First Solo and Total Hours Flown

"Stefan" wrote in message
. ..
Peter Duniho schrieb:

Ahh, yes...and the tautology raises its ugly head. Congratulations.

It's debatable at which point connection ends and tautology begins.

Not when you make it clear that you've defined "not really interested" as
"not able to muster enough discipline to really learn something".

You have chosen to define your conclusion in terms of the premise, thereby
ensuring the "truth" value of your statement. That is, in fact, the very
definition of tautology. No debate about it.

Peter Duniho schrieb:
"Stefan" wrote in message
. ..
Peter Duniho schrieb:

Ahh, yes...and the tautology raises its ugly head. Congratulations.
It's debatable at which point connection ends and tautology begins.

Not when you make it clear that you've defined "not really interested" as
"not able to muster enough discipline to really learn something".

You have chosen to define your conclusion in terms of the premise, thereby
ensuring the "truth" value of your statement. That is, in fact, the very
definition of tautology. No debate about it.

I've never defined anything.

"mike regish" wrote in message
...
Part of the problem with the car analogy is that in a plane we are flying
through an unseen medium. Some people, I think can have a hard time
viscerally comprehending that. You cna see a road and any bumps in it.
Some can "see" the air pretty well and know what to expect, but some never
really develope that sense.

I don't think so. Most drivers aren't paying any attention to the road over
which they travel, and the basics of operating an airplane are easy enough
to master without considering at all the physical nature of the air through
which one flies.

I agree that this perception makes a difference in how good a pilot (or
driver) is. But it's not necessary, and many people in both activities
never develop that perception (though probably this failure occurs more
often for drivers than pilots). The car analogy works just fine...a person
who can be taught to drive can be taught to fly an airplane.

It might not be possible to make them a pilot, but they clearly have the
motor skills required for the basic control of an airplane.

I learned in a hang glider, and I think that helped me a lot with my PPL
since I was much more intimately aware of what the wind does. It really
needs to become instinctive. If you could teach some of these
"unteachables" in perfectly calm winds all the time, anybody who can
handle a car should be able to handle a plane. Just teach to the numbers.
Throw in some wind, which is almost always (if not always) present, and
their reactions aren't there.

But just as not being in "perfectly calm winds" causes problems for some
would-be pilots, so too will not being on "perfectly smooth roads" cause
problems for some would-be drivers. It really is the same issue, the main
difference being that the standard of qualification is lower for drivers,
and so we actually have "certificated drivers" who are not capable of safely
dealing with any road condition significantly different from clear and dry.

Just ask the millions of drivers here in the Seattle area who earlier this
week clogged our roads with vehicles improperly equipped for the snow
conditions, driven by drivers unqualified to operate in those conditions.

Most should get it at some point, but there may be a few who never will.

Agreed. But it usually has nothing to do with basic motor skills. There
are lots of people who are permitted to drive a motor vehicle who still
aren't suited for being a pilot.

Pete

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
I've never defined anything.

I guess someone else wrote this then:

"Stefan" wrote in message
. ..
I have met plenty of people who do not seem to be able to muster enough
discipline to really learn something that they are interested in.

Then they were not really interested.

Peter Duniho schrieb:

I've never defined anything.

I guess someone else wrote this then:

I have met plenty of people who do not seem to be able to muster enough
discipline to really learn something that they are interested in.
Then they were not really interested.


This same person also wrote in the same post:

I myself have done a couple of things in my life which I thought
(and professed) I was interested in and realized only later that
this wasn't really the case.

Peter Duniho schrieb:

I've never defined anything.

I guess someone else wrote this then:

I have met plenty of people who do not seem to be able to muster enough
discipline to really learn something that they are interested in.

Then they were not really interested.


This same person also wrote in the same post:

I myself have done a couple of things in my life which I thought
(and professed) I was interested in and realized only later that
this wasn't really the case.

Recently, fred posted:

My perspective:

I have yet to solo.

I have 5 hours under my belt and in my logbook, starting with no prior
experience.
I've done everything the FAA wants at least once (except land the
plane).
My CFI tells me I'll solo by 10.

And, if it turns out that you don't, it's no big deal. If you feel like
you are ready when your CFI says "go", then have at it, if not, take
another hour to sort out your concerns.

I'm about 50, I'm having fun, and I see no reason to push it faster
than I can handle it. It's all confidence and practice (aside from the
money).

Absolutely the right attitude. There is no prize for soloing sooner and no
penalty for soloing later than the next guy. One thing about those of us
who started flying in our middle age; we're more conservative. When I
started, I knew that there was no real chance that I'd have a career in
aviation, so there was no pressure to follow some fast-track notion of
progress. It's better to get it right, rather than get it fast.

Neil

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
I myself have done a couple of things in my life which I thought
(and professed) I was interested in and realized only later that
this wasn't really the case.

So what? That doesn't explain your response to my statement about people
who were interested, but failed in their interest. Or are you so arrogant
as to think that just because you have had "a couple" of situations in which
you claimed to be interested, but decided you weren't, that every other
person who fails to accomplish something that they profess interest in must
then also not actually have interest?

Peter Duniho schrieb:

I myself have done a couple of things in my life which I thought
(and professed) I was interested in and realized only later that
this wasn't really the case.

So what? That doesn't explain your response to my statement about people
who were interested, but failed in their interest.

But it disproves your claim that I made a definition.

Or are you so arrogant
as to think that just because you have had "a couple" of situations in which
you claimed to be interested, but decided you weren't, that every other
person who fails to accomplish something that they profess interest in must
then also not actually have interest?

I am so arrogant to claim that I have yet to meet somebody who lacks
discipline when doing something he's really interested in.

Stefan

"Stefan" wrote in message
. ..
So what? That doesn't explain your response to my statement about people
who were interested, but failed in their interest.

But it disproves your claim that I made a definition.

It does no such thing.

I am so arrogant to claim that I have yet to meet somebody who lacks
discipline when doing something he's really interested in.

That has nothing to do with your reply to MY comment about people who DO
have interest not having the necessary discipline.

Pete