The Differences Between PPLicensing And Learning

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:20:46 -0800, gatt wrote:

"Dallas" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:43:14 -0500, WJRFlyBoy wrote:

when talking with CFIs, they are geared to quick rather than
thorough.

I personally appreciate that attitude in a CFI considering that time
really
is money in this business... your money. His job is to get you to the
checkride ready to pass and if he's good he'll know exactly what that
takes.

And every instructor I've ever known will be MORE than happy to take your
$30-$40 for any additional training you might elect to take. I'm not aware
of one that would turn down somebody (student, private, commercial etc) who
wants additional training.

-c

The assumption might be that you have the right CFI, if not, it may be more
time but for what value? I'm hopeful by the time I get my PPL that I can
also access exactly where my deficiencies are and that will target the
right CFI.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:23:58 -0800, gatt wrote:

"WJRFlyBoy" wrote in message
...


So it is fair to say that the outcome of pre-solo sim is generally
negative?

Flights sims are spectacular for teaching you the instrument panel and
navigation, but overuse can reinforce bad habits (like radio com, use of
checklists, cheating by looking at the map or GPS, taxi procedures, etc)
Their biggest downfall for student pilots is that the experiences of
peripheral vision and flight control pressures are different. The yoke on
a Cessna 152 will require a different amount and type of touch than a
typical joystick or plastic PC yoke.

Having said that, I'm a fan of MSFS and play with it one or twice a week.

-c
CP-ASEL-IA

I'm getting the understanding that how you use a sim comes best post-flight
which appeared bassackwards until your comments and others. There can't be
zero value, the trick appears to be knowing where the value is and
concentrating on that.

In my case, it prolly has as much to do with justifying to my wife that
triple-screen 24" monitor, overclocked, freon cooled PC I couldn't convince
her I needed for .xls spreadsheets.

wow - I think that is the truth.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:07:40 -0800, Bob Gardner wrote:

I can see a lot of time devoted to
un-learning if everyone followed the OP's method.

Bob Gardner

Cruel shoe, Bob They weren't cast in concrete, but to be sure, here is
what I typed relevant to your comment (which may have only been aimed at
the sim time).

For a start, I won't begin my first instruction until I can do the
following:

Pass all tests with a 95% minimum
Handle with ease all traffic control and similar commo
Dissect the anatomy of my training aircraft
Understand what and how the instrumentation works (shortcomings included)
Own all the fundamentally necessary flight gear (i.e carry-ons in flight
bag or on person)
Obtain hours in flight simulation
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:18:00 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Additionally, the student can experience things in the simulator that
he/she can't or shouldn't do in the actual aircraft. The PC simulator
is, in my opinion, a valuable tool if used correctly.

I would respectfully disagree with this analysis based on hundreds of
hours spent working with both primary students, flight instructors, and
Microsoft.
Sims have their use, but if used before solo can actually be detrimental
for various reasons, some of them absolutely critical to student progress.
After solo, and when used with the proper supervision, the sims have
their productive side as well.

Is this the duty of a good CFI to point out where an individual student
would benefit and why?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

In article ,
Jay Maynard wrote:

On 2008-02-28, Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
Jay Maynard wrote:
Don't underestimate the power of muscle memory, too. My ease of flying the
Tecnam Sierra and difficulty transitioning into the Zodiac, both after 15
years out of the cockpit, are directly related to that.
What did you fly in the Old Days(tm)?

Four-place singles: 172, Warrior, Archer, Tiger, a few hours in a Tobago.
All 1977-1984 vintage aside from the Tobago.

I'm asking only because I've been out for 30+ years (Champ/Cherokee/
C-150), and came back in January, where I've been getting refresher
instruction in the Tecnam Sierra (which I like a lot). Almost ready to
wrap up my BFR, too.

The stuff I flew feels just like the Sierra, according to my flying
reflexes.

The only thing that doesn't feel quite right is throttle on the right of
the stick. (I know there's a second throttle to the left, but its
position is a bit high to be comfortable.)

