I give up, after many, many years!

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Rote learning has the advantage of being accessible to almost anyone of
reasonably normal intelligence.

It failed in your case Anthony.

"Buster Hymen" wrote in message
...
Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Rote learning has the advantage of being accessible to almost anyone of
reasonably normal intelligence.

It failed in your case Anthony.

He not of reasonable normal intelligence.

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:


"Buster Hymen" wrote in message
...
Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Rote learning has the advantage of being accessible to almost anyone of
reasonably normal intelligence.

It failed in your case Anthony.

He not of reasonable normal intelligence.



Which is why it failed.

Anthony still hasn't figured out how one can legally and safely fly 50'
from a cloud. And he's been told the answer several times.

On May 23, 2:32*pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
snip
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.



Reciting frequencies? I dont know of any pilots who even try to
remember frequencies, other than 121.5 , you get your frequencies
off charts or out of ERSA and write them on your flight plan if
needed. Do you really visualise sine waves when you hear a radio
frequency? and think about them humping? Thats kind of kinky Le
Chaud, guess I just lack imagination.
But seriously this is rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud, so why dont you
tell us about your flying training progress?. I would love to hear
about it, I assume from your name you are doing it in France? It
would be interesting to hear about how it differs from training
elsewhere. Its great that you know lots about physics, I bet you
would be able to tell a baseball player exactly why a ball can curve
in the air? but I suspect if you went over to rec.baseball they
prolly wouldnt be all that interested. but I reckon they would be on
sci.physics.

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:


"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?




Oh brother. Like you'd know.


Bertie

On May 23, 2:26*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?

The flight hours are mostly repetitive and the training is hardly
condusive to original thought.

Cheers

Tina writes:

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?

The important point is that the knowledge gap between an average ATP and an
average non-pilot is far smaller than the gap between someone with a PhD in
chemistry and someone with no special knowledge of chemistry.

"Mxsmanic" wrote ...
Tina writes:

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?

The important point is that the knowledge gap between an average ATP and
an
average non-pilot is far smaller than the gap between someone with a PhD
in
chemistry and someone with no special knowledge of chemistry.

How can you possibly quantify something like this?

On May 23, 2:10 pm, "BDS" wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote ...

Tina writes:

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?

The important point is that the knowledge gap between an average ATP and
an
average non-pilot is far smaller than the gap between someone with a PhD
in
chemistry and someone with no special knowledge of chemistry.

How can you possibly quantify something like this?
I would agree that the average person knows less about a given subject
than a newly minted PhD with that major than an average person knows
about flying than someone holding an ATR, but to call that the
important point is stupid.

I think the important point is people operating at close to the top of
any profession have a lot more in common with each other than they do
with "average" people. I wrote 'profession' but think that can be
extended to 'trade' or in every skill area. They are uniquely
motivated and skilled, and that separates them from those who are only
just intelligent and who choose not to exploit that advantage.

I have spoken, so it must be so . Oh wait, that's a different
poster's attitude.

BDS writes:

How can you possibly quantify something like this?

With ease.