The Differences Between PPLicensing And Learning

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!