. Learning to filter.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 08:13:04 -0800 (PST), Dan wrote:

> t's impossible and stupid to assume you need to "know everything"
> before you can safely fly. Should you know some? Of course. Must you
> know all? Obviously not, as none of us currently flying do, and
> somehow we survived to this point.

The point is moot, there is no all and the amount of knowledge required to
survive is influenced by pure luck. I have never been lucky.

> So somewhere we have to make judgments about what place along the
> spectrum is the "knows enough and can perform it well enough" point.
> The FAA has done this with the PTS for various certificates and
> ratings.
>
> Anyone with an Instrument rating will tell you right quick the rating
> itself does NOT ensure you will survive IMC. It only means you have
> enough knowledge/skills/attitudes to function within the system. We
> all know that and assent to it because we also know the burden to
> *continue learning* is ours alone.
>
> So if a newly minted IFR pilot has any sense he/she learns by flying
> in gradually more challenging conditions (hats off to the old geezers
> who will say they took off into a monster CB in a Champ and spun down
> through a hole to a 3 point on a grass field -- but you're the
> exception).
>
> In fact, that should be one of the appeals of aviation -- you never
> stop learning.

It certainly is and learning is a somewhat mathematical function over time.
If X is max knowledge, then Y is a function of X, the more Y early on the
closer to X you can get as long as T Time doesn't = zero.

> If you think you're going to make a list and say "I must know all that
> and then I'll learn to fly" you have a flawed approach that will
> ensure your early demise or your non participation.

Far from that flaw.

> And if you're expecting the FAA or any other organization to hold your
> hand and mandate "this is what you should learn next," you're missing
> out on the other great appeal of flying -- freedom.

I would think, if anything, I am demonstrating a lack of simplistic,
academic approaches, Dan.

> But the other concern I would have in the "make a list before I do
> anything" case is that it's a symptom of procrastination based on fear
> -- you may be secretly afraid of failure or even flying and want to
> line up all the ducks before actually confronting it.

lol well I don't believe you've read much of this thread, my postings I
mean.

> So stop posting, find a CFI who you think you can work with, and start
> flying.
>
> Dan

Haven't found the CFI that fits, time for flying is having to wait, duty
calls first but not forever.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 07:44:39 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:

>>> I always tell a new pilot one thing that I hope they never forget;
>>> that is that what they learn that might save their life one day while
>>> flying might very well NOT have been learned yet.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> The definition difference between intelligence and wisdom.
>>
>> I appreciate your comments.
>>
>> Not a better duck, a different duck, I come from several fields of endeavor
>> all of which I started from little experience to very advanced tasking. I
>> have been blessed with the finest pro bono and paid instruction in these
>> fields and as the subject of this thread suggests, I am frustrated with my
>> inability to find a suitable CFI. Or CFIs actually. My goals for flying
>> don't stop at singles, I have built enough "attaboys" for as much VLJ time
>> as I can muster. Middle 50s, how much longer will I have? To me, every day
>> is a truly wasted one if progress is not made to that end.
>
> I have a friend who was a VP for Dupont. He was a specialist head hunter
> and one of the best.
> He had a criteria concerning the hiring of 4.0 people. When he recruited
> out of colleges, he passed on 4.0 people. The intensity to maintain at
> that level resulted in a burn out rate the company couldn't justify.
>
> This is an interesting observation coming from someone seeking the best
> of the best, and it has a degree of parity in flying.

Your HH was spot on, I rented office space from a CEO level HH, also out of
the corp world, he kept bugging me to "interview" so I did. Afterwards, he
pronounced that I wasn't the proper psychological profile. Which is exactly
what I had been telling him. Entrepreneurs, that's a completely, pole
opposite set of folks.

> Flying most certainly is a multi-tasking environment, but peaking in
> this environment can be deadly. What can happen is that by crashing the
> program hard, you reach an early peak and the learning curve can
> stagnate or even begin a decline as learning gives way to practical use
> of what has already learned. Notice the past tense "already learned".
>
> This stagnation/declining plateau can be dealt with more effectively by
> students (we're all students) approaching their flying learning curve as
> being open ended. Not only is this a much more relaxed curve, it's
> geared toward fluidity. There is no pressing need to peak and the
> learning becomes more linear and exhibits a more extended line.

I suppose I'm not making myself clear. Let me put it in real life terms.
There are only three things I find are for a lifetime of interest, my
marriage, my sons and my relationship with God. The rest, all of it, is
temporal and time-limited. I keep 3 or 4 challenging endeavors juggling,
once I reach the goals I have set for them, or at a failpoint, I drop them
like a Led Zeppelin. Flying is no different, I figger I have maybe 10 good
years then I will dump it or it will dump me. Considering I have 20 year
long interests that I still find compelling (F1 racing for one) and my
vertical learning line hasn't ended, I believe I am OK

> Approached correctly, it's possible to achieve the perfect learning
> curve for a pilot; that being the changing from a curve that peaks to a
> linear line that goes to infinity.
>
> At your age, flying is not only possible but easily doable. It's fine to
> have a positive goal oriented incentive and structure to reach that goal.
> Once in the system however, separate the strategy goal from the tactical
> approach involved in achieving that goal. Get into an integrated
> program that allows interfacing between ground school and flying the
> airplane. What you are reading in the books will make much more sense as
> that plays out in the air and visa versa.

