The Differences Between PPLicensing And Learning

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

I hate to burst your bubble like this -- I, too, once thought learning to
fly was beyond my means, and must be really, really hard -- but once you've
learned the truth, you can quickly and efficiently move from standing on the
ground to soaring through the sky. Find a mentor through AOPA (if you need
help finding one, email me off-group), and get to it -- you'll never regret
it!
--
Jay Honeck

I don't bring a lot of ego bubbles, I find that they waste my time, and
others and get in the way of the task in hand which, in this case, is to be
as absolutely good as I can be at flying. Which, if like college, may be
beyond dismal but I can live with efforted failure, some say that will be
the engraving on my tombstone.

"He tried with unmatched attitude, he gave all his heart, he failed like a
1960's Japanese radio."
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:27:12 -0800, Steve Hix wrote:

"WJRFlyBoy" wrote in message
...
I have been reading the various threads about spins, forced landings, etc
and talking with CFIs. The road to a PPL is preset in requirements by FAA.
I see that most people are happy to do nothing more than that.

Where do you see that?

I don't understand. For the most part, I see people who want to get x hours
in y (shortest) time to get their license.

How does that show that they don't want to do anything past the minimum
requirements?

It shows in how they focus, I have sons in their early 30s, it is societal
and environmental. This is the approximate age group that makes up the
student pilot population give or take 5 years. The schools, many of them,
pander to this, slam bam thank you ma'am mentality, when is the last time
you saw an ad that had a pipe-smoking geyser with a cardigan sweater and a
look of slow process in his eyes? Not to mention that the schools are
driven by financial necessity to get em in and out.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:36:53 -0800, Steve Hix wrote:

In article ,
WJRFlyBoy wrote:

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:56:26 GMT, Steve Foley wrote:

"WJRFlyBoy" wrote in message
...

1) I passed on answering your questions that honestly aren't worth my
effort or the Usenet space.

And I will to the same

plonk

lol Touchy I would say.

Well, you *were* pretty rude. Unless you think that blowing off someone
because they're too stupid to deal with is good manners.

Think about it.

I never mention Foley being stupid, I expressed my opinion as you can see
above. He took offense which is his perfect prerogative.

In your case, either purposefully or not, you have mistated my response to
him, time will tell if you have an agenda or honestly mistaken.

I have been on and around Usenet since the Deja News days.

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

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:46:14 -0500, Roger wrote:

There are plenty of examples. The ones that jump out at me
are the landing accidents that often don't hit the headlines,
accidents caused by poor training. Landing fast and flat, running off
the end, ballooning and stalling and landing hard. Accelerated stalls
caused by pulling back hard after a buzz job. (Those are usually fatal
and hit the newspapers.) Failing to understand DA and trying to depart
an inadequate runway. A really common one is carb ice; we hear of
accidents/incidents all the time due to that one. It's not well taught
or understood. And, of course as you mentioned, VFR into IMC.

Dan


If this were truly a lack of training, I would expect to see more of these
types of accidents immediately after getting a certificate.

If you did, you would argue that it was a lack of experience not training
to make it fit your argument.

He's correct. According to the safety literature I've read they figure
those type of accidents would show up soon. BUT OTOH IIRC they figure
the highest accident rate happens somewhere between 300 and 500 hours.

It's a bit more complex figuring out the reasoning though.
There are many reasons for the rate peaking in this range.

Let me give you one I am intimately familiar with. Strength training
injuries.

It is customary for newbies to go thru several phases of experience (in
most any new learning paradigm)and related performance.

1) Fear - performance poor
2) Less fear - performance moderate
3) Comfort - performance gains
4) Relaxed comfort - performance excellence
5) Carelessness, lack of fear, lack of details - injury

This progression to digression is common to many complex tasks. The next
would be auto racing.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 10:07:40 -0800, gatt wrote:

When people here talking about getting it done quickly or in as little
flight time as possible, it's important to distinguish between license mills
and people who just want to provide -EFFICIENT- training. There's no point
in drilling holes in the sky if you're not learning in the process.
An -effective and efficient- training program will get you through in a
shorter time because less training time will have been wasted, not because
your training is being short-changed.

-c

Yes, well said, it is what I meant without the right words, thx.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:33:58 -0800, gatt wrote:

"WJRFlyBoy" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:35:14 -0800 (PST), William Hung wrote:

For your written, I recommend the King's video and computer test prep
set. They were boring, but was watchable. The practice test was
very helpful. After spending on average 1-2 hours a day in 15-20
intervals I got 95% on the test. The test itself only took me 15-20
minutes to complete. I think I would have gotten a 100% if I wasn't
so overly confident. I rushed thru it.

