Rod Machado's New PPL Manual

Dudley Henriques wrote:
Dan wrote:
On Mar 25, 11:05 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Dan wrote:

The bottom line on these flights is that the goal is to create in the
newbie a desire to fly again. I'll tell you the truth. Any CFI worth the
title should be able to take any newbie who was motivated enough to come
in for a discovery flight in the first place, take them on that flight,
and instill in them a burning desire to return and do it again that is
so strong, the newbie can't wait to get back into the air.

Hope this helps a bit.

--
Dudley Henriques

Absolutely.

So grabbing the yoke while screaming "Do that again and we'll die!" is
considered bad form?

;-)


Sounds like fun! Reminds me of a commercial running now on TV. Can't
think of what it's for. (obvious their marketing didn't work :-)
This squirll is standing out in the middle of the road. He turns around
and sees a car coming at him at high speed. He lets out a scream at the
top of his lungs. It has a chain reaction with every animal within ear
shot and they all let out a scream of terror at HIS scream of terror.
Don't know why, but for some reason it's funny as hell :-))

I just remembered; it's the Bridgstone Tire Superbowl commercial.
I guess their marketing works after all :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

On Mar 24, 4:58 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
news.chi.sbcglobal.net wrote:
While I agree that humor can be a very valuable teaching tool, I find it
works best in one-on-one or small group situations where it can be
tailored to the specific audience.

Unfortunately, in his writings, I find that some of Mr. Machado's humor
falls into the "silly" category, and does not appeal to me at all. This
is not to take anything away from the "meat" of Mr. Machado's writing,
which I usually find quite valuable.

Having learned everything I have needed to provide me with a successful
career as a computer programmer from reading nothing but very dry
documentation, I personally find that written humor is generally a
turn-off for me when I am trying to learn a complicated subject. As Joe
Friday would say, "Just the facts, ma'am."

And now that this is settled, let's move on to that high-wing vs.
low-wing thing, shall we ;-)

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
.. .
Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:12:47 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

Rod takes the most complicated of issues and presents them
intelligently and with a splash of humor that is unbelievably
educational.

I find Rod's public appearances entertaining and fun, but the humor he
injects into his training manuals is just unnecessary extraneous
fodder to wade through. But that's just my personal view as a
student.

Interesting.

Rod's books aside, I would counter by telling you that in my 50 odd
years of teaching, lecturing, and dealing with the learning
environment generally, I have found the judicious use of, and
injection of humor in this environment to be an INVALUABLE and in
fact, an INDISPENSABLE tool for ANY teacher.

The most successful teachers I have known in my life have ALL used
humor in their approach to their professions. In fact, I have found
any and all credible sources within the teaching community dealing
with instructing others how to teach stressing the value of humor as a
teaching tool.

I can find no misuse or overload whatsoever with the way Rod uses
humor in his books. In addition, I find his use of humor one of the
most positive aspects of his writing style.

Thank you however, for your opinion.

--
Dudley Henriques

Google search for (humor in teaching) reveals 2,040,000 hits. I didn't
read them all, but I believe all are positive.
Putting "humor in teaching" in quotes, reveals 11,400 hits, same result
I believe.

Thanks for your input.

--
Dudley Henriques

Humor in teaching works when it's situational, responding to a
specific situation. Best done in an actual teaching situation. In
written materials it's tedious. Quite frankly whenever I read
Machado, I get the impression he has a jokes per paragraph quota that
he's gonna fill whether he has material or not.

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:47:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:

I have believed for many moons that there exists in General Aviation a
totally unnecessary trend toward the macho image for the GA pilot. It's
this very self envisioned image that drives away many "average people"
who would otherwise give aviation a try.

Machado addresses this issue head on with his books. Although not overly
simplified, his free wheeling style addresses the flying issues in a
manner that tends NOT to intimidate the reader. I personally find great
value in this, as it fills a gap in GA that desperately needs to be
filled if GA is to progress into the future.

I don't think that I have ever seen a hobby, pleasure sport or job field
that appears to go out of its way to place barriers, hurdles and
hoop-jumping as GA. My novitiate guess is that this must stem from a
post-War mentality when pilots were trained and coming into GA ready to
fly in gobs.

Personally, if not for the cost and convenience justifications
(work/travel), as much as I am enjoying my re-entry into to GA, I'd punt
this effort in a heartbeat. Nearly everything is an uphill climb.

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:39:20 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:

manuals written so that
they don't intimidate the section of the market that doesn't respond
positively to an " engineering approach" to ground school, and CFI's who
come to realize the value of learning how to project complicated
subjects in a manner that makes a housewife as comfortable in the
learning process as an engineer.