Thx for that, Dudley.

> Just remember, when you reach your strategic goal and begin to use your
> flying for the purpose intended from the beginning, don't peak at that
> point. This is the danger area for pilots. You peak there and stagnate
> and the learning declines. It won't stop completely if you do this, as
> even a Chimp as I'm sure you're aware, if left at a typewriter long
> enough, will eventually write War and Peace :-)

Probably have a better chance at busting AES encryption but that's a whole
'nuther story. lol

--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Mar 5, 11:13*am, Dan > wrote:
> I don't know if that explains it all. It may explain some, but I think
> the other consideration is that there is a huge vat of data that is
> available. The question becomes -- what portion of this vat needs to
> be applied in this mind to ensure survival in the the typical
> situations this person will encounter?

Ah, but there's the rub - what is the typical situation? These days,
most private pilots never do anything more than go for a hundred
dollar hamburger on a nice day. For that, modern flight training is
perfectly adequate. It's when you try to actually use the airplane as
a tool, and not just a toy, that you get into trouble. Now it's not
that I have any problem with the use of an aircraft as a toy. I've
flown many that could be used no other way, and have even owned one.
But that's not all there is.

> It's impossible and stupid to assume you need to "know everything"
> before you can safely fly. Should you know some? Of course. Must you
> know all? Obviously not, as none of us currently flying do, and
> somehow we survived to this point.

Of course "know everything" is an impossible standard. But you ought
to know enough to go where you want to go, when you want to go there,
on an average day. That generally doesn't happen.

> So somewhere we have to make judgments about what place along the
> spectrum is the "knows enough and can perform it well enough" point.
> The FAA has done this with the PTS for various certificates and
> ratings.

And has done about as good a job of it as a government bureaucracy
generally generally does. When you consider the privileges of a given
certificate or rating on the one hand, and the items tested on the PTS
on the other, you realize quickly that there is a huge disconnect.
I'm sort of glad that someone is thinking about the privileges of the
certificate rather than what is required to pass the test, even if
much of the thinking is necessarily flawed due to inexperience. At
least it will allow him to select an instructor by eliminating the
ones who have not considered these things - which is unfortunately
most of them.

> Anyone with an Instrument rating will tell you right quick the rating
> itself does NOT ensure you will survive IMC. It only means you have
> enough knowledge/skills/attitudes to function within the system. We
> all know that and assent to it because we also know the burden to
> *continue learning* is ours alone.

No, you might assent to it. I do not. My students graduate from the
IFR course ready to survive in IMC - not ideal benign IMC, but average
IMC for the area. And guess what - they take the same 40-60 hours
(depending on how long they stretch it out) as everyone else.

Doing it right does not necessarily take longer. It's mostly knowing
what needs to be done.

> In fact, that should be one of the appeals of aviation -- you never
> stop learning.

But in order to keep learning on your own, you really need to get to a
point where flying is useful - or it will never happen. I've see the
phrase "license to learn" used to justify some mighty low standards.

Michael

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 08:13:04 -0800 (PST), Dan wrote:
>
>> t's impossible and stupid to assume you need to "know everything"
>> before you can safely fly. Should you know some? Of course. Must you
>> know all? Obviously not, as none of us currently flying do, and
>> somehow we survived to this point.
>
> The point is moot, there is no all and the amount of knowledge required to
> survive is influenced by pure luck. I have never been lucky.
>
>> So somewhere we have to make judgments about what place along the
>> spectrum is the "knows enough and can perform it well enough" point.
>> The FAA has done this with the PTS for various certificates and
>> ratings.
>>
>> Anyone with an Instrument rating will tell you right quick the rating
>> itself does NOT ensure you will survive IMC. It only means you have
>> enough knowledge/skills/attitudes to function within the system. We
>> all know that and assent to it because we also know the burden to
>> *continue learning* is ours alone.
>>
>> So if a newly minted IFR pilot has any sense he/she learns by flying
>> in gradually more challenging conditions (hats off to the old geezers
>> who will say they took off into a monster CB in a Champ and spun down
>> through a hole to a 3 point on a grass field -- but you're the
>> exception).
>>
>> In fact, that should be one of the appeals of aviation -- you never
>> stop learning.
>
> It certainly is and learning is a somewhat mathematical function over time.
> If X is max knowledge, then Y is a function of X, the more Y early on the
> closer to X you can get as long as T Time doesn't = zero.
>
>> If you think you're going to make a list and say "I must know all that
>> and then I'll learn to fly" you have a flawed approach that will
>> ensure your early demise or your non participation.
>
> Far from that flaw.
>
>> And if you're expecting the FAA or any other organization to hold your
>> hand and mandate "this is what you should learn next," you're missing
>> out on the other great appeal of flying -- freedom.
>
> I would think, if anything, I am demonstrating a lack of simplistic,
> academic approaches, Dan.
>
>> But the other concern I would have in the "make a list before I do
>> anything" case is that it's a symptom of procrastination based on fear
>> -- you may be secretly afraid of failure or even flying and want to
>> line up all the ducks before actually confronting it.
>
> lol well I don't believe you've read much of this thread, my postings I
> mean.
>
>> So stop posting, find a CFI who you think you can work with, and start
>> flying.
>>
>> Dan
>
> Haven't found the CFI that fits, time for flying is having to wait, duty
> calls first but not forever.

