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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
"Please Keep Your Word" wrote in message ... Dudley Henriques wrote: I'm going to attempt this one more time, then I'm out of here. If only that were true. Get lost! God, what a f*****g idiot! Considering you don't trim your posts and usually run paragraphs together without spaces I daresay you are not so smart yourself. Maybe is you read the CONTEXT of his post (which is depreciated by snipping) you'd realize he's quite brilliant. Based on your stupid remark, I'd say you were downright dense. |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
Get lost! God, what a f*****g idiot! Dudley, Andrew wasn't asking anything but honest questions and in a much calmer manner than even I was. By Usenet standards, Andrew was darn close to being Incredibly Nice, Indeed. I used to have some respect for you. Even in this thread where you accused me of bashing you(and I did not - no matter what you wish to believe) I still held to some respect for some of your opinions. For what it's worth (which ain't much, I'm sure), I have lost that respect. You're just a run of the mill, high-on-himself, certificate-waiving, pompous asshole who obviously thinks CFI-dom is the pinnacle of Enlightenment. The reality is that you're probably a closet high-winger. -- Jim Fisher |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Fisher" wrote in message ... "Dudley Henriques" wrote in message Get lost! God, what a f*****g idiot! Dudley, Andrew wasn't asking anything but honest questions and in a much calmer manner than even I was. By Usenet standards, Andrew was darn close to being Incredibly Nice, Indeed. I used to have some respect for you. Even in this thread where you accused me of bashing you(and I did not - no matter what you wish to believe) I still held to some respect for some of your opinions. For what it's worth (which ain't much, I'm sure), I have lost that respect. You're just a run of the mill, high-on-himself, certificate-waiving, pompous asshole who obviously thinks CFI-dom is the pinnacle of Enlightenment. The reality is that you're probably a closet high-winger. -- Jim Fisher Actually Fisher, I have never sought your respect nor anyone else's on Usenet and can assure you I don't require it. Losing it therefore is a non event for me. In fact, it's incredibly self serving of you to believe that losing your respect would be a problem for me or anyone else for that matter. Respect comes and goes on Usenet like flies on a crap pile. In making statements like this you're falling for the oldest Usenet game out here; that someone actually cares what you really think about them. Hell man, I would have thought you've been out here long enough to have learned by now that Usenet isn't the place where you earn people's respect. You do that in the real world. That being said, I'll just have to settle for the respect I have managed to earn from the real world and learn to live with not having yours I guess. I might be able to handle that I think! :-)) Actually, to be quite blunt with you, as far as Usenet is concerned, the people whose respect I value are in my address book. Everything else that comes and goes out here isn't important really. Hey, you take care, and all the very best to you, and keep up on that high wing/low wing stuff. It's one the REAL important issues out here on Usenet :-)))) Dudley Henriques International Fighter Pilots Fellowship Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired For personal email, please replace the z's with e's. dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Dudley Henriques wrote:
In YOUR context, "insufficient" apparently means "not sufficient." In my context, insufficient means "could be better". FYI: http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?bo...a=insufficient You'll note that "not sufficient" is the definition of "insufficient". [...] o They were safe as defined by the PPL exam, but could/should be more safe. BINGO!!! Now was this all that hard to understand? I'm afraid that it is, given that you've made this statement as a comparison between graduates of accelerated and "conventional" programs. Recall that your original statement on this thread included: To put it bluntly, I can't remember a situation where I have checked out a new pilot coming out of an accelerated course for Private Pilots where the performance level was such that I felt no remedial work was required....not ONE case!!!! If the graduate of an accelerated program is safe as defined by the PPL exam, but could be more safe, then what is the difference between the graduate of an accelerated program and the graduate of a "conventional" program? Surely, the graduate of a "conventional" program could/should also be more safe than he/she is. By this definition of "remedial work", would you not find a need for "remedial work" with any recently certificated pilot? For that matter, can not *any* pilot be better than he/she is? - Andrew |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message nk.net... Hey, you take care, and all the very best to you, and keep up on that high wing/low wing stuff. It's one the REAL important issues out here on Usenet :-)))) It's important to me. The plane I buy will definitely have to have one or the other. |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Teacherjh wrote:
