I give up, after many, many years!

I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. But it does
take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?






lOn May 22, 9:12 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On May 22, 3:03 pm, Michael wrote:

The truth of the matter is that in this forum, there is no opportunity
to demonstrate aviation skill - that requires an aircraft. There is
an opportunity to demonstrate aviation knowledge - but precious little
of that is required to earn any certificate or rating, be it private,
commercial, instrument, CFI, ATP, or A&P. Of course that's only my
opinion, but at least it's an informed one - since I've earned all of
the above and can compare that to the effort required to earn
corresponding credentials in some of the other groups, of which I
also . There is little comparison. Some have suggested that the ATP
and A&P combined might be considered the Ph.D. of aviation. As
someone who has also earned an actual Ph.D. I consider this
laughable. The associate degree seems more comparable - and that's at
the ATP/A&P level.

Certainly a plausible explanation.

Ph.D.? Chemistry or?

Should be fun to bug you about wacky ideas I have from time to time to
see if they make sense.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

"Tina" wrote in message
...
I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. But it does
take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?


Maybe it's just me, but this seems like an interesting question. Anyone
would have to admit the written and practical exams for and ATP, are
certainly know match when compared to a doctorate. But how can you weight
the knowledge gained from 2000 or 3000 flight hours, especially in the
variety of aircraft and flight conditions required for and ATP, with 200 or
300 college hours?

On May 22, 10:26 pm, "Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote:
"Tina" wrote in message

...

I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. But it does
take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?

Maybe it's just me, but this seems like an interesting question. Anyone
would have to admit the written and practical exams for and ATP, are
certainly know match when compared to a doctorate. But how can you weight
the knowledge gained from 2000 or 3000 flight hours, especially in the
variety of aircraft and flight conditions required for and ATP, with 200 or
300 college hours?

There are different skill sets for each. Also, I am sure there are
many more Ph.Ds granted in the US than are ATRs. Still, some of us are
far more demanding
of our candidates than instructors are for those in training for an
ATR, and remember our candidates are in training for four years, and
that excludes their primary degrees. Ah, those four grad school years
are pretty much full time work years in our institution. (Think what
you might like, but most students want to finish as soon as they can,
they are mostly very motivated, and it takes that long anyhow).

Never the less, I think in each case the best are aiming for the
highest credentials in their fields, and I would not care to have to
defend one class of 'best' as better than another.

I can assure you from personal experience the IFR written is far
easier to pass than our qualifying exams (a few weeks of study was
enough for that exam vs a complete test of one's knowledge of a field
of study for the PhD). I know nothing about the ATR writtens.

Tina wrote in
:

On May 22, 10:26 pm, "Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote:
"Tina" wrote in message

news:797c5043-2d03-45ce-957d-f2ef609c7cf2
@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
...

I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. But it
does take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?

Maybe it's just me, but this seems like an interesting question.
Anyone would have to admit the written and practical exams for and
ATP, are certainly know match when compared to a doctorate. But how
can you weight the knowledge gained from 2000 or 3000 flight hours,
especially in the variety of aircraft and flight conditions required
for and ATP, with 200 or 300 college hours?

There are different skill sets for each. Also, I am sure there are
many more Ph.Ds granted in the US than are ATRs. Still, some of us are
far more demanding
of our candidates than instructors are for those in training for an
ATR, and remember our candidates are in training for four years, and
that excludes their primary degrees. Ah, those four grad school years
are pretty much full time work years in our institution. (Think what
you might like, but most students want to finish as soon as they can,
they are mostly very motivated, and it takes that long anyhow).

Never the less, I think in each case the best are aiming for the
highest credentials in their fields, and I would not care to have to
defend one class of 'best' as better than another.

I can assure you from personal experience the IFR written is far
easier to pass than our qualifying exams (a few weeks of study was
enough for that exam vs a complete test of one's knowledge of a field
of study for the PhD). I know nothing about the ATR writtens.




Depends on the country..

here's what you would have to know to answer just one question on a JAA
nav plotting test.....http://williams.best.vwh.net/avform.htm

The next question might be a celestial nav question and another on
instruments might be how to navigate using only a free gyro from
australia to alaska.


And no preview in the form of a thousand sample multiple guess quesions
either. All done longhand.



Bertie



bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

All ya needs a link to look like you're as smart as Mx. Good job lamer.

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in news:VmsZj.1937$J75.170
@newsfe20.lga:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

All ya needs a link to look like you're as smart as Mx. Good job
lamer.



I don;t have to look like anything..


Haven;t figured that out yet?


It's all about showcasing, the k00k, k00k....




Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...


It's all about showcasing, the k00k, k00k....




Bertie

Yep, problem is you're too stupid to realize your the kook.

That's what the squirty ****drip routine is all about. Your OCD.

On May 22, 9:26*pm, "Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote:
"Tina" wrote in message

...

I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. *But it does
take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?

Maybe it's just me, but this seems like an interesting question. Anyone
would have to admit the written and practical exams for and ATP, are
certainly know match when compared to a doctorate. But how can you weight
the knowledge gained from 2000 or 3000 flight hours, especially in the
variety of aircraft and flight conditions required for and ATP, with 200 or
300 college hours?

I think that, all things being equal, the academic will have an
advantage in the cockpit, because s/he will not only have a set of
rules to follow, but have fundamental understanding of why those rules
are applicable.