Not sure if I'm reading this thread correctly as it seems quite
convoluted, but Dan is pretty well on target with his general comment.
I generally don't agree with Michael's approach to this issue although
some of what he has said is pertinent in my opinion.
The bottom line on flight instruction is that generalization of any kind
is not the way to approach the subject.

Flying is intensely individually specific. Two pilots graduating from
the same highly structured program might have two highly diverse flight
safety paths as they progress through a career in aviation.

Max Stanley from Northrop once said, "The J3 is the safest airplane in
the world. It can just barely kill you" Future pilots are wise to read
what Max said carefully. It doesn't matter if you fly for pleasure or
that $100 hamburger, or work flying the world's biggest airliner, your
flight safety path will be determined by your INDIVIDUAL approach in
dealing with aviation. you can die just as easily flying for plasure as
you can flying for a living.

The phrase "A license to learn" is not something to be taken lightly or
disparaged in any way by those wishing to make a point one way or the
other about the learning curve involved with flying. ANY license in
aviation is a "license to learn". The phrase does however have a certain
element of duality attached to it, as the question rises to be answered
about whether or not what you have learned already is enough to keep you
alive in the air.

The answer of course is that NO system of learning worth the title has a
closed end. The learning process never ends in any endeavor, especially
in aviation.

Is the FAA program that gets you your certificate adequate? The answer
to that question .is that it SHOULD be. There certainly is enough
information and training involved to allow you to get into an airplane
at point A and fly it to point B safely. But that's it really. What
happens from that point onward is up to the new pilot.
The real rub in this equation is that even if you intend flying only for
pleasure and not using an airplane for business or becoming a
professional, the learning curve MUST continue.

It's here that all the confusion sets in and all the "discussion" gets
opinionated.

The bottom line is that all you get in a PPL course are the basics.
Where you go from there safety wise is up to the individual pilot;
hamburger or professional.

--
Dudley Henriques

In rec.aviation.student WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> It certainly is and learning is a somewhat mathematical function over time.
> If X is max knowledge, then Y is a function of X, the more Y early on the
> closer to X you can get as long as T Time doesn't = zero.

If only life were that simple.

The reality is that learning is a ridiculously complex vector function in
an incomprehensible number of dimensions. Because of this there is no
meaningful value for X, max knowledge. Doing more learning early on
doesn't guarantee that you'll be better off, and can even make you worse
off, as you get stuck with pre-conceived notions and such. It sounds like
you may be a computer person, so imagine learning to program by sitting
down with stacks of books about BASIC and COBOL. It'll be
counterproductive. I'm not suggesting that your course of action is
equivalent to starting with BASIC and COBOL, but just that it's not as
simple as you make it out to be, and if you overdo your head start you
could end up worse off in the long run.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

On Mar 6, 10:08*pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:

>
> It certainly is and learning is a somewhat mathematical function over time..
> If X is max knowledge, then Y is a function of X, the more Y early on the
> closer to X you can get as long as T Time doesn't = zero.
>

This pretentious nonsense if not pure jibberish. Does no one do real
symbolic mathematics these days?

Cheers

On Mar 7, 6:58*am, Michael Ash > wrote:
. It sounds like
> you may be a computer person, so imagine learning to program by sitting
> down with stacks of books about BASIC and COBOL. It'll be
> counterproductive. I'm not suggesting that your course of action is
> equivalent to starting with BASIC and COBOL, but just that it's not as
> simple as you make it out to be, and if you overdo your head start you
> could end up worse off in the long run.
>

On the other hand you should read a programming text in order to get
to "Hello World".
As I learnt each new programming language I always found it
indispensible to by at least 2 books for each. The first would be an
introduction text which I would read before I did any real programming
and then a more advanced text dealing with more complex problems
(thanks to the desire of modern systems for pointless eyecandy more
time is spent on the interface than actually solving the problem at
hand).

I would also add that writing in machine code needs a lot of book work
before you start but BASIC.NET needs relatively less.

Cheers

On Mar 7, 6:58*am, Michael Ash > wrote:
> In rec.aviation.student WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
> > It certainly is and learning is a somewhat mathematical function over time.
> > If X is max knowledge, then Y is a function of X, the more Y early on the
> > closer to X you can get as long as T Time doesn't = zero.
>
> If only life were that simple.
>
> The reality is that learning is a ridiculously complex vector function in
> an incomprehensible number of dimensions. Because of this there is no
> meaningful value for X, max knowledge. Doing more learning early on
> doesn't guarantee that you'll be better off, and can even make you worse
> off, as you get stuck with pre-conceived notions and such.


I think what you mean to say is that if knowlege is K, dK/dt cannot be
maximised (nor ensure that it remains positive) . The dimensions are
irrelevant in so far as K can be projected orthogonal to the time
axis.