If other DEs are not doing this, this is their failing (and our problem). I have to completely agree with this. My checkrides - and for that matter, my various check "outs" (ie. club, FBO, etc.) - have all been pretty deep. Now, this may be because I don't take that "say as little as possible" advice one gets, but I suspect that the examiners are playing the major role in this. I think they are looking for my limits. Personally, I think this terrific. In fact, I'd expect it and I'd worry in its absence. Dudley has very carefully not said that improved comprehension yields improved safety, but I believe that to be true. To fully understand how my "findings" on this would fit into an overall picture one has to realize that my training standards are MUCH higher than the legal minimum standard. It's all well and good to have high standards. But when are standards "too high"? (and why are THOSE not the miniumu standards?) I suppose, in the abstract, standards can be too high. And if we made the PPL standards as high as possible, we'd have no Commercial and no ATP. Still, Dudley's statement that some pilots have insufficient comprehension is worrisome. Someone else used here the expression "Santa Claus DE", which bugs me even more. - Andrew |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Gottlieb wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message nk.net... Hey, you take care, and all the very best to you, and keep up on that high wing/low wing stuff. It's one the REAL important issues out here on Usenet :-)))) It's important to me. The plane I buy will definitely have to have one or the other. Or both! |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message online.com... Dudley Henriques wrote: In YOUR context, "insufficient" apparently means "not sufficient." In my context, insufficient means "could be better". FYI: http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?bo...a=insufficient You'll note that "not sufficient" is the definition of "insufficient". So? Context again...as it has been for the last ten or so posts with you. You just can't seem to get it can you? The pilots I was checking out of accelerated training were "not sufficient" to MY standards Gideon, NOT the flight test standards. The dictionary definition is in complete agreement both ways. The pilots were also "insufficient" to MY standards. Dawning on you yet? [...] o They were safe as defined by the PPL exam, but could/should be more safe. BINGO!!! Now was this all that hard to understand? I'm afraid that it is, given that you've made this statement as a comparison between graduates of accelerated and "conventional" programs. Recall that your original statement on this thread included: To put it bluntly, I can't remember a situation where I have checked out a new pilot coming out of an accelerated course for Private Pilots where the performance level was such that I felt no remedial work was required....not ONE case!!!! If the graduate of an accelerated program is safe as defined by the PPL exam, but could be more safe, then what is the difference between the graduate of an accelerated program and the graduate of a "conventional" program? The difference is exactly as I stated it. I was getting what I considered insufficient results from all the accelerated grads. I was getting mixed results from the conventional grads; insufficient on one side......mixed on the other side........This Gedion, is a difference! Surely, the graduate of a "conventional" program could/should also be more safe than he/she is. Absolutely! That's why the Commercial PTS is basically an "upgraded" Private PTS in a lot of respects. It requires an even deeper level of comprehension and performance to a closer tolorance of the same subject matter by the examinee in many cases. By this definition of "remedial work", would you not find a need for "remedial work" with any recently certificated pilot? Absolutely! All pilots, including myself, can use some remedial work. I did it all the time. The issue here however isn't that all pilots need remedial work. The issue is that I was finding a DIFFERENCE in the level of remedial work needed between accelerated and traditional training methods, and THAT is indicative of a data point if nothing else. For that matter, can not *any* pilot be better than he/she is? All pilots can be better than they are. Pilots like myself for example, who lived and worked in a highly dangerous environment with high performance airplanes were engaged in a daily regimem of self improvement. Without it, I never would have survived to be here arguing this ridiculas argument with you :-) BTW, I apologize for losing my temper with you. I shouldn't have done that. If you can, please forgive my personal remark in the last thread. If you wish to engage in this discussion with me, please continue. I'll try and keep my temper in check and deal with your questions as they are thrown my way :-) Dudley Henriques International Fighter Pilots Fellowship Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired For personal email, please replace the z's with e's. dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message online.com... Teacherjh wrote: If other DEs