--
Dudley Henriques

How about a few of these multi-billion $$ aircraft mfgs getting
education and exposure to the elementary-college level kids and young
adults? Where is Cessna, et al with conspicuousness at the local
municipal airport, someone you could talk to or ask questions while
(always) waiting for your (late) flight, handout a damn brochure FCS?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!
I hesitate to add to this discussion because I'm not an instructor,
just a rather slow student who's not qualified to give advice that
might kill someone.

On Mar 25, 11:53 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:

I just remembered; it's the Bridgstone Tire Superbowl commercial.
I guess their marketing works after all :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

That's the one!

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 05:00:37 -0700 (PDT), Dan
wrote:

On Mar 25, 7:25 am, Larry Dighera wrote:

Larry, I don't think your point is that far from Dudley's

Really? I think Mr. H. believes that changing the presentation in the
flight manuals is the key to graduating more airmen, while I believe
such a change would minimally affect the rate of issuance of new
certificates. I'd say we are pretty far apart, almost polar in this
discussion.

but I think
you're missing the overall assumption, to wit, that today's GA new
pilot induction system is too inconsistent and too confusing, and thus
indiscriminately filters out people who have the requisite desire,
money, and mental acuity.

I believe it takes someone with the burning desire to overcome the
obstacles to his/her achieving their dream of flight to make a
competent airman, not someone who needs to be coddled into it. There
is so much to MASTER (physics, motor skills, navigation, meteorology,
regulations, command, communications, procedures, ...), that mere
coaxing and prodding isn't going to be a sufficient motivational force
for someone who lacks the inate desire, and yes love, of flight. Of
course this is just my subjective opinion.

People who seek out a CFI to learn to fly are a self-selected group.
They know how to read, drive, make a schedule, write a check -- and so
are probably equipped with all the ability they need to join the ranks
of airmen/women.

Personally, I don't believe ability alone is adequate to produce a
good quality airman.

You don't have to be an engineer to understand basic engineering
concepts. And -- quite frankly -- there's not much "engineering
knowledge" required to fly VFR or IFR into the most complex airspace
in the NAS.

There may not be much engineering knowledge required to navigate the
NAS, but there is definitely some. Those who lack the ability or
temperament to successfully apply engineering principles in any single
phase of flight, will fail. Imagine a soccor-mom type trying to work
the weight and balance of a PA28 with their arcane graphs, or
attempting to grasp the dynamics of weather, esoteric IFR procedures,
or even the FARs. I don't mean to stenotype all housewives, but
hopefully you get the idea.

GPS in its current incarnation does not make it easier for new pilots
to join our ranks because GPS units fail, so they must also know
Pilotage, Dead Reckoning, and Radio navigation.

While it is true that back up procedures must be mastered, I believe
there is little doubt that NASA's Highway In The Sky equipment could
be seen as an enabling technology for those who are uncomfortable with
all the internal visualization required to remain positionally aware
via VOR navigation, or IMC operations.


But we're losing a large fraction of potential new pilots every year
because the [sic] come to the airport, walk around and look at airplanes,
yet never get greeted, never get someone's interest, and never get
"sold."


I don't believe that it is appropriate nor desirable to "sell"
becoming an airman, anymore than it is appropriate for a clergyman to
sell religion. One is either smitten or not. Further, I don't
believe those potential flight students who are lost through
intimidation by less than optimal flight schools are the sort of folks
that make good pilots. The last thing I would desire to see foisted
on would be aviators is the deceit and duplicity of marketeers.

--
The true Axis Of Evil in America is our genius at marketing
coupled with the stupidity of our people. -- Bill Maher

On Mar 25, 1:08 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:

I believe it takes someone with the burning desire to overcome the
obstacles to his/her achieving their dream of flight to make a
competent airman, not someone who needs to be coddled into it. There
is so much to MASTER (physics, motor skills, navigation, meteorology,
regulations, command, communications, procedures, ...), that mere
coaxing and prodding isn't going to be a sufficient motivational force
for someone who lacks the inate desire, and yes love, of flight. Of
course this is just my subjective opinion.

I disagree -- not everyone ENTERS aviation with the "burning desire"
because they don't even know what it is!

I heard this same uninformed and somewhat tendentious argument
regarding Infantrymen by Old Sergeants who forgot how clueless they
were when they started out "These kids are so soft! They have no idea
what it takes! Blah blah blah..."

My answer to them was consistent -- "That's YOUR job -- make them
soldiers, just as you were made, because you sure as *$#@ weren't born
one."