Cheers

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 11:58:24 -0600, Michael Ash wrote:

> In rec.aviation.student WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>> It certainly is and learning is a somewhat mathematical function over time.
>> If X is max knowledge, then Y is a function of X, the more Y early on the
>> closer to X you can get as long as T Time doesn't = zero.
>
> If only life were that simple.
>
> The reality is that learning is a ridiculously complex vector function in
> an incomprehensible number of dimensions. Because of this there is no
> meaningful value for X, max knowledge. Doing more learning early on
> doesn't guarantee that you'll be better off, and can even make you worse
> off, as you get stuck with pre-conceived notions and such. It sounds like
> you may be a computer person, so imagine learning to program by sitting
> down with stacks of books about BASIC and COBOL. It'll be
> counterproductive. I'm not suggesting that your course of action is
> equivalent to starting with BASIC and COBOL, but just that it's not as
> simple as you make it out to be, and if you overdo your head start you
> could end up worse off in the long run.

T=zero=death (end of learning) and X which I would agree are max knowledge
and your assessment of it. The interim learning cycle is Y. If the sum of Y
is calculable (that which one learns in life, a task or series of
experiences), then the more of Y one learns at the beginning of the
learning cycle, the greater the chance the sum of Y is larger than if one
learns little at the beginning of the cycle.

This is a simple paradigm, it was all that I was proposing, it is one that
has consistently worked for me. YMMV
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 05:37:47 -0800 (PST), Michael wrote:

>> It's impossible and stupid to assume you need to "know everything"
>> before you can safely fly. Should you know some? Of course. Must you
>> know all? Obviously not, as none of us currently flying do, and
>> somehow we survived to this point.
>
> Of course "know everything" is an impossible standard. But you ought
> to know enough to go where you want to go, when you want to go there,
> on an average day. That generally doesn't happen.

Which is the crux of the Subject of the thread. This is exactly what I am
finding, the PPL standards don't license you to do perform in the manner
you describe, Michael. On this we agree. Fine, then what, where and how do
you get the learning necessary to do so?

One of the ways I am pursuing this is an highly active academic one, it
would premise that the more one knows the better decisions can be made as
to what needs learning. I find new PPL, and in email commo with posters on
RAS/RAP they many have had disastrous lapses in their educations, they
simply did not know what was actually required to obtain the freedom you
have suggested "know enough to go where you want to go, when you want to go
there, on an average day."
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 11:58:24 -0600, Michael Ash wrote:

> It sounds like
> you may be a computer person, so imagine learning to program by sitting
> down with stacks of books about BASIC and COBOL. It'll be
> counterproductive. I'm not suggesting that your course of action is
> equivalent to starting with BASIC and COBOL, but just that it's not as
> simple as you make it out to be, and if you overdo your head start you
> could end up worse off in the long run.
>
> --
> Michael Ash
> Rogue Amoeba Software

I agree with the dangers of ingrained, immature knowledge, point well
taken, thx for that.

WTS, that /is/ how I learned VB, C, .Net framework, and now Windows WF. lol
Not that I am advocating that approach.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 12:00:22 -0800 (PST), WingFlaps wrote:

> As I learnt each new programming language I always found it
> indispensible to by at least 2 books for each. The first would be an
> introduction text which I would read before I did any real programming
> and then a more advanced text dealing with more complex problems
> (thanks to the desire of modern systems for pointless eyecandy more
> time is spent on the interface than actually solving the problem at
> hand).

lol Found my niche in military software, eye candy they neither understand
nor care about. We write some of the ugliest looking, totally functional
code....
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 11:31:57 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:

> Flying is intensely individually specific. Two pilots graduating from
> the same highly structured program might have two highly diverse flight
> safety paths as they progress through a career in aviation.
>
> Max Stanley from Northrop once said, "The J3 is the safest airplane in
> the world. It can just barely kill you" Future pilots are wise to read
> what Max said carefully. It doesn't matter if you fly for pleasure or
> that $100 hamburger, or work flying the world's biggest airliner, your
> flight safety path will be determined by your INDIVIDUAL approach in
> dealing with aviation. you can die just as easily flying for plasure as
> you can flying for a living.

Wise words, the devil is within.

> The phrase "A license to learn" is not something to be taken lightly or
> disparaged in any way by those wishing to make a point one way or the
> other about the learning curve involved with flying. ANY license in
> aviation is a "license to learn". The phrase does however have a certain
> element of duality attached to it, as the question rises to be answered
> about whether or not what you have learned already is enough to keep you
> alive in the air.

This is the only test that matters, is it not?

> Is the FAA program that gets you your certificate adequate? The answer
> to that question .is that it SHOULD be. There certainly is enough
> information and training involved to allow you to get into an airplane
> at point A and fly it to point B safely. But that's it really. What
> happens from that point onward is up to the new pilot.
> The real rub in this equation is that even if you intend flying only for
> pleasure and not using an airplane for business or becoming a
> professional, the learning curve MUST continue.
>
> It's here that all the confusion sets in and all the "discussion" gets
> opinionated.
>
> The bottom line is that all you get in a PPL course are the basics.
> Where you go from there safety wise is up to the individual pilot;
> hamburger or professional.

