Big John wrote in
:

snip

There's plenty of flight training that goes on without actual
demonstration. You can call it whatever you want...

I guess what you are saying is that a student can read a book about
how to fly and then go fly??? Sounds like a Laurel and Hardy Movie
after they got airborne and the book fell out the window.

Not at all. I was simply responding to Greg's opinion that it doesn't
qualify as training unless it is demonstrated. And by his definition, some
of your approach would not seem to qualify by his definition either, since
you never actually demonstrated, for example, the actual behavior of the
instruments during a vacuum failure (gyro get's "lazy" before falling over
- which can be confusing and disorienting as compared to a black stick-on
cover appearing), or a pitot-tube ram-pressure block (where the airspeed
increases as you raise the nose so you keep raising it and reducing power
until you stall out at a higher altitude), etc.

My point was that he's talking about semantics. Training is education,
which includes actual demonstrations, but also includes ingraining
information into the student on how to deal with certain situations that
are never demonstrated.

snip
Enough of my rant.

Yeah, me too.


Greg Esres wrote in
m:

Porpoising was described, including what causes it, how to avoid
it, and what to do if it is encountered.

Describing porpoising is not "training" in my book, it's merely
"describing." ;-)

Discussion of flying techniques on the ground, which is not followed
by specific maneuvers in the air, is of extremely limited value. I
can't tell you how often a student can describe in flawless detail on
the ground how something is to occur, but his execution in the air
will be radically different.

However, you might describe porpoising as aggravated bouncing; if you
can recover from a bounce, you should never porpoise.