I passed the checkride, now need a good GPS and passenger headset

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...
Anyone who thinks using a GPS correctly in the context of
aerial navigation is like turning on an electric light needs some dual on
the
basics of what constitutes proper flight instruction .

I have a pretty good idea of what constitutes proper flight
instruction, Dud; mine was courtesy of the United States Navy. I
understand it's generally considered a fairly rigorous program.

I have no problem with Navair, and the training you have received or not
received is not at issue here.What I'm addressing is your statement that
asserts something as fact that I don't believe is fact based on my direct
exposure to the environment in which you have chosen to assert yourself;
that being the training environment from the instructor's side of the coin.
The simple truth is that you have stated the following;

" if you have been flying long, you know that a new pilot with a GPS will
quickly become dependent and will never develop pilotage skills."

......and I take exception to that. It's simply not true enough to be
presented as a glittering generalization like this.
In my experience as an instructor over time, the exact opposite would be
indicated unless the pilot in question was trained improperly. You are
attempting to convey with this statement that a new pilot with a GPS is
likely to become dependent on that GPS. My contention is that any properly
trained pilot will use a GPS simply as one more available tool to be used in
conjuction with other navigational skills, pilotage being one of these
skills.

I take particular notice of the following comment from the same
source;

It's common knowledge that many recently trained pilots have not
learned to navigate well. It's often been discussed here."

Whether this comment is true or false in its entirety isn't my main
concern.

That is the essential notion being discussed here, Dud. You're
changing the subject. And if it's not your main concern, why do you
take particular notice of it?

I'm not changing the subject. The subject I addressed in my initial post was
simply an opposition comment to your direct statement. My comment was
direct, in context, and to the point.


Any pilot properly trained will have been taught basic piloting skills
and know how to use them.

You're begging the question, saying a properly trained pilot has been
properly trained. Duh!

Quite to the contrary, it is YOUR statement that a new pilot who has a GPS
in his/her navigational equation will become dependent on that GPS to the
point of not developing normal navigational skills that begs the question;
"has this pilot been properly trained?"

I'm begging nothing. I'm telling you that any properly trained pilot will
have been trained to use all the navigational skills especially the basics
and the backups to the basics, and will have been taught to develop the
habit patterns necessary to use those skills.
For you to pre-suppose that the insertion of a GPS into such a pilot's
navigational environment would cause that pilot to neglect all that he/she
has been trained to do is in my opinion patently absurd on it's face.

Why would a brand-new private pilot who was "properly trained," and
has confidence in his ability to navigate by DR and Pilotage, think
that the first thing he needs is a GPS?
A "properly trained pilot" thinking the "first thing he needs is a GPS" is
the oxymoron of the day.
The fact is that NO properly trained pilot will NEED a GPS. The GPS, as I
have sated for the properly trained pilot, will be simply an additional
navigational tool to be used in conjection with whatever backup is necessary
for that GPS to produce a safe flight under the conditions present
concerning that flight.

There is absolutely no basis in fact that I have seen anyway, that
pre-supposes a new pilot will use a GPS at the expense of normal
backup navigation skills.

You seem to have it backwards. It's the GPS that is supposed to be
the "backup."

Actually, since I've been saying from the onset of this discussion that the
GPS is in fact just one more navigational tool, it appears that it might be
you who has things backwards :-)

Any properly trained pilot...

Now if we're talking improperly trained pilots........that's another
story!

We are. Some young pilots I've talked with in recent years cannot get
from here to there without using VORs. If they depend VORs to navigate
in VMC, you expect me to believe they won't depend on GPS, which is
even easier?

I have no doubt that there are pilots out here who rely on one basic system
for navigation and that doing this is bad juju, be it VOR, ADF, of GPS for
that matter. No one is arguing that issue. These pilots exist as we all
know. I am arguing your statement that this type of pilot constitutes a
majority
as you indicate with your use of the phrase "a new pilot with a GPS will
quickly become dependent"
You are taking what I consider the exception and projecting that exception
as the rule, and in my opinion, you are wrong. Hence the opening discourse
on what constitutes proper training.

I strongly suspect some young CFIs are not very good at pilotage
either.

I wouldn't argue this. Notice you correctly used the word "some".

Don't forget, Dud, that 50% of all CFIs are below average. ((:-))

I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of flight instructors.

Dudley Henriques

Dudley,

Don't forget, Dud, that 50% of all CFIs are below average. ((:-))

I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of flight instructors.


Uhm, Vince is alluding to the surprise of President Roosevelt (I think)
about the fact that 50 percent of the US population had (and have) a
below-average intelligence. This, as Vince's statement, is inherent in
the definition of "average" - well, not exactly, I know, but kind of,
assuming an equal distribution around the average.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article ,
Thomas Borchert wrote:

Uhm, Vince is alluding to the surprise of President Roosevelt (I think)
about the fact that 50 percent of the US population had (and have) a
below-average intelligence.