"The Differences Between PPLicensing And Learning", thx Dudley.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 11:31:57 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> Flying is intensely individually specific. Two pilots graduating from
>> the same highly structured program might have two highly diverse flight
>> safety paths as they progress through a career in aviation.
>>
>> Max Stanley from Northrop once said, "The J3 is the safest airplane in
>> the world. It can just barely kill you" Future pilots are wise to read
>> what Max said carefully. It doesn't matter if you fly for pleasure or
>> that $100 hamburger, or work flying the world's biggest airliner, your
>> flight safety path will be determined by your INDIVIDUAL approach in
>> dealing with aviation. you can die just as easily flying for plasure as
>> you can flying for a living.
>
> Wise words, the devil is within.
>
>> The phrase "A license to learn" is not something to be taken lightly or
>> disparaged in any way by those wishing to make a point one way or the
>> other about the learning curve involved with flying. ANY license in
>> aviation is a "license to learn". The phrase does however have a certain
>> element of duality attached to it, as the question rises to be answered
>> about whether or not what you have learned already is enough to keep you
>> alive in the air.
>
> This is the only test that matters, is it not?
>
>> Is the FAA program that gets you your certificate adequate? The answer
>> to that question .is that it SHOULD be. There certainly is enough
>> information and training involved to allow you to get into an airplane
>> at point A and fly it to point B safely. But that's it really. What
>> happens from that point onward is up to the new pilot.
>> The real rub in this equation is that even if you intend flying only for
>> pleasure and not using an airplane for business or becoming a
>> professional, the learning curve MUST continue.
>>
>> It's here that all the confusion sets in and all the "discussion" gets
>> opinionated.
>>
>> The bottom line is that all you get in a PPL course are the basics.
>> Where you go from there safety wise is up to the individual pilot;
>> hamburger or professional.
>
> "The Differences Between PPLicensing And Learning", thx Dudley.
Thanx for the thanx :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:53:07 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:

>> "The Differences Between PPLicensing And Learning", thx Dudley.
> Thanx for the thanx :-))

And to each and everyone who posted to this thread, I appreciate your time
and efforts.

I have learned a great deal, much I would have had no way of doing so if it
were not for RAP/RAS and the dedicated souls who lurk here.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Mar 7, 5:27*pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> Which is the crux of the Subject of the thread. This is exactly what I am
> finding, the PPL standards don't license you to do perform in the manner
> you describe, Michael. On this we agree. Fine, then what, where and how do
> you get the learning necessary to do so?

Fair enough question. There is even an answer.

First off, I'll tell you what the answer is not. It's not to be found
in extra attention paid to passing the FAA written tests (they are of
little value, and at the 95% score they are as much about learning
pointless trivia and answers to trick questions as they are about
learning anything useful) and it's really not found in practicing with
the flight sim (which is a useful adjunct to learning to fly,
especially when it comes to instruments, but does not really cover the
things that won't be covered in your training). It's certainly not
found by buying gadgets.

The answer comes in finding a mentor - someone who has been where you
are, is now where you are going, and can show you the way. I know of
no other path.

In an ideal world, that mentor would be your flight instructor. That
probably isn't going to happen. Very few pilots who routinely use
airplanes for practical transportation ever become flight instructors,
and I can count on my fingers the ones I know (and that includes the
ones posting here) who are available to the walk-in primary student at
the FBO. Most will only be available if you have or can arrange for
an airplane, or by some special arrangement - one you are unlikely to
be able to make unless you are well plugged into the local general
aviation scene.

You can take a shot at finding the sort of instructor who could be
your mentor (look for someone who owns an airplane that he uses for
routine all-weather travel first and foremost) but like I said, you
are unlikely to succeed. Or you can take what you get, solo (or even
get your license), and start hanging around the airport with the
owners, looking for a plane to buy (you can pretty much forget doing
any serious travel as a renter). People will come out of the
woodwork, and then you will find your mentor. He will tell you what
you REALLY need to learn, and will likely be able to teach you.

There are good books you can read too - but they're not going to mean
much without a basis in actual experience. I recommend Bach (Stranger
to the Ground, Biplane, Nothing by Chance), Lindbergh (Spirit of St.
Louis), Imeson (Mountain Flying, Mountain Flying Bible), Robert Buck
(Weather Flying), and Rinker Buck (Flight of Passage). I'm sure there
are other good ones I can't think of at the moment. I can't really
think of any book I would recommend for someone who has never flown.
Lots of people rave about Langewiesche (Stick and Rudder) but I can't
say I'm really impressed with it. On the other hand, I don't know of
anything better to recommend - and given that it's now half a century
old, that in itself is saying something.

> One of the ways I am pursuing this is an highly active academic one, it
> would premise that the more one knows the better decisions can be made as
> to what needs learning.