The entry rate has declined, period. You can say whatever about
ability, etc but there are fewer GA pilots today than 20 years ago,
and the population has grown. Walk around most GA airports on a
Saturday and you'll see mostly grey haired old guys. The few young
guys are usually the CFIs working for hours. The rare woman is a an
anomaly.

My job title is Senior Systems Engineer -- I've been in engineering a
few decades and I can tell you if you think you need engineering
knowledge or ability to fly safely you're simply mistaken.

There's nothing all that complicated that can't be explained and
therefore retained and applied by the average ability adult.

But we're losing a large fraction of potential new pilots every year
because the [sic] come to the airport, walk around and look at airplanes,
yet never get greeted, never get someone's interest, and never get
"sold."

I don't believe that it is appropriate nor desirable to "sell"
becoming an airman, anymore than it is appropriate for a clergyman to
sell religion. One is either smitten or not. Further, I don't
believe those potential flight students who are lost through
intimidation by less than optimal flight schools are the sort of folks
that make good pilots. The last thing I would desire to see foisted
on would be aviators is the deceit and duplicity of marketeers.

Not the point. Someone in your life "sold" you on aviation -- who was
it, and what did he/she do to get you hooked?

No one drops into this without contact with a person or people who
help pave the way.


Dan Mc

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:25:03 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

There are ALWAYS those who for financial or other reasons can't make it
through the program. This is normal attrition and shouldn't be
misconstrued into more importance than it deserves.

It shouldn't be misconstrued into being LESS importance than it
deserves either. Money and time are the two most restrictive
obstacles to becoming an airman, in my opinion. To overlook them is a
huge mistake.

As a flight instructor, you see the issue from that point of view, but
from a broader POV it is apparent that time and money are paramount
determents to a certificate.

Naturally I've encountered these people in my career. Every instructor
encounters them once in a while. They are the exception, not the norm.

What of the ones you don't see? Because you don't see them, doesn't
mean that they haven't self-selected themselves against flight
training.

But these people aren't what we're dealing with here.

Exactly. And that is unfortunate.

I can recall when service personnel were returning from Viet Nam, and
the prospect of GI Bill financed flight training (beyond the private
certificate) motivated hordes to seek out flight schools. No doubt
you recall those days as well.

Those former soldiers hadn't yet found employment, and thus had
uncommitted time available in which to train, and our government
provided the financial incentive. I'm not sure the caliber of
personnel is the same in today's all volunteer military, but it's
still worth considering reinstating the program.

How many of the potential flight students you have encountered over
the years did you make aware of this?


http://www.salliemae.com/get_student...raining_loans/
The Career Training Loan is a private, credit-based student loan
for technical training or trade school, online courses, and other
continuing education programs.

We're talking
about maximizing the amount of people we can KEEP. X amount of potential
pilots come through the door. Y are sold and enter the program. Z for
some reason although capable financially, decide not to continue. It's
minimizing the loss of these Z people we're discussing here....nothing
deeper than that.

Is there any objective study that provides any insight into what
motivated those people to quit? Or are we each going to guess? If I
am permitted to guess also, I'd say they felt that becoming an airman
wasn't right for them. Such a decision is solely their prerogative.
To impose the will of the instructor on those people is an
infringement of their sovereignty.

Here's Cessna's take: http://learntofly.com/faq.html

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 05:00:37 -0700 (PDT), Dan
wrote:

On Mar 25, 7:25 am, Larry Dighera wrote:

Larry, I don't think your point is that far from Dudley's

Really? I think Mr. H. believes that changing the presentation in the
flight manuals is the key to graduating more airmen, while I believe
such a change would minimally affect the rate of issuance of new
certificates. I'd say we are pretty far apart, almost polar in this
discussion.

We are if this is your read on what I've been saying. I am in no way
even coming close to pushing what you have attributed to me here. Better
manuals are simply a small part of the betterment equation; HARDLY the
"key" as you have insinuated.

but I think
you're missing the overall assumption, to wit, that today's GA new
pilot induction system is too inconsistent and too confusing, and thus
indiscriminately filters out people who have the requisite desire,
money, and mental acuity.

I believe it takes someone with the burning desire to overcome the
obstacles to his/her achieving their dream of flight to make a
competent airman, not someone who needs to be coddled into it. There
is so much to MASTER (physics, motor skills, navigation, meteorology,
regulations, command, communications, procedures, ...), that mere
coaxing and prodding isn't going to be a sufficient motivational force
for someone who lacks the inate desire, and yes love, of flight. Of
course this is just my subjective opinion.

