Rod Machado's New PPL Manual

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
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.

There is indeed a "macho mystique" associated with pilots in general
that attracts a specific demographic to flying and discourages the rest
of a potential market. Not a good business model at all.



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.

It's not an easy road for sure :-)


--
Dudley Henriques

Larry Dighera wrote:
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

I've spent all the time on this with you I intend to spend at this point.
It's apparent we are in total disagreement on these issues, so I'll
simply allow you your opinion and move on.

--
Dudley Henriques

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:37:06 -0400, WJRFlyBoy
wrote:

How about a few of these multi-billion $$ aircraft mfgs getting
education and exposure to the elementary-college level kids and young
adults?

Although I see that as an excellent idea, what would motivate them to
do it?

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?

Perhaps your suggestion might be well received by these sorts of
organizations: http://www.cessna.org/

Surely the AOPA has some constructive input to offer on this issue.

Valid points but I think it is understandable if somebody is less than
enthusiastic about what GA can do to a new pilot's business/career.
Personally I find that a PPL is great for recreational purposes and
could be a good confidence booster in general but I am not sure how
much direct utility a PPL has in day to day life. I know there are
exceptions but for the average PPL like me, I fly strictly for fun. In
that sense I feel that GA should be sold as a cool and interesting
hobby instead of as a driver's license in the sky which it is not.

On Mar 24, 9:58 pm, "Bob Gardner" wrote:
We lose a lot of potential students because the scenario you outline is way
too common. The newbie walks up and talks to the girl at the counter, who
hands over a price list. The newbie, who is price shopping anyway, takes it
and walks out. Properly greeted by someone who asks about the newbie's plans
to use the new ticket and describes what flying ability will do for his/her
business/vacation/travel/career won't get to talking money until the newbie
is half-way sold on the idea of flying...a well-designed and performed
discovery flight will do the rest. The emphasis has to be on the new
student, not on money or hours.

Bob Gardner

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:20:05 -0700 (PDT), Dan
wrote:

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!


It's safe to say, that not EVERYONE does anything for a single reason.

But in my opinion, those who lack the visceral component of
appreciation of flight, will not be sufficiently motivated to become
airmen worthy of the title. It's like the physician who pursue's that
profession solely for the monetary compensation; he'll never be as
competent as the one who possesses a sincere desire to help his fellow
man.

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."


I believe your analogy is flawed, because an infantryman needn't
possess the same depth of knowledge and skill in such a diverse range
of disciplines as an airman, but I have no personal knowledge of their
training.

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.

Did the GI Bill still subsidize flight instruction twenty years ago?
Has the cost and complexity of piloting risen disproportionately
against inflation? Have the DHS imposed hurdles impacted new starts?
Are public schools failing to give students the confidence they can
successfully accomplish their dreams, the same way they have failed to
educate the current generations? (Tangent: Our Republican governor
wants to cut our state's education budget by $4.8 billion:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&type=politics
)

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.


I agree with that, but what of those young foreigners crowding the
Part 141 schools? There's still plenty of young new starts.

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.


It would seem you are qualified to make that judgement. I wonder why
we see it differently. Perhaps our definition of 'engineering
knowledge.'

Take for example a woman I know. She's been the manager of law
offices with scores of attorneys for decades, but she'll NEVER be able
to understand, let alone use, the arcane weight and balance graphs in
the PA28 POH. She's intelligent, but here aptitudes lie elsewhere
mostly in the social arena. She knows this, and self-selects against
becoming an airman. No amount of marketing or coercion will change
her, nor would it be appropriate.

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?

I was sold on aviation by two things.

1. Laying on my back as a child on the lawn gazing up into the
vivid blue sky and contemplating the cottony cumulus turrets, and
mentally cavorting among them.

2. Obsessive dreams of flight without the benefit of appliances.

I was sold, but it took my college roommate to drag me down to the
local airport one Saturday morning for an introductory flight to get
me on the path toward an airmans certificate. The instructor took me
around the patch a few times. I enjoyed it, and perceived (however
inaccurately) that it was no more difficult than riding my motorcycle
in the third dimension.

Because I had been employed in construction during the summer
operating a 30 foot forklift for months positioning workmen up against
the ceiling of the warehouses we were building, so they could install
the high-bay lighting, I felt confident in my motor skills and
abilities to think in three dimensions. I became ever increasingly
more adept at simultaneously moving the work platform smoothly in
three dimensions, and was proud of my new skills and the
responsibility placed on me. Obviously the foreman and those workman
who depended on me for their life safety were comfortable with my
skills, thus affirming my view. So it was, not only my inate love of
ascending into the heavens that prepared me for pursuing an airmans
certificate, but my recent experience and the confidence it brought,
and the suggestion of a former soldier who wanted to take advantage of
his GI benefits.



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


I hadn't thought about that, but it is true in my case.