This is a pretty decent assumption in an academic environment, largely
because of the peer review process. Stuff generally gets peer
reviewed both before publication (formally) and after (informally),
and the trash doesn't stick around. There is precious little peer
review in general aviation. There simply are not good books about how
to effectively use a light aircraft as reliable transportation. The
vast majority of training material is focused on commercial aviation,
military aviation, or passing exams. What little is left is generally
not peer reviewed in any way, is often wildly inaccurate, and
basically has all the problems of usenet - other than spam, poor
grammar/spelling/style, and personal attacks. On the other hand, it
is often out of date - see above.

> I find new PPL, and in email commo with posters on
> RAS/RAP they many have had disastrous lapses in their educations, they
> simply did not know what was actually required to obtain the freedom you
> have suggested "know enough to go where you want to go, when you want to go
> there, on an average day."

And now they know more. Or think they do. On usenet, nobody knows
who you are. Of course that's not really true. Anyone with a shred
of 'net savvy can easily pierce the veil of so-called anonymity,
especially where it concerns those of us who have been here for a long
time, but that's not terribly helpful. With a name and a general
location, you could use the FAA database and figure out what kind of
aircraft we own and what kind of certificates we hold. That tells you
very little about what kind of pilot you're dealing with. Sure,
you'll get the occasional weirdie - like a guy expounding on the
differences between visual and instrument flying who doesn't even have
an instrument rating, or expounding on the proper way to teach Vmc
demos when his own multi rating is limited to centerline thrust - but
mostly people have ratings appropriate to what they are discussing or
clearly state they do not. What you will never get except by personal
knowledge is which guy is known for bending airplanes (I know at least
two who managed to have four wrecks without accumulating 1000 hours -
and one of them was a CFI and an aviation safety counselor), which guy
routinely gets stuck because he never developed the skills to handle
any but the most benign weather, and which guy really does use his
airplane for transportation and has survived real emergencies in real
weather. For that, you need to get out to an airport and meet
people. Then you hang out, look around, decide what kind of pilot you
want to be like, and ask him (or her) what he wishes he had known
starting out, what kind of reading, training, experience, etc. he
recommends - and do that.

Now go and do it.

Michael

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 05:37:47 -0800 (PST), Michael wrote:
>
>>> It's impossible and stupid to assume you need to "know everything"
>>> before you can safely fly. Should you know some? Of course. Must you
>>> know all? Obviously not, as none of us currently flying do, and
>>> somehow we survived to this point.
>> Of course "know everything" is an impossible standard. But you ought
>> to know enough to go where you want to go, when you want to go there,
>> on an average day. That generally doesn't happen.
>
> Which is the crux of the Subject of the thread. This is exactly what I am
> finding, the PPL standards don't license you to do perform in the manner
> you describe, Michael. On this we agree. Fine, then what, where and how do
> you get the learning necessary to do so?
>
> One of the ways I am pursuing this is an highly active academic one, it
> would premise that the more one knows the better decisions can be made as
> to what needs learning. I find new PPL, and in email commo with posters on
> RAS/RAP they many have had disastrous lapses in their educations, they
> simply did not know what was actually required to obtain the freedom you
> have suggested "know enough to go where you want to go, when you want to go
> there, on an average day."

After reading some of the exchanges back to you on this issue I'd like
to offer you a slightly different opinion if I may.
As relates to the quality of information you might find right here on
this forum the following;
Usenet of course has its good and bad information sources, but most
pilots (including yourself I'm sure) are quite capable of wading through
the BS and latching on to the "good stuff".
It doesn't take very long or a great deal of research to discover just
who knows what they are talking about on these groups and who doesn't.
There are many...and I repeat MANY fine pilots and instructors who post
right here on these forums, and can be a virtual wealth of good
information once you learn a bit about who's who and who actually knows
what.
BTW, I'm an instructor who has a center thrust rating, (my area of
expertise is primary instruction and aerobatics only ) and in the 11,800
unpaid posts I've made on this forum offering help and free advice to
new pilots, I don't believe I have ever attempted to "instruct" someone
on Vmc demonstrations. :-)
As I said, there are many very good pilots and instructors who post
here. Just read carefully, do some research, and the good data will
separate itself from the chaff in no time.
If I can ever be of any help to you, please don't hesitate to ask.

--
Dudley Henriques

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:07:02 -0700 (PDT), Michael wrote:

> The answer comes in finding a mentor - someone who has been where you
> are, is now where you are going, and can show you the way. I know of
> no other path.
>
> In an ideal world, that mentor would be your flight instructor. That
> probably isn't going to happen.

You're right there, so far this hasn't happened.

> Very few pilots who routinely use
> airplanes for practical transportation ever become flight instructors,
> and I can count on my fingers the ones I know (and that includes the
> ones posting here) who are available to the walk-in primary student at
> the FBO. Most will only be available if you have or can arrange for
> an airplane, or by some special arrangement - one you are unlikely to
> be able to make unless you are well plugged into the local general
> aviation scene.

I got lucky, hanging out at Marco Island, one of the new DayJet pilots had
a turnaround down to Key West and back to Immakolee. Was picking up a
business friend, left my car keys and a "I'm sorry" note. lol Right seat,
lotsa hands/feets on time; it had been 30 years since I was flying
regularly (sans license) where I had over 300 hours on a Baron 55. One time
thing though with the DayJet guy.

