![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mxsmanic wrote in
: Rote learning has the advantage of being accessible to almost anyone of reasonably normal intelligence. It failed in your case Anthony. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 ![]() poster's attitude. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
BDS writes:
How can you possibly quantify something like this? With ease. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DC-3 parts to give away | Robert Little | Restoration | 2 | November 23rd 06 03:30 AM |
Who can give a checkout? | Mark S Conway | General Aviation | 2 | May 9th 05 12:15 AM |
Winch give-away | KP | Soaring | 6 | January 11th 05 08:04 PM |
Did you ever give up on an IR? | No Such User | Piloting | 24 | November 26th 03 02:45 PM |
FS 2004 give away | Ozzie M | Simulators | 0 | November 23rd 03 03:50 PM |