I give up, after many, many years!

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.

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.