> You can take a shot at finding the sort of instructor who could be
> your mentor (look for someone who owns an airplane that he uses for
> routine all-weather travel first and foremost) but like I said, you
> are unlikely to succeed. Or you can take what you get, solo (or even
> get your license), and start hanging around the airport with the
> owners, looking for a plane to buy (you can pretty much forget doing
> any serious travel as a renter). People will come out of the
> woodwork, and then you will find your mentor. He will tell you what
> you REALLY need to learn, and will likely be able to teach you.

This is very good advice and true to your word, I've met more potential
mentor's this way and potential partners. I'm hoping to get lucky and find
a both in one.

Thx.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:28:03 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:

>> One of the ways I am pursuing this is an highly active academic one, it
>> would premise that the more one knows the better decisions can be made as
>> to what needs learning. I find new PPL, and in email commo with posters on
>> RAS/RAP they many have had disastrous lapses in their educations, they
>> simply did not know what was actually required to obtain the freedom you
>> have suggested "know enough to go where you want to go, when you want to go
>> there, on an average day."
>
> After reading some of the exchanges back to you on this issue I'd like
> to offer you a slightly different opinion if I may.
> As relates to the quality of information you might find right here on
> this forum the following;
> Usenet of course has its good and bad information sources, but most
> pilots (including yourself I'm sure) are quite capable of wading through
> the BS and latching on to the "good stuff".
> It doesn't take very long or a great deal of research to discover just
> who knows what they are talking about on these groups and who doesn't.
> There are many...and I repeat MANY fine pilots and instructors who post
> right here on these forums, and can be a virtual wealth of good
> information once you learn a bit about who's who and who actually knows
> what.

So Mx The Manic stays in my killfile :) Got it.

> BTW, I'm an instructor who has a center thrust rating, (my area of
> expertise is primary instruction and aerobatics only ) and in the 11,800
> unpaid posts I've made on this forum offering help and free advice to
> new pilots, I don't believe I have ever attempted to "instruct" someone
> on Vmc demonstrations. :-)
> As I said, there are many very good pilots and instructors who post
> here. Just read carefully, do some research, and the good data will
> separate itself from the chaff in no time.
> If I can ever be of any help to you, please don't hesitate to ask.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

I won't and the offer is much appreciated, Dudley. Two things back for you:

One, your reputation precedes you, more than one emailer has told me you
are open to off Usenet advice.

Two, I understand (somewhat) your frustrations with Usenet, keep reminding
yourself that the best you have to give you may have already given. The
archives are, imo, as good, in ways better, tools of goodwill. You have
several lifetimes already compiled there and if you drop your pants a
little lower, I'll kiss the bottom of your butt too.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:28:03 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>>> One of the ways I am pursuing this is an highly active academic one, it
>>> would premise that the more one knows the better decisions can be made as
>>> to what needs learning. I find new PPL, and in email commo with posters on
>>> RAS/RAP they many have had disastrous lapses in their educations, they
>>> simply did not know what was actually required to obtain the freedom you
>>> have suggested "know enough to go where you want to go, when you want to go
>>> there, on an average day."
>> After reading some of the exchanges back to you on this issue I'd like
>> to offer you a slightly different opinion if I may.
>> As relates to the quality of information you might find right here on
>> this forum the following;
>> Usenet of course has its good and bad information sources, but most
>> pilots (including yourself I'm sure) are quite capable of wading through
>> the BS and latching on to the "good stuff".
>> It doesn't take very long or a great deal of research to discover just
>> who knows what they are talking about on these groups and who doesn't.
>> There are many...and I repeat MANY fine pilots and instructors who post
>> right here on these forums, and can be a virtual wealth of good
>> information once you learn a bit about who's who and who actually knows
>> what.
>
> So Mx The Manic stays in my killfile :) Got it.
>
>> BTW, I'm an instructor who has a center thrust rating, (my area of
>> expertise is primary instruction and aerobatics only ) and in the 11,800
>> unpaid posts I've made on this forum offering help and free advice to
>> new pilots, I don't believe I have ever attempted to "instruct" someone
>> on Vmc demonstrations. :-)
>> As I said, there are many very good pilots and instructors who post
>> here. Just read carefully, do some research, and the good data will
>> separate itself from the chaff in no time.
>> If I can ever be of any help to you, please don't hesitate to ask.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I won't and the offer is much appreciated, Dudley. Two things back for you:
>
> One, your reputation precedes you, more than one emailer has told me you
> are open to off Usenet advice.
>
> Two, I understand (somewhat) your frustrations with Usenet, keep reminding
> yourself that the best you have to give you may have already given. The
> archives are, imo, as good, in ways better, tools of goodwill. You have
> several lifetimes already compiled there and if you drop your pants a
> little lower, I'll kiss the bottom of your butt too.
Thanks for the kind word. FWIW, I learned a long time ago that lowering
my pants to get my butt kissed on Usenet usually resulted in my falling
flat on my ugly puss :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:


> Thanks for the kind word. FWIW, I learned a long time ago that
> lowering my pants to get my butt kissed on Usenet usually resulted in
> my falling flat on my ugly puss :-))

At the very least.