Given that time frame, are you implying that the "dumb" ones immigrated
from Europe to North America while the "smart" ones stayed in Europe?
:-))

John,

are you implying that the "dumb" ones immigrated
from Europe to North America

No, I was just pointing out how statistics work. However, you may be
right ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Dudley,

Don't forget, Dud, that 50% of all CFIs are below average. ((:-))

I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of flight instructors.


Uhm, Vince is alluding to the surprise of President Roosevelt (I think)
about the fact that 50 percent of the US population had (and have) a
below-average intelligence. This, as Vince's statement, is inherent in
the definition of "average" - well, not exactly, I know, but kind of,
assuming an equal distribution around the average.

Mr. Norris' (all inclusive) statement about new pilots and how they "WILL"
interface with a GPS is in my opinion incorrect. If this statement WAS
correct, it would directly address the training issue as I have stated.
There will certainly be individual new pilots who could become dependent on
a single navigational tool as indicated by Mr. Norris. This again directly
addresses the training issue, as these pilots will have been improperly
trained.
In my opinion, the individual pilots who could become GPS dependent as the
result of improper training are far below the statistic level needed to
meet the generalized statement made by Mr. Norris......Mr. Norris and Mr.
Roosevelt notwithstanding that is :-)))))))) .
Dudley Henriques

Dudley,

Mr. Norris' (all inclusive) statement about new pilots and how they "WILL"
interface with a GPS is in my opinion incorrect.


I fully agree.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Don't forget, Dud, that 50% of all CFIs are below average. ((:-))

I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of flight instructors.

Uhm, Vince is alluding to the surprise of President Roosevelt (I think)
about the fact that 50 percent of the US population had (and have) a
below-average intelligence.

Right. I don't know about FDR, but the statement that "50% of all
_______ are below average" is a favorite of math and statistics
teachers.

This, as Vince's statement, is inherent in the definition of "average" -
well, not exactly, I know, but kind of, assuming an equal distribution around the average.

Most statistics books I've seen say the median and the mode are, like
the arithmetic mean, "averages." But you got the right idea; half of
all cfi's are below the arithmetic mean only if the population is
normally distributed. Quite unlikely.

vince norris

Vincent,

But you got the right idea; half of
all cfi's are below the arithmetic mean only if the population is
normally distributed.


And a few extremely smart pilots can make up for a ton of a "just a
little dumb" ones.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert writes:
Vincent,

But you got the right idea; half of
all cfi's are below the arithmetic mean only if the population is
normally distributed.


And a few extremely smart pilots can make up for a ton of a "just a
little dumb" ones.

"Make up for" how? The extremely smart (good?) ones will
skew the data and make even more below average.

..... is like turning on an electric light needs some dual on
the asics of what constitutes proper flight instruction .

I have a pretty good idea of what constitutes proper flight
instruction, Dud; mine was courtesy of the United States Navy. I
understand it's generally considered a fairly rigorous program.

I have no problem with Navair, and the training you have received or not
received is not at issue here.

You made it an issue, Dud. Read what you said, quoted above. You said
I don't know "what constitutes proper flight instruction"--although I
experienced what is probably the best flight instruction available to
any American.

What I'm addressing is your statement that asserts something as fact..

No, Dud, it's a statement of my opinion. To be more precise, the
expression that something is "like turning on an electric light" is a
simile. Similes are never "facts."

.....and I take exception to that.

And that's your opinion, and of course you're entitled to it.

It's simply not true enough to be presented as a glittering generalization..

Dud, you don't know what a "glittering generalization is."

I My contention is that any properly trained pilot will use a GPS simply as one more available tool to be used in
conjuction with other navigational skills, pilotage being one of these
skills.

You made that point, or came close to it, in your previous post. No
need to repeat it.

You're begging the question, saying a properly trained pilot has been
properly trained. Duh!

Quite to the contrary.... I'm begging nothing...

Dud, you don't know what "begging the question" means, either.

it is YOUR statement that a new pilot who has a GPS
in his/her navigational equation will become dependent on that GPS to the
point of not developing normal navigational skills that begs the question;
"has this pilot been properly trained?"

Dud, "begging the question" does NOT mean what you think it means. It
is the name of a logical fallacy in which one's conclusion is
contained in his premise. Such as saying "A properly trained pilot
has been properly trained"--which is what you said above, even though
you changed the wording a little.

The fact is that NO properly trained pilot will NEED a GPS.

Dud, for crying out loud, DON'T YOU REALIZE YOU ARE AGREEING WITH
WHAT I SAID IN MY RESPONSE TO THE ORIGINAL POST?

Did you read the thread before barging in? Go back and read the
original post, and read my response to it.

I would offer one more comment on your posting: You may "properly
train" a student but you have no idea what he's going to go out and do
when you're not there. Why do so many pilots kill themselves doing
stupid things?

vince norris