The Differences Between PPLicensing And Learning

Jim Logajan wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:
I would respectfully disagree with this analysis based on hundreds of
hours spent working with both primary students, flight instructors,
and Microsoft.
Sims have their use, but if used before solo can actually be
detrimental for various reasons, some of them absolutely critical to
student progress. After solo, and when used with the proper
supervision, the sims have their productive side as well.

Hmmm. That seems to be a stronger statement about pre-solo use than I've
seen you state in the recent past. Or maybe I'm over-extending "pre-solo"
to include "pre-flight-training" that you didn't intend? That is, if time
is split thusly:

Big Bang - birth - simming - initial flight training - solo - PPL -
death - Big Crunch

Then that order is okay so long as simming and pre-solo flight training
don't overlap? Or you believe simming is _only_ a net positive use after
solo and even then only under supervision? Hmmm.

Otherwise your advice appears to be at odds with what Bruce Williams wrote
in his book "Microsoft Flight Simulator as a Training Aid." That is, while
he too says pre-solo simming _can_ be detrimental, it appears he believes
that is not an immutable issue and lays out some guidelines that he
believes can make pre-flight training use a net positive. But I guess that
is not surprising, given that he wrote a book on the subject!

(There seem to be anecdotes posted by people who have felt use of MS Flight
Simulator helped them get a leg-up in their training and others who felt MS
FS actually slowed them down.)

You are mistaken in your analysis.
My opinions on this issue are quite well known and what I have said here
is in no way conflictive with any earlier opinion. I did however OMIT
part of that opinion by not including that I see no objection at all to
the sim being used BEFORE dual commences as well as after solo, so the
actual envelope I have always stressed constitutes ommission of the
simulator between the first hour of dual instruction and solo. After
solo, the sim can again be used and has specific advantages.
There is no doubt at all in my mind that people coming into dual
instruction after being exposed to the simulator have an advantage, but
considering this, I still stress leaving the sim alone between first
dual and solo for the exact reasons I've given.
You mentioned Bruce Williams book on the sim as a training tool.
I believe Mr. Williams and I are in a fair amount of agreement on how
the sim can be used by flight instructors as a training aid. In fact,
Bruce sent me the book to review. I did that for ASA and you will find a
link to my review on Bruce Williams web site.
If you wish, you may shortcut directly to that review by going to
www.simflight.com and searching my name. You will find it there.


--
Dudley Henriques

Jim Logajan wrote:
"Bob Gardner" wrote:
Took the words right out of my mouth. I can see a lot of time devoted
to un-learning if everyone followed the OP's method.

Hmmm. There are now several books that attempt to explain how to make best
use of a tool like MS Flight Simulator. Would anyone argue that the
prescriptions in those books wont help because it's a lost cause ("no
substitute for being in a real cockpit")?

Next thing you know, people will be claiming that no book can help guide
you in radio communications ("no substitute for using a real radio"), so
buying and reading such books is a waste money and time. *COUGH*

Bob Gardner

"gatt" wrote in message
...
"Deadstick" wrote in message

...

Additionally, the student can experience things in the simulator
that he/she can't or shouldn't do in the actual aircraft. The PC
simulator is, in my opinion, a valuable tool if used correctly.
Therein lies the problem. How does a student know if he's using the
tool correctly?

-c



Flying is one thing, radio communications are quite another. The two can
not be equated in an instructional context.

--
Dudley Henriques

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
...
"Bob Gardner" wrote:
Took the words right out of my mouth. I can see a lot of time devoted
to un-learning if everyone followed the OP's method.

Hmmm. There are now several books that attempt to explain how to make best
use of a tool like MS Flight Simulator. Would anyone argue that the
prescriptions in those books wont help because it's a lost cause ("no
substitute for being in a real cockpit")?

Next thing you know, people will be claiming that no book can help guide
you in radio communications ("no substitute for using a real radio"), so
buying and reading such books is a waste money and time. *COUGH*

Well, there are significant differences:

1) It's hard to learn bad flying habits from a good book (forgetting to
report your position, lean the mixture, contact ATC or check the freq of the
VOR you're tracking, etc. You can "shoot approaches" in Flight Sim without
even looking at an approach plate.)

B) Sectionals don't put a little airplane symbol on themselves to show your
position, course and altitude like MSFS maps do

III) Textbooks instruct. PC simulators are fundamentally games (unless
somebody's really practicing to fly a B777 or the Wright Flyer.)

Dudley Henriques wrote:
You are mistaken in your analysis.

I am indeed. :-(

My opinions on this issue are quite well known and what I have said
here is in no way conflictive with any earlier opinion. I did however
OMIT part of that opinion by not including that I see no objection at
all to the sim being used BEFORE dual commences as well as after solo,
so the actual envelope I have always stressed constitutes ommission of
the simulator between the first hour of dual instruction and solo.

That is as I remembered your past statements. It seems I read more into
your earlier posting than what you actually wrote. Oops.

