I got into a discussion with an non-pilot MD comparing
a professional degree versus flying.

My background, BS and MS from the top 2 bioengineering programs
in the US. (note, I put *much* more weight to experience over letters
after a name including my own). Flying-wise, I have a PPL and
about 33 hours into my IFR ticket. I should be able to complete
it in under 45 so I'm probably ahead of the curve but a I gotta put
much of this on my book and mental preparation before each
flight and ahead of time that others didn't commit to. I plan
on doing this for the challenge, excitement and unique lifestyle
of being a pilot. I might, in fact, probably will become a CFI(I)
but not full time. We'll see. If someone pays me $10 (or better
yet $500,000) to fly their challenger or Citation to wherever I want
to go, I'll consider. ;-) I've been in professional challenging
situations and none have come close to IFR in IMC.

Overall, my flying experience is just like everyone elses. It is
challenging but by the time you get your ticket and after that
still challenging as it is a never ending battle with learning to stay
ahead of the plane.
The IFR ticket is definitely a step above that as the consequences
is a LOT greater. It is a licence to kill and there is a NEVER ending
true battle with learning everything to save the asses to which the
plane is strapped to. IFR is and will always be for me, the
non-professional, challenging. Certainly after my training, my head
hurts from the concentration level required. All of this is absolutely
impossible to explain to a non-pilot...even a non-IFR pilot it is difficult.

Back to the original question. This person I had the discussion with
is under the impression of flying is probably more like driving and anybody
can do it. This person is the typical MD, their way is the only way and
they
are the only ones who do it right and no one else can comprehend (I work
for a medical device company and have dealt with hundreds of
neurosurgeons, oncologists and medical physicists around the world).

So the big question, compared to a your profession, how does flying
VFR and IFR compare with regards to training, proficiency, continued
training, mental challenge and anything else that comes to mind? No
need to convince me but more to convince the non-pilot. In particular
I'd like to hear from the professions that require advanced degrees.

Gerald Sylvester

Pilot training is vocational training. It may be a proffession, but it
is learning the trade. I have an engineering degree and nothing in
flying was as technically rigorous. Not even close. As for difficulty,
yes, it's hard, especially the IFR ticket, but I play a musical
instrument (the guitar), and I'll tell you, its harder to play a
musical instrument than fly (there are actually some similarities). One
difference, if I miss a beat on my guitar, no one dies. Flying is very
serious, if you screw up badly, there are legal reprecussions and you
may crash, injure and kill people. So in terms of responsibility, it IS
a LOT of responsibility. Also, a pro pilot is always training and
being evaluated, so you have to thrive on that.

G. Sylvester wrote:

>
> I got into a discussion with an non-pilot MD comparing
> a professional degree versus flying.
>
> My background, BS and MS from the top 2 bioengineering programs
> in the US. (note, I put *much* more weight to experience over letters
> after a name including my own). Flying-wise, I have a PPL and
> about 33 hours into my IFR ticket. I should be able to complete
> it in under 45 so I'm probably ahead of the curve but a I gotta put
> much of this on my book and mental preparation before each
> flight and ahead of time that others didn't commit to. I plan
> on doing this for the challenge, excitement and unique lifestyle
> of being a pilot. I might, in fact, probably will become a CFI(I)
> but not full time. We'll see. If someone pays me $10 (or better
> yet $500,000) to fly their challenger or Citation to wherever I want
> to go, I'll consider. ;-) I've been in professional challenging
> situations and none have come close to IFR in IMC.

I guess it depends on what metric you are looking at. Mental challenge?
Stress? I have a CS and EE degree (both undergraduate) and some
graduate-level study, but no degree and am a licensed professional
engineer. I found the instrument rating mentally challenging, but much
less so than the EE degree. Instrument flying requires a fair bit of
memorization and multitasking ability, but the procedures are pretty
well thought out and pretty consistent and straight forward for the most
part. The initial training is challenging, but it is very concrete,
unlike much of the EE curriculum which is very abstract (field theory
for example).

From a stress level, I find most flying much less stressful than a
typical day in the office. Then again, many engineers find dealing with
people to be much more stressful than dealing with objects such as
airplanes, weather, etc. :-)


> Overall, my flying experience is just like everyone elses. It is
> challenging but by the time you get your ticket and after that
> still challenging as it is a never ending battle with learning to stay
> ahead of the plane.