Other than that, I felt right at home. :}

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:42:13 -0000, Jim Logajan wrote:

Bruce Williams wrote
in his book "Microsoft Flight Simulator as a Training Aid." That is, while
he too says pre-solo simming _can_ be detrimental,

Damn, I could have read that, duh on my part...
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:29:58 -0500, Dudley Henriques wrote:

I enjoy the sim myself and have opted to retain FS2004 rather than go to
FSX for various reasons.

A couple quick ones in favor of both?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:58:38 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

I know you're not a pilot yet, and that this is all very exciting and
intoxicating. Flying IS the best thing you can do, head and shoulders
(literally!) above every other human endeavor, but I'm about to let you in
on a little secret.

It's a secret that your government, and most of the "big watch" pilot crowd,
will never, EVER tell you. You may want to be sitting down when you read
this -- but here it is:

Flying is easy. You're making it into a much bigger deal than it is.

Yeah, it's a tendency of mine, I am sure you are right but I also have a
pressing, personal obligation to push the capability envelope. It extends
to my business profile, I make a living seeking the work no one wants, has
the least chance of success and don't get me started on the VLJ
reservations project that we are failing at big-time...for the moment.

Regardless, you're right and I appreciate that you took the time to force
me to re-center, thx.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:58:38 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

The FAA and a large segment of the pilot population would like you
to believe that it takes some sort of super-human skill and intelligence to
learn to fly, but it just ain't true.

Why is this so? How has this situation evolved?

1. The FAA is "government", which is in the regulatory business. Thus, each
year requires more regulations, lest the FAA find itself large pointless
(which, on the GA side of flying, it largely *is*). Since, by nature, no
government agency can EVER solve the problems it was set up to address (or
risk being eliminated), it *must* continue to make things more complex. It
also must find new problems to fix, since most of the original problems were
quickly resolved. If that means largely inventing new problems, all the
better.

I work with the military in software, you are right but I would also, in
their defense (pun), they determine that solving problems is fraught with
inevitable delays, wasted time; they have little sense of time management
since they have little control of time. It takes ten people to make a
committee decision that you could make in ten minutes. They adjust to this
sordid reality (and do solve problems in the process).

Sometimes.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:58:38 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

2. The "big watch" crowd likes to boast of their flying prowess, and likes
to feel above and separate from the "folks on the ground". Obviously, if
flying were easy and accessible, this would destroy their self image, so it
plays into their game to make flying appear really, really hard. Thus, many
airports have unfriendly, elitist FBOs, and pilot groups are traditionally
exclusionary good ol' boy clubs, unfriendly and suspicious of newcomers.

lol You are right there but the good is that individuals who decide not to
be part of that crowd emerge from it. I see that here on RAS/RAP, both
entities.

After long observations and pondering, I believe this attitude evolved from
the combat pilots of World War II, who truly demonstrated superior skills
and abilities. Those guys moved to their local airports after the war, and
their natural attitudes toward newcomers (not combat pilots) was an "us and
them" mentality. To some degree, this attitude has been imprinted on every
generation of new pilots ever since.

Interesting historical perspective.

These two groups, inadvertently working together, have almost killed general
aviation in America. As usual, the FAA's work is done under the guise of
"safety" -- the catch-word that makes EVERYTHING okay. (The only words in
our society that kick open the treasury vault quicker, and eliminates our
rights quicker, is: "It's for the children" -- which have been used for
everything from school busing to the building of government-sponsored
casinos.)

Forgot one. "Fight the evil-doers".

We can fix the FAA, given enough political will -- but I don't know what to
do about the big watch crowd. I belong to every pilot's group, both locally
and nationally, and I see this attitude toward newcomers slowly improving
(basically as a result of their numbers dwindling to the point of death)
but it's been a glacially slow change.

Boy's Clubs are part of the less illustrious history of the male
constituency. Don't expect change, just a different set of rules.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!