Bertie

>

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>
>> Thanks for the kind word. FWIW, I learned a long time ago that
>> lowering my pants to get my butt kissed on Usenet usually resulted in
>> my falling flat on my ugly puss :-))
>
> At the very least.
>
>
> Bertie
>
>

It's a talent :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:deudncWS8fi-
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>> Thanks for the kind word. FWIW, I learned a long time ago that
>>> lowering my pants to get my butt kissed on Usenet usually resulted in
>>> my falling flat on my ugly puss :-))
>>
>> At the very least.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
>
> It's a talent :-))I don't think I'll be lowering my pants around here,
thank you very much!


Bertie
>

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:deudncWS8fi-
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thanks for the kind word. FWIW, I learned a long time ago that
>>>> lowering my pants to get my butt kissed on Usenet usually resulted in
>>>> my falling flat on my ugly puss :-))
>>> At the very least.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>>>
>> It's a talent :-))I don't think I'll be lowering my pants around here,
> thank you very much!
>
>
> Bertie
>

:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

On Mar 1, 2:48 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> When you look at flight training as this never ending learning curve I'm
> describing to you here, you might begin to see that it's not getting
> through the program that will keep you alive in the air, but what you
> RETAIN and form into HABIT PATTERNS that is the important factor.

After getting a PPL and flying for a couple of years, I can see why
Dudley is correct. Those habit patterns you learn early in your
flying training WILL save your life, I guarantee it. Flying is like
life, you are always learning how to do it while never truly mastering
it.

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:07:02 -0700 (PDT), Michael wrote:

>> One of the ways I am pursuing this is an highly active academic one, it
>> would premise that the more one knows the better decisions can be made as
>> to what needs learning.
>
> This is a pretty decent assumption in an academic environment, largely
> because of the peer review process. Stuff generally gets peer
> reviewed both before publication (formally) and after (informally),
> and the trash doesn't stick around. There is precious little peer
> review in general aviation. There simply are not good books about how
> to effectively use a light aircraft as reliable transportation. The
> vast majority of training material is focused on commercial aviation,
> military aviation, or passing exams. What little is left is generally
> not peer reviewed in any way, is often wildly inaccurate, and
> basically has all the problems of usenet - other than spam, poor
> grammar/spelling/style, and personal attacks. On the other hand, it
> is often out of date - see above.

Thx for that, Michael.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:59:31 -0700 (PDT), Euan Kilgour wrote:

> On Mar 1, 2:48 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> When you look at flight training as this never ending learning curve I'm
>> describing to you here, you might begin to see that it's not getting
>> through the program that will keep you alive in the air, but what you
>> RETAIN and form into HABIT PATTERNS that is the important factor.
>
> After getting a PPL and flying for a couple of years, I can see why
> Dudley is correct. Those habit patterns you learn early in your
> flying training WILL save your life, I guarantee it. Flying is like
> life, you are always learning how to do it while never truly mastering
> it.

Sorta Catch 22, Cruel Shoe scenario. When you are least able to select your
CFI and leaning environment.....
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:12:25 -0400, WJRFlyBoy
> wrote:

>
>I won't and the offer is much appreciated, Dudley. Two things back for you:
>
>One, your reputation precedes you, more than one emailer has told me you
>are open to off Usenet advice.
>
>Two, I understand (somewhat) your frustrations with Usenet, keep reminding
>yourself that the best you have to give you may have already given. The
>archives are, imo, as good, in ways better, tools of goodwill. You have
>several lifetimes already compiled there and if you drop your pants a
>little lower, I'll kiss the bottom of your butt too.

OHHHHMMYYYYGAWD No!
That's more than I really needed to hear.
I have a strong constutition and a very high pain threshold, but the
thought of that is almost more than I can bare..er bear...aw, never
mind.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 04:14:16 -0400, Roger wrote:

> OHHHHMMYYYYGAWD No!
> That's more than I really needed to hear.
> I have a strong constutition and a very high pain threshold, but the
> thought of that is almost more than I can bare..er bear...aw, never
> mind.
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger, I have a Streak lookalike, 20 weeks now, replacement kitten like
yours :}}
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 05:39:31 -0400, WJRFlyBoy
> wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 04:14:16 -0400, Roger wrote:
>
>> OHHHHMMYYYYGAWD No!
>> That's more than I really needed to hear.
>> I have a strong constutition and a very high pain threshold, but the
>> thought of that is almost more than I can bare..er bear...aw, never
>> mind.
>> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>> www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Roger, I have a Streak lookalike, 20 weeks now, replacement kitten like
>yours :}}

If he/she/or it grows up like Streak you'd beter plan on a second job
so you can afford to keep him fed.<:-))

He's afraid of strangers, but will attack a dog that is 10 times his
size.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 22:17:01 -0400, Roger wrote:

>>Roger, I have a Streak lookalike, 20 weeks now, replacement kitten like
>>yours :}}
>
> If he/she/or it grows up like Streak you'd beter plan on a second job
> so you can afford to keep him fed.<:-))

bad news, my Tommy has a twin brother. yikes!

> He's afraid of strangers, but will attack a dog that is 10 times his
> size.

Yep, got two of those too.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.