After solo, the sim can again be used and has specific advantages.
There is no doubt at all in my mind that people coming into dual
instruction after being exposed to the simulator have an advantage,
but considering this, I still stress leaving the sim alone between
first dual and solo for the exact reasons I've given.
You mentioned Bruce Williams book on the sim as a training tool.
I believe Mr. Williams and I are in a fair amount of agreement on how
the sim can be used by flight instructors as a training aid. In fact,
Bruce sent me the book to review. I did that for ASA and you will find
a link to my review on Bruce Williams web site.
If you wish, you may shortcut directly to that review by going to
www.simflight.com and searching my name. You will find it there.

I've read your review. Thank you.

Have you had an opportunity to look through the book "Microsoft Flight
Simulator X for Pilots: Real-World Training" by Jeff Van West and Kevin
Lane-cummings? If so, any thoughts you'd be willing to share on it?

Jim Logajan wrote:

I've read your review. Thank you.

No problem. You're welcome.

Have you had an opportunity to look through the book "Microsoft Flight
Simulator X for Pilots: Real-World Training" by Jeff Van West and Kevin
Lane-cummings? If so, any thoughts you'd be willing to share on it?

I'm sorry I haven't. I would say without reading it that if they are
basically in line with Williams I would have no problem with it.
As I've said, MSFS in the hands of a good creative instructor should
prove to be a positive visual training tool.
The only caveat I have with any simulator is the one I have stated
concerning the period between first dual and solo.
I enjoy the sim myself and have opted to retain FS2004 rather than go to
FSX for various reasons.

--
Dudley Henriques

you can't do all of that without some training..
so if you are delaying your first training until you can do it..
have you not created a "Catch22" situation?

Or.. are you refering to not starting the flight portions of training until
you can do all of those items.
you may find that an integrated scenario works best, Ground School and
Apply, and it sticks better, then move on to the next part.

BT

"WJRFlyBoy" wrote in message
...
I have been reading the various threads about spins, forced landings, etc
and talking with CFIs. The road to a PPL is preset in requirements by FAA.
I see that most people are happy to do nothing more than that. Outside of
the cost factors, I find this much more than curious considering the
consequences. You can get killed, that one keeps jumping out at me

I am asking the group for assistance in developing a list of instructional
and solo experiences, testing, mandatory reading.....if you ran the FAA,
what would you require in a near-perfect world that a PPL would require? I
am a zero-hour wannabe pilot FYI

For a start, I won't begin my first instruction until I can do the
following:

Pass all tests with a 95% minimum
Handle with ease all traffic control and similar commo
Dissect the anatomy of my training aircraft
Understand what and how the instrumentation works (shortcomings included)
Own all the fundamentally necessary flight gear (i.e carry-ons in flight
bag or on person)
Obtain hours in flight simulation
More...enough for now.

TIA. The group is an extremely valuable resource; I sincerely doubt I
would
be so focused and confident without your past, present and future work
here.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On 2008-02-28, Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
Jay Maynard wrote:
Don't underestimate the power of muscle memory, too. My ease of flying the
Tecnam Sierra and difficulty transitioning into the Zodiac, both after 15
years out of the cockpit, are directly related to that.
What did you fly in the Old Days(tm)?

Four-place singles: 172, Warrior, Archer, Tiger, a few hours in a Tobago.
All 1977-1984 vintage aside from the Tobago.

I'm asking only because I've been out for 30+ years (Champ/Cherokee/
C-150), and came back in January, where I've been getting refresher
instruction in the Tecnam Sierra (which I like a lot). Almost ready to
wrap up my BFR, too.

The stuff I flew feels just like the Sierra, according to my flying
reflexes.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (getting ready to order)

In rec.aviation.student WJRFlyBoy wrote:
I have been reading the various threads about spins, forced landings, etc
and talking with CFIs. The road to a PPL is preset in requirements by FAA.
I see that most people are happy to do nothing more than that. Outside of
the cost factors, I find this much more than curious considering the
consequences. You can get killed, that one keeps jumping out at me

I am asking the group for assistance in developing a list of instructional
and solo experiences, testing, mandatory reading.....if you ran the FAA,
what would you require in a near-perfect world that a PPL would require? I
am a zero-hour wannabe pilot FYI

Outlandings and assembly/disassembly. The PTS covers both in extremely
light detail. I would like to see much greater detail applied to both. In
particular, I had never assembled or disassembled a glider, aside from
helping to hold up wingtips and such, until after my checkride. I think
every student should be taken to the point where he can be the lead on
assembly or disassembly, at least for one particular type. He should also
be able to walk through an outlanding from start to finish, including
dealing with locals and police and handling the retrieve crew.

Of course this is pretty glider-specific. The equivalent for "normal"
flying would, I imagine, be how to travel with a plane, how to deal with
courtesy cars and arrange transportation at the destination and so forth,
which I've seen talked about here as lamentably un-discussed during
training.

For a start, I won't begin my first instruction until I can do the
following:

In my unsolicited opinion, you're doing it all backwards. Learn to walk
before you try to run. The flying isn't the hardest part, it's the easiest
part. It's just a physical skill, like driving a car.

Pass all tests with a 95% minimum

Your understanding will be shallow without any experience to base it on.
You may pass the test but the knowledge won't be very useful.