I have no idea where you picked up this totally misguided opinion on
flight instruction and indeed flying in general, but I can assure you
that you are WAY off base.

People who seek out a CFI to learn to fly are a self-selected group.
They know how to read, drive, make a schedule, write a check -- and so
are probably equipped with all the ability they need to join the ranks
of airmen/women.

Personally, I don't believe ability alone is adequate to produce a
good quality airman.

What's needed is a good flight instructor.

You don't have to be an engineer to understand basic engineering
concepts. And -- quite frankly -- there's not much "engineering
knowledge" required to fly VFR or IFR into the most complex airspace
in the NAS.

There may not be much engineering knowledge required to navigate the
NAS, but there is definitely some. Those who lack the ability or
temperament to successfully apply engineering principles in any single
phase of flight, will fail. Imagine a soccor-mom type trying to work
the weight and balance of a PA28 with their arcane graphs, or
attempting to grasp the dynamics of weather, esoteric IFR procedures,
or even the FARs. I don't mean to stenotype all housewives, but
hopefully you get the idea.

I'll be sure to pass this on to the many average women I've taught to
fly. They'll no doubt be surprised to learn how little they know. :-)

Who the hell fed you this claptrap anyway? Is it a pilot ego thing with you?
Does thinking of these things as being so hard to teach and understand
make you feel superior or something? Hell,any good CFI can explain these
things to anyone with average intelligence. There's nothing particularly
difficult involved. There are literally thousands of everyday people
flying airplanes every day. What the hell is so hard for you to
understand about this????? :-)



GPS in its current incarnation does not make it easier for new pilots
to join our ranks because GPS units fail, so they must also know
Pilotage, Dead Reckoning, and Radio navigation.

Duh!!! So learn these things. No big deal at all.

While it is true that back up procedures must be mastered, I believe
there is little doubt that NASA's Highway In The Sky equipment could
be seen as an enabling technology for those who are uncomfortable with
all the internal visualization required to remain positionally aware
via VOR navigation, or IMC operations.

But we're losing a large fraction of potential new pilots every year
because the [sic] come to the airport, walk around and look at airplanes,
yet never get greeted, never get someone's interest, and never get
"sold."


I don't believe that it is appropriate nor desirable to "sell"
becoming an airman, anymore than it is appropriate for a clergyman to
sell religion.

Good God, what a load of crap :-)) Do you actually think that everybody
who shows up at the door asking about learning to fly has to be armed
with engineering know how?
You will get X amount of people at the door. Out of that bunch, a well
run operation with good instructors should be able to take the majority
of this group and take them through the program with no issues at all.
There will be a few who can't cut it, but in the minority BY FAR!
You are stressing this minority and in doing so, in my opinion, I hope
innocently anyway, misrepresenting to make your point.




One is either smitten or not. Further, I don't
believe those potential flight students who are lost through
intimidation by less than optimal flight schools are the sort of folks
that make good pilots. The last thing I would desire to see foisted
on would be aviators is the deceit and duplicity of marketeers.

Boy, are you misguided on these issues. Those who are "smitten"
represent only a part of the potential that walk through the front door
of a flight school. The rest have a genuine curiosity about flying but
need to be shown they have the ability. It's up to the CFI to bring out
this ability in these people.
You are totally misrepresenting the term "selling" to portray the act of
demonstrating to a newbie that flying is possible to acheive as an act
of taking into the system people not qualified to make it as pilots.
Good instructors don't do as you have suggested. It is part of an
instructor's responsibility to discover as soon as possible, anything in
a newbie's makeup, personality, attitude, intelligence, and motivation,
that is counter productive to the flying experience.
As I said, these people exist for sure, but are grossly in the minority.
I have personally encountered two such cases in my entire career as an
instructor.



--
Dudley Henriques

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:39:20 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:

manuals written so that
they don't intimidate the section of the market that doesn't respond
positively to an " engineering approach" to ground school, and CFI's who
come to realize the value of learning how to project complicated
subjects in a manner that makes a housewife as comfortable in the
learning process as an engineer.

--
Dudley Henriques

How about a few of these multi-billion $$ aircraft mfgs getting
education and exposure to the elementary-college level kids and young
adults? Where is Cessna, et al with conspicuousness at the local
municipal airport, someone you could talk to or ask questions while
(always) waiting for your (late) flight, handout a damn brochure FCS?

Major manufacturer involvement in the flight training business has been
tried before with mixed results. Nothing wrong with them continuing the
practice.
The flight training community however, is in need of a general major
overhaul if anything positive is to result. Unfortunately, I see little
hope for this happening.

--
Dudley Henriques