I'm going to attempt this one more time, then I'm out of here.
See my inserts;

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
Dudley Henriques wrote:

Apparently there is absolutely nothing I can say or do that will get
the
few of you who just aren't following this in context away from the
flight test as the focus of this discussion.

Actually, I'm just trying to keep the thread honest with the post to
which
you've just replied. You claimed that Shirley had not followed the
thread
when you wrote:


May I please, respectfully ask you to read up on this thread a
bit more
from the beginning .

Part of the problem here is that YOU are reading what you want to see
into someone else's comments and projecting them back in a different
context. Take the above;
I didn't "CLAIM" that Shirley didn't read the thread. I respectfully
suggested that she perhaps read it again from the beginning. There is
one hell of a HUGE difference between these two interpretations and the
whole crux of your continued posts to me can be centered on this
interpretative difference.



because she was discussing issues related to the oral exam. You also
wrote:

You are confusing what rote defines in a flight test. Rote can
be used
to answer to a question as you indicate, OR it can be the way
something
is PERFORMED, which is what we are discussing here on this
thread.
What we are discussing here has absolutely nothing at all to
do with a
verbal answer to a question.

Which seems a little odd since we are not only discussing the oral
test, but
your finding these pilots to have insufficient comprehension. How did
you
discover this w/o conversation with the pilots in question?

In YOUR context, "insufficient" apparently means "not sufficient." In my
context, insufficient means "could be better".

My findings have little to do with the flight test per se.

But you've been mentioning the flight test (and oral) too! You appear
to be
[trying to] shift the thread around in a way I don't grasp.

The ONLY reason I've even mentioned the flight test OR the oral is in
answer to the horrific thread creep that you two are forcing.

They were
made on flight checks given to pilots AFTER the flight test had been
passed and are only relevant to that scenario.

Right. I think we all understand this. These were pilots that had
passed
the PPL checkride, but whom you [at some point after their checkride]
found
lacking in comprehension. You believed "remedial" action required.
That's
very clear.

Believe it or not, you have this in context....almost!
I didn't find these pilots lacking in comprehension that would indicate
a lower than required to pass the flight test. I DID however, find these
pilots lacking in the comprehension that I was seeing from pilots who
hadn't come through the accelerated training path.
Can you POSSIBLY understand this in context? I'll reduce it even further
for you.
I found the pilots I was checking could have been even BETTER pilots
based on the methods I was using to check them out. The "remedial
training" I gave them simply brought them up to where I considered their
comprehensive levels should be.
Again....I DON'T use a DE syllabus to check out pilots. I use an
entirely different method. There is NO comparison between the two
methods.

But you've been steadfastly avoiding the issue of why you considered
"remedial" action necessary if the pilots you found lacking were
already
sufficiently safe. I can imagine all sorts of perfectly reasonable
answers, but I've yet to see yours.

Is it HUMANLY POSSIBLE that anyone could misunderstand what I have said
above? They could have been BETTER. Where they were was sufficient!!!
Are you getting it YET?????

I will achieve nothing further
by trying to sort all of it out for you again.

You could try answering the question once: why would you feel
"remedial"
action necessary if the pilots you found lacking in comprehension were
already sufficiently safe?

Believe me, THIS is the last time I'll dealing with this. Anything
further I'll consider a troll post.

I know you've no problem expressing your opinions, but just to make
things a
little more clear for you, I'll provide some of the possible answers
that I
see:

o They were safe as defined by the PPL exam, but could/should be
more safe.

BINGO!!! Now was this all that hard to understand?

o They were safe at the time of the PPL checkride, but were no
longer so.

o Comprehension doesn't impact safety, but I [you] believe it
necessary
for other reasons.

But I really do want to know *your* answer.

- Andrew

Get lost! God, what a f*****g idiot!

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt