A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

I give up, after many, many years!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 23rd 08, 07:21 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Buster Hymen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 153
Default 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.
  #2  
Old May 23rd 08, 08:02 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Maxwell[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,043
Default I give up, after many, many years!


"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  
Old May 23rd 08, 08:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Buster Hymen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 153
Default I give up, after many, many years!

"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  
Old May 24th 08, 03:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
terry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 215
Default I give up, after many, many years!

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  
Old May 23rd 08, 05:45 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks
Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,735
Default I give up, after many, many years!

"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  
Old May 23rd 08, 11:09 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
More_Flaps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 217
Default I give up, after many, many years!

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  
Old May 23rd 08, 06:50 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,169
Default I give up, after many, many years!

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  
Old May 23rd 08, 07:10 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
BDS[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 149
Default I give up, after many, many years!


"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  
Old May 23rd 08, 07:24 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Tina
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 500
Default I give up, after many, many years!

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.

  #10  
Old May 23rd 08, 07:27 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,169
Default I give up, after many, many years!

BDS writes:

How can you possibly quantify something like this?


With ease.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.