On Jun 10, 5:04*am, "BDS" wrote:
Some students want the first approach, some may want the second - it's
probably 95% to 5%. *If you assume they all want the more detailed
explanation for everything, you will have frustrated students who either
think that flying is too complicated for them to learn, or who quit because
they are bored.

There were two extreme examples in my ground school (but not in my
class). One had failed written once already, and they other said one
day, "Forget learning...if you want to pass the exam, this is best
tool you can use: gave me link to web site. It has most of the
questions in easy-to-memorize format." I asked them why not just
learn what they need to know, at least enough to get a 70...and they
both frowned as if I has asked them to learn to change diapers.

When I took driver's ed in high school they didn't explain the inner
workings of a carburetor, nor did they need to in order for me to be able to
learn how to drive. *Knowing how a carburetor works and having the ability
to tear one down and put it back together again does not make me a better
driver.

True. I wouldn't expect explanation of GPS in ground school, or
Pascal's principle, etc, but which many situations like this, it
doesn't hurt to know.

You want to know every detail - fine. *You just need to find an instructor
who is willing and able to do that for you. *As you know, not all of them
are nor do they need to be in order to be able to teach you to fly and fly
well. *I suspect you dispute that fact, but history has already proven you
wrong.

No, I do not dispute this. I have learned that flying is like many
other things. It is very possible to get by using mostly manipulation
of that which is presented to you.

-Le Chaud Lapin-