During my own ground school, there were several places during
instruction where knowledge of math and science was clearly
advantageous:

1. magnetos (induction)
2. carb ice (adiabatic cooling of condensate)
3. density/pressure altitude (ideal gas law)
4. course tracking in high crosswind (vectors)
5. balance and center of gravity (arms and moments)
6. compass error due to EMI (basic electrodynamics)
7. mixture enrichment and leaning (density of gases vs altitude)
8. VOR (electromagnetic radiation)
9. load factor (basic trigonometry, Newton's law for circular motion)
10. vestibular disorientation (physiology of inner ear)
11. gyroscopic precession (torque, Newton's Law)

An electrical engineer will, I think, have an easier time remembering
basic radio frequencies by virtue of the fact that s/he knows what a
frequency really is. Inn ground school, I tested hypothesis by asking
the class (and the instructor), if the frequency was in megahertz or
kilohertz. There was silence, as no one knew. This difference might
seem inconsequential and irrelevant until a pilot is asked to recite
all the standard frequencies. The EE, I think, might have an easier
time. The reason is context. When someone utters an RNAV frequency as
a number, the EE might think of many things, but often there is a
visualization. Maybe he thinks about the humps of sine waves. Maybe he
thinks about where it lies in spectrum, a few MHz beyond the FCC limit
on FM in the USA. Whatever he thinks, he will have something to think
about. To some others, the number is just a number, surround by a
black void that provides no crutch for recollection.

Then there is the E6-B. It makes a lot more sense to someone who
understands the fundamentals of what they are doing than following a
learned procedure, which is why I stopped following the "do this, then
do that" instructions, and examine the thing and thought about why it
works, what relationships exist between the scales etc.

So I regard my flight training as mostly a cerebral experience, with
the instructor filling in the parts that are not found in books.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
:

On May 22, 9:26*pm, "Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote:
"Tina" wrote in message

news:797c5043-2d03-45ce-957d-f2ef609c7cf2
@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
...

I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. *But it
does take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?

Maybe it's just me, but this seems like an interesting question.
Anyone would have to admit the written and practical exams for and
ATP, are certainly know match when compared to a doctorate. But how
can you weight the knowledge gained from 2000 or 3000 flight hours,
especially in the variety of aircraft and flight conditions required
for and ATP, with 200 o
r
300 college hours?

I think that, all things being equal, the academic will have an
advantage in the cockpit, because s/he will not only have a set of
rules to follow, but have fundamental understanding of why those rules
are applicable.

During my own ground school, there were several places during
instruction where knowledge of math and science was clearly
advantageous:

1. magnetos (induction)
2. carb ice (adiabatic cooling of condensate)
3. density/pressure altitude (ideal gas law)
4. course tracking in high crosswind (vectors)
5. balance and center of gravity (arms and moments)
6. compass error due to EMI (basic electrodynamics)
7. mixture enrichment and leaning (density of gases vs altitude)
8. VOR (electromagnetic radiation)
9. load factor (basic trigonometry, Newton's law for circular motion)
10. vestibular disorientation (physiology of inner ear)
11. gyroscopic precession (torque, Newton's Law)

An electrical engineer will, I think, have an easier time remembering
basic radio frequencies by virtue of the fact that s/he knows what a
frequency really is. Inn ground school, I tested hypothesis by asking
the class (and the instructor), if the frequency was in megahertz or
kilohertz. There was silence, as no one knew. This difference might
seem inconsequential and irrelevant until a pilot is asked to recite
all the standard frequencies. The EE, I think, might have an easier
time. The reason is context. When someone utters an RNAV frequency as
a number, the EE might think of many things, but often there is a
visualization. Maybe he thinks about the humps of sine waves. Maybe he
thinks about where it lies in spectrum, a few MHz beyond the FCC limit
on FM in the USA. Whatever he thinks, he will have something to think
about. To some others, the number is just a number, surround by a
black void that provides no crutch for recollection.

Then there is the E6-B. It makes a lot more sense to someone who
understands the fundamentals of what they are doing than following a
learned procedure, which is why I stopped following the "do this, then
do that" instructions, and examine the thing and thought about why it
works, what relationships exist between the scales etc.

So I regard my flight training as mostly a cerebral experience, with
the instructor filling in the parts that are not found in books.

-Le Chaud Lapin-


All of shich explains why you are not a pilot.


Bertie

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

Then there is the E6-B. It makes a lot more sense to someone who
understands the fundamentals of what they are doing than following a
learned procedure, which is why I stopped following the "do this, then
do that" instructions, and examine the thing and thought about why it
works, what relationships exist between the scales etc.

So I regard my flight training as mostly a cerebral experience, with
the instructor filling in the parts that are not found in books.

Rote learning has the advantage of being accessible to almost anyone of
reasonably normal intelligence. Learning theory requires a higher level of
intelligence, and in some domains (quite a few, in fact), the theory is
complex enough that one must be of above-average intelligence in order to
grasp it.

Rote learning works well for dealing with situations that are covered by the
rote-learning curriculum. It can even work better than theory for certain
specific situations (for which learning all the necessary theory would be
impractical). However, knowing theory is vastly more useful when dealing with
situations that are not covered by the rote-learning curriculum.

In summary, rote learning covers most situations well and is accessible to
all, while theory covers all situations but is too difficult for some and
involves higher overhead when it comes to dealing with simple, common
situations.

Just about all practical learning (piloting, driving, cooking, etc.) is by
rote, whereas abstract subjects often involve mostly theory.