are not doing this, this is their failing (and our problem). I have to completely agree with this. My checkrides - and for that matter, my various check "outs" (ie. club, FBO, etc.) - have all been pretty deep. Now, this may be because I don't take that "say as little as possible" advice one gets, but I suspect that the examiners are playing the major role in this. I think they are looking for my limits. Personally, I think this terrific. In fact, I'd expect it and I'd worry in its absence. If your check pilots are probing your limits, they are performing check flights as they REALLY should be performed. You should seek out and fly with check pilots who use this method. Dudley has very carefully not said that improved comprehension yields improved safety, but I believe that to be true. I don't understand why you would think this. It's basic 101. I probably assumed you would know I felt this way. If there is any doubt about this, please feel assured that I indeed believe that improved comprehension yields improved safety. To fully understand how my "findings" on this would fit into an overall picture one has to realize that my training standards are MUCH higher than the legal minimum standard. It's all well and good to have high standards. But when are standards "too high"? (and why are THOSE not the miniumu standards?) I can't answer why the minimum standards aren't higher. On the face of it, it would appear that the minimum standard is adaquate to produce a safe pilot. I believe the DE giving the flight test is the ultimate last piece in the safety equation. If you get a good DE and or a good oral and check flight, coming out of it you should be adaquate safety wise. Most pilots are adaquate. Some DE's will dig deeper in the oral and performance than others, but the average is a safe pilot if passed. It's important to realize that no matter what the comprehension level is at passing, that level can really range. In reality, what usually happens on a flight test is that the examiner digs deep enough to satisfy him/herself that the level of comprehension is adaquate for the test standard. As Shirley said, sometimes a DE goes in deeper; but many times, time restrictions and scheduling can be factors as to just how deep a DE will go. So you get a safe pilot and then what happens? There's a period of "adjustment" that all pilots go through after getting the Private. What happens is a natural process where they "catch up" on the comprehension they might have missed during the training process. Oh, they're safe enough....but they could be better.....in some cases, a whole lot better. Some of these pilots run into check pilots like myself, who, simply because of the high performance environment we live in, tend to look for that "deeper level" of comprehension I've been talking about. True, we're not checking these pilots out in P51's, but our check out methods tend to reflect the higher standard we have to demand from the pilots we're dealing with in high performance airplanes. When I say I'm not finding comprehension levels in accelerated program trained pilots, all that means is that in my opinion, the accelerated pilots had problems that I was picking up during check flights that bothered me. It wasn't that the pilots weren't safe. They were safe. I just felt I wasn't getting the level of understanding I was looking for. In all cases, it was mostly a matter of bringing these pilots up to speed on these things to where we were satisfied. I suppose, in the abstract, standards can be too high. And if we made the PPL standards as high as possible, we'd have no Commercial and no ATP. In reality, at least in the aviation world I knew and know now; standards can NEVER be too high. I had a sign over my desk for years that read " Perfection may be unattainable, but spend your entire career in aviation trying to achieve it anyway" Still, Dudley's statement that some pilots have insufficient comprehension is worrisome. Someone else used here the expression "Santa Claus DE", which bugs me even more. Rest easy. The DE's are for the most part doing a credible job. As I said Andrew, my definition for "insufficient comprehension" equates only to my standards. The flight test standards are sufficient as that relates to general safety. Dudley Henriques International Fighter Pilots Fellowship Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired For personal email, please replace the z's with e's. dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Gottlieb wrote: It's important to me. The plane I buy will definitely have to have one or the other. I dunno -- some of those mid-wing aircraft look pretty neat! George Patterson In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault. In Tennessee, it's evangelism. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pilot Courses | John Stevens | Piloting | 1 | April 30th 04 09:11 PM |
Best GA Pilot Continuing Education Courses | O. Sami Saydjari | Instrument Flight Rules | 7 | January 2nd 04 07:54 PM |
instrument courses | Tony Woolner | Piloting | 0 | November 9th 03 12:31 AM |
instrument courses | ArtP | Piloting | 0 | November 8th 03 01:02 PM |
Wanted: Experienced CFIIs to Teach 10-day IFR Rating Courses near Pittsburgh | Richard Kaplan | Instrument Flight Rules | 2 | October 1st 03 01:50 AM |