A similar thing happened shortly after I earned my certificate. A
customer mentioned that soaring was a fun and challenging pursuit. He
was in the process of reinvigorating the Southern California Soaring
Association, and trying to drum up new members. He put a lot of
effort into lining up instructors who donated their services to
members, providing the equipment and training for auto-towing off El
Mirage Dry Lake out in the Mojave Desert, and possessed an appealing
mix of hearty fellow well met contraire and sincere love of the sport.
It was contagious. This experience, near Edwards AFB, afforded me an
opportunity to mingle with some first rate test pilot types and
other's like Peter Lert, and resulted in my earning a glider rating as
well as many enjoyable hours of silent flight, and a much more
profound comprehension of weather phenomena.

So reflecting back on my personal experiences that lead me to earning
a certificate, I would have to say, that it was a combination of my
inate love of the freedom of flying, becoming exposed to aviation by
someone who I respected, being mentally and phallically prepared,
finding flight challenging and enjoyable, and most importantly,
affordable.

On Mar 25, 3:58 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:

I believe your analogy is flawed, because an infantryman needn't
possess the same depth of knowledge and skill in such a diverse range
of disciplines as an airman, but I have no personal knowledge of their
training.

The minority of pilots correctly can run through every emergency
action blindfolded.

Any Armor PFC better know how to tear down, troubleshoot, re-assemble,
function check and fire an M-16, M9, .50 Cal, M-240, 102 MM Main Gun
Breech Block, Boresight, Repair track, and a few other tasks on the
Tank Crew Qualification prior to heading down range to qualify.

Infantrymen have more qualification (individual and collective) tasks.

As much respect and regard I have for pilots (I am one!), it doesn't
take a physicist or an engineer to adequately fly an airplane safely.

The Wright brothers invented flight with a meager elementary
education.


Dan Mc

Dan wrote:

The Wright brothers invented flight with a meager elementary
education.


Dan Mc


So true; and some of what they discovered and dealt with in aerodynamics
is still good data today.
Not bad for a pair of non-engineer bike shop owners huh????!!
:-)))))
--
Dudley Henriques

On Mar 25, 11:31 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:39:20 -0400, Dudley Henriques

I understand your reasoning for that opinion, but I believe it
overlooks a few salient facts. The NAS is, by design, an engineered
system. Those who are uncomfortable dealing with the specifics and
absolutes of engineering and engineered systems are probably
unqualified to operate in that environment, and shouldn't get involved
with it. The dedication and commitment required to remain current,
and the fundamental change in attitude necessary to responsibly
command a flight demand a certain "fire in the belly" toward being an
airman. The financial, time commitment, and negative marketing
obstacles serve to test that desire, and weed out those would be
flight students who lack the required commitment to succeed at
becoming a competent pilot, not merely a certificate holder.

Larry I don't quite understand your point. If this scenario was
applied to learning to drive a car then there would be a heck of a lot
less people driving cars than there are now. My opinion is similar to
that of Dudley's, that within certain fairly general parameters anyone
can be taught to fly an aircraft safely within a GA environment.
After all, I got my PPL and I am about as far from being a natural
pilot as you can get. My personal philosophy is not to strive to be
the best pilot in the world, but to be the safest pilot in the world.
I'm sure if I ever approach my goal I'd have discovered competency
somewhere along the way.

Dudley Henriques wrote:


All of these books are good, each in it's own way.
.............
I have believed for many moons that there exists in General Aviation a
totally unnecessary trend toward the macho image for the GA pilot.

That's an interesting observation. I've read Kerschner, the Jepp books and
Gleim. In the Jepp's for example, I see strong sections on good
aeronautical decision-making.

In both chapter 1 and chapter 10, they discuss "Hazardous Attitudes", and
list (among others):

Anti-authority
Invulnerability
and
Macho.

And discuss them in some depth.

So at least in the initial training (Chapter 1) this sort of attitude is
discouraged.

None of my instructors were of the macho sort. Especially the female ones.
All of them were professional, patient and supportive.

I would never argue that the macho image doesn't exist in GA at all, nor
that there aren't macho instructors or even FBO owners. But I've not seen
it at a level such that it would act as a barrier to people wanting to
learn to fly.

I haven't read Machado's book but I read his articles and Q&A sections in
the AOPA mags and I like his style very much. So I imagine his book is
pretty good. One *can* overdo humor in such a book - some is good but like
anything else one can go overboard. Whether Machado has or not I cannot
say.

As for avoiding highly technical engineering explanations, I see the books
trying hard to do that all along. For example, I have observed that in some
cases the books simplify to the point of telling you what, but not why. In
one case (Jepp - Commercial and Instrument) they will tell you that an
increased AOA on a propeller blade results in an increase of the load on
the engine..but they don't say why.

The best attempt I saw at satisfying the varying complexity level desires of
different folks is "The Compleat Taildragger Pilot". There, they gave the
lighter version in the text. But if you really wanted the heavy vector math
they provided it in the back of the book.

G

On Mar 25, 4:52 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Dan wrote:
The Wright brothers invented flight with a meager elementary
education.

Dan Mc

So true; and some of what they discovered and dealt with in aerodynamics
is still good data today.
Not bad for a pair of non-engineer bike shop owners huh????!!
:-)))))
--
Dudley Henriques

Cyclists are a superior breed, certainly!

:-)