On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 06:46:11 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:39:20 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:47:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If GA is to
flourish in the future, it will have to attract more "average" people
into it's ranks.
Isn't that the philosophy of NASA's Free Flight concept?
Sounds more to me like NASA coming up with another excuse for spending a
ton of our tax dollars :-)


Given the failure of NASA's Free Flight concept to produce tangible
results, I'd have to agree.

What I have in mind is a bit more achievable; manuals written so that
they don't intimidate the section of the market that doesn't respond
positively to an " engineering approach" to ground school, and CFI's who
come to realize the value of learning how to project complicated
subjects in a manner that makes a housewife as comfortable in the
learning process as an engineer.

I understand your reasoning for that opinion, but I believe it
overlooks a few salient facts. The NAS is, by design, an engineered
system. Those who are uncomfortable dealing with the specifics and
absolutes of engineering and engineered systems are probably
unqualified to operate in that environment, and shouldn't get involved
with it. The dedication and commitment required to remain current,
and the fundamental change in attitude necessary to responsibly
command a flight demand a certain "fire in the belly" toward being an
airman. The financial, time commitment, and negative marketing
obstacles serve to test that desire, and weed out those would be
flight students who lack the required commitment to succeed at
becoming a competent pilot, not merely a certificate holder.

That's pure unadulterated bull hockey. I've spent over 50 years involved
in the flight instruction business and I know it fairly well. Given the
right instructor, there's absolutely no reason in the world that would
preclude anyone with normal intelligence and in average physical
condition from learning to fly and fly well; system or no system.
All this "engineering crap is just that...crap; and the pilots who
spread this crap are in part guilty of discouraging people from entering
aviation.

Granted, I don't have the breadth of knowledge on the subject of
natural aptitude for airmanship and the depth of personal experience
you claim, but in my limited time of 38 years as an airman I've seen
several students fail to complete their flight instruction due to
either what I perceive as (probably well deserved) self-doubt in their
ability perform adequately in the NAS, or the lack of adequate funds
and time. Those students had no difficulty mastering the flight
lessons, they simply weren't able to meet the demands required for
being a pilot. Those whose financial and time circumstances may
pursue flight training at a later date. Those who recognized the
unsuitability of their individual personality mix for commanding a
flight moved on toward other "hobbies" like golf.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to fly an airplane.

All who fly airplanes are not qualified to command a flight.

My students have ranged from airline pilots to a guy who used to
own the deli down the street. All were entirely competent and
understood the material quite well; and all went flawlessly
through the "system".

Although I find it difficult to believe, that in 50 years you have
never encountered a flight student who was unsuitable for the role of
airman, I firmly believe that there are many of our fellow citizens
who are not so suited. I believe the dilatant has no place in the
sky. To attract that sort of person to flight training, without
benefit of some technical enhancement (GPS, Capstone, etc.) does them,
and current airmen, a disservice. The current demands of competent
airmanship must be reduced if the inept and ill suited are to be
accommodated, IMO. It's not just a matter of making it easy for them
to comprehend the syllabus materials if such results in them merely
becoming certificate holders.