Handle with ease all traffic control and similar commo

Ability to handle it in your head (or even in a sim) and ability to handle
it while managing a complex machine are two very different things. I
couldn't even begin to count the number of students I've seen who can tell
you exactly what a radio call should sound like when you talk to them on
the ground, but who completely botch it when they do it in the air.

Dissect the anatomy of my training aircraft

This is going to be pretty hard to do if you aren't getting it and around
it. Book learning isn't going to let you do even a halfway decent
preflight, much less "dissect the anatomy" of anything.

Understand what and how the instrumentation works (shortcomings included)

You may understand the principles involved but I don't think you'll really
understand how they work until you actually use them.

Own all the fundamentally necessary flight gear (i.e carry-ons in flight
bag or on person)

How will you know what to buy until you've started flying? Personally I'm
still trying to find the right bag and the right way to store things for
taking to the airport and for taking in the aircraft, and I've had my
ticket for nearly a year and have about 60 hours total time.

Obtain hours in flight simulation

As has been discussed elsethread, pointless.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:41:49 -0500, WJRFlyBoy
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:30:52 GMT, Steve Foley wrote:

There are plenty of examples. The ones that jump out at me
are the landing accidents that often don't hit the headlines,
accidents caused by poor training. Landing fast and flat, running off
the end, ballooning and stalling and landing hard. Accelerated stalls
caused by pulling back hard after a buzz job. (Those are usually fatal
and hit the newspapers.) Failing to understand DA and trying to depart
an inadequate runway. A really common one is carb ice; we hear of
accidents/incidents all the time due to that one. It's not well taught
or understood. And, of course as you mentioned, VFR into IMC.

Dan


If this were truly a lack of training, I would expect to see more of these
types of accidents immediately after getting a certificate.

If you did, you would argue that it was a lack of experience not training
to make it fit your argument.

He's correct. According to the safety literature I've read they figure
those type of accidents would show up soon. BUT OTOH IIRC they figure
the highest accident rate happens somewhere between 300 and 500 hours.

It's a bit more complex figuring out the reasoning though.
There are many reasons for the rate peaking in this range.


When they occur years later, I can't see how they can be attributed to
inadequate training from years ago.

Wouldn't that depend on what was learned in the training, or better yet,
not learned?

Not necessarily. If they made it that far then their training was
most likely adequate. Unfortunately it's more of an individual thing.
One student may solo in 10 hours, pass the PTS in 40 hours and become
an exemplary pilot. Another may take 40 to solo, a 100 for the PTS
and also do great. OTOH you most likely can find examples to the
contrary as well. It depends on the student and the instructor, not
the hours.

That a student can do everything in the minimum of time and hours says
more about their abilities than lack of proper training. Where one
student can handle 3 or 4 hours of flying a week another may not be
able to handle more than a couple before mental overload sets in.
That it takes one three or four times as long to solo or pass the test
than another is no direct indication of how much or how well either
learned the material.

I know of one student who did great, then suffered a brain fart coming
in to land. He got too low, applied full power, nose came up, he
pulled the power and turned it into a lawn dart. Put shoulders in the
wings of that 150. Some more training, he took and passed the PTS
with flying colors (no pun intended). A year later (minus one day),
he suffered another brain fart on short final, applied power, ended up
too fast, and turned that one into a lawn dart as well.

Attitude plays as much a part in this as does training. After flying
for a while we all get used to doing things a particular way. Bad
habits can develop, and so can the attitude that the pilot knows
everything needed. That is why the FAA came up with the biennial
"flight review". It's also why insurance companies give preferential
rates for taking re currency training.

I happen to be one of those who soloed in a short time and got the
license in just a few months, but I am also one who continued to
practice all the maneuvers I had to learn plus those required for the
commercial license. BTW, my ground school was a 4 credit hour college
course. Those were regular credits and not continued learning.
After my initial solo flights I was allowed to practice all maneuvers
and I did instead of just going out sightseeing. To me the maneuvers
were as much fun as playing. They were playing and I enjoyed them.


I think most good pilots agree that a private certificate is really a
license to learn.

The Differences Between PPLicensing And Learning /is/ the Subject of the
thread.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:38:17 -0600, Dallas wrote:

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:43:14 -0500, WJRFlyBoy wrote:

when talking with CFIs, they are geared to quick rather than
thorough.

I personally appreciate that attitude in a CFI considering that time really
is money in this business... your money. His job is to get you to the
checkride ready to pass and if he's good he'll know exactly what that
takes.

But your thinking is correct, there is much, much more to learn than the
minimum to pass the checkride and that will be up to you on your own. How
much extra frosting you want to put on the cake is what makes the
difference between a pilot and a good pilot.

This self-responsibility is spot on, Dallas and being a businessman that
bills on rate, I appreciate your comment and the CFIs/schools realities and
is part of the frustration in maximizing time to effort.

I finished a correspondence on email with another poster who had the
typical semi-horror story, I could see wasted $$$, time and effort and not
by any fault of his own, I don't believe. He, like me, didn't have the
assessment skills; I am trying to overcome as much of that with threads
like this one and overkill on the academic side.

Other than that, it's luck and Divine Providence, neither of which I can
claim any surplus
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!