Wil

Thanks, I have heard more or less the same. What would you recommend that
/isn't/ test oriented (reading, testing and other materials); that is
learning oriented without regard to the test results?

The Jeppeson Private Pilot book is good. Also, Machado is enormously
popular: http://www.rodmachado.com/

Plenty of others and I'm probably missing a couple of authors who are on
this forum. I recommend them as well. :

-c

Didn't have this resource and, yeah, I got my credit card and eye on a
couple or more here in the groups who I will fail to mention as my
contribution to their ego-checks. lol
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:15:21 -0800, gatt wrote:

"WJRFlyBoy" wrote in message
...

Pass all tests with a 95% minimum

That's a good goal, but, if you sweat it too much you'll never get your
rating. -Most- of the stuff you miss on the written, if you're scoring
above, say, 85%, you'll pick up in training anyway.

Handle with ease all traffic control and similar commo

That'll save you a little money, but, you learn all that during the lessons
anyway.

Dissect the anatomy of my training aircraft

Always good. It makes flying the airplane a lot richer of an experience.

Understand what and how the instrumentation works (shortcomings included)

That's part of ground school (as is most of the above.) You will learn it
all before you solo one way or the other.

Own all the fundamentally necessary flight gear (i.e carry-ons in flight
bag or on person)

That'll take care of itself when you start training. There's a whole lot
of crap for sale that pilots generally don't need.

-c

Good advice, thanks for your time.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:03:08 -0800, BT wrote:

you can't do all of that without some training..
so if you are delaying your first training until you can do it..
have you not created a "Catch22" situation?

Yeppers but unfortunately work has prevailed and "allowed" me this time
between instruction and this date.

Or.. are you refering to not starting the flight portions of training until
you can do all of those items.

Both, I think if I had the chance to start now, I would hold to a
(modification) of my list. Which is =being modified by the minute the
longer I stick around the group.

you may find that an integrated scenario works best, Ground School and
Apply, and it sticks better, then move on to the next part.

BT

Certainly, I have thought the same thing.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:29:35 -0600, Michael Ash wrote:

I am asking the group for assistance in developing a list of instructional
and solo experiences, testing, mandatory reading.....if you ran the FAA,
what would you require in a near-perfect world that a PPL would require? I
am a zero-hour wannabe pilot FYI

Outlandings and assembly/disassembly. The PTS covers both in extremely
light detail. I would like to see much greater detail applied to both. In
particular, I had never assembled or disassembled a glider, aside from
helping to hold up wingtips and such, until after my checkride. I think
every student should be taken to the point where he can be the lead on
assembly or disassembly, at least for one particular type. He should also
be able to walk through an outlanding from start to finish, including
dealing with locals and police and handling the retrieve crew.

Of course this is pretty glider-specific. The equivalent for "normal"
flying would, I imagine, be how to travel with a plane, how to deal with
courtesy cars and arrange transportation at the destination and so forth,
which I've seen talked about here as lamentably un-discussed during
training.

lol

I am told this is "glider-boy" downspeak.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:29:35 -0600, Michael Ash wrote:

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

In my unsolicited opinion, you're doing it all backwards. Learn to walk
before you try to run. The flying isn't the hardest part, it's the easiest
part. It's just a physical skill, like driving a car.

Opinion solicited btw.

Pass all tests with a 95% minimum

Your understanding will be shallow without any experience to base it on.
You may pass the test but the knowledge won't be very useful.

Chicken-egg educational scenario. Do doctors need biology degrees and
botany classes?

Handle with ease all traffic control and similar commo

Ability to handle it in your head (or even in a sim) and ability to handle
it while managing a complex machine are two very different things. I
couldn't even begin to count the number of students I've seen who can tell
you exactly what a radio call should sound like when you talk to them on
the ground, but who completely botch it when they do it in the air.

Yes, I am hoping, as others have osted, to be able to pickup on live commo
by filtering the nonsense with the good sense. Which, coming from listening
to military and civilian commo, is light years different.

Dissect the anatomy of my training aircraft

This is going to be pretty hard to do if you aren't getting it and around
it. Book learning isn't going to let you do even a halfway decent
preflight, much less "dissect the anatomy" of anything.

I have access to the mechanics who do the fixin.

Understand what and how the instrumentation works (shortcomings included)

You may understand the principles involved but I don't think you'll really
understand how they work until you actually use them.

True of all real life experiences book-fed first.

Own all the fundamentally necessary flight gear (i.e carry-ons in flight
bag or on person)

How will you know what to buy until you've started flying? Personally I'm
still trying to find the right bag and the right way to store things for
taking to the airport and for taking in the aircraft, and I've had my
ticket for nearly a year and have about 60 hours total tim

Asking and getting responses is the best I can do at this point.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!