I found that after I had about 10 hours of solo IFR in IMC time, that
staying ahead of my 182 wasn't hard at all and I found myself getting
bored on any instrument flight more than 60 minutes in length. I'd
check the weather, check every ATIS along my route and other things just
to keep from falling asleep. I'd usually have at least a couple of
approaches pretty well memorized before arriving at my destination.


> The IFR ticket is definitely a step above that as the consequences
> is a LOT greater. It is a licence to kill and there is a NEVER ending
> true battle with learning everything to save the asses to which the
> plane is strapped to. IFR is and will always be for me, the
> non-professional, challenging. Certainly after my training, my head
> hurts from the concentration level required. All of this is absolutely
> impossible to explain to a non-pilot...even a non-IFR pilot it is
> difficult.

Yes, IFR in IMC solo is challenging, but once you get truly proficient
it is hardly a nail biter unless you get into heavy icing (did that just
once) or too close to a thunderstorm (haven't really done that yet) or
have an emergency such as engine failure (again, haven't done that yet).


> Back to the original question. This person I had the discussion with
> is under the impression of flying is probably more like driving and anybody
> can do it. This person is the typical MD, their way is the only way and
> they
> are the only ones who do it right and no one else can comprehend (I work
> for a medical device company and have dealt with hundreds of
> neurosurgeons, oncologists and medical physicists around the world).

Flying is far more challenging than driving, but it isn't as challenging
as solving problems using Maxwell's equations. :-) I'm not a doctor so
I can't compare it to medical practice, but I don't think much of that
is challenging either. I can see an emergency room doctor considering
flying to be somewhat trivial, but most doctors aren't ER doctors.


> So the big question, compared to a your profession, how does flying
> VFR and IFR compare with regards to training, proficiency, continued
> training, mental challenge and anything else that comes to mind? No
> need to convince me but more to convince the non-pilot. In particular
> I'd like to hear from the professions that require advanced degrees.

VFR is a piece of cake compared to my day job. Most IFR is also. My
only experience where I'd say that flying was more stressful than my day
job was flying back from a recruiting trip to Perdue in December. I
came back to PA just a few miles south of Lake Erie and got into some
nasty icing. That was the only time in my 26 year flying career where
the "successful outcome of my flight" (to paraphase the PTS) was
seriously in doubt! That was pretty stressful for the first few minutes
and then it actually got very peaceful once I figured I wasn't going to
survive the flight. It was really a wierd experience and one that I've
thankfully had only once.

I doubt anything short of flying lessons will convice an MD that flying
is harder than driving.


Matt

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 01:08:20 GMT, "G. Sylvester"
> wrote:

>So the big question, compared to a your profession, how does flying
>VFR and IFR compare with regards to training, proficiency, continued
>training, mental challenge and anything else that comes to mind? No
>need to convince me but more to convince the non-pilot.


Ask him if flying was so easy, why have so many doctors killed
themselves in airplanes? They even earned an endearing nickname for
one. (The Bonanza is known as "The Doctor Killer").

z

Ok, no advanced degree here, I'm just a farmer.

For me flying is very similar to farming because of how much both depend on
and are effected by the weather. Planning is essential, lack of planning is
disastrous, thinking on your feet is imperative, and "the next three things"
are always in the front of your mind while things four through twenty-four
are close behind.

Risk evaluation plays a huge part in both farming and flying. Both farmers
and pilots must know their limitations of risk. Over step your limitations,
your abilities, or your proficiency and you will pay for it. Farmers and
pilots know that operating equipment improperly, in adverse conditions, or
when your head or your body isn't up for the challenge can get you killed.

Farmers and pilots know when it's best NOT to do something and when doing
something NOW is the only path to a successful outcome. Farmers and pilots
know not to loose focus until the wheels stop turning and the engines stop
turning. Farmers and pilots know they are often their own worst enemy, they
have to put their job ahead of their family and must block other pressures
from their mind.

Farmers and pilots know to listen to those who have "been there and done
that", they learn from others or suffer their fate. They know themselves
and will freely admit their own shortcomings and mistakes. They will seek
answers and knowledge from those that they trust. They know that good
judgment will produce better results than emotion, brute force, or
showmanship. They know that there have been many that have gone before them
and that they themselves are not the best nor will ever be the best in their
field yet it is that for which they strive. They are humble and willing to
learn from others yet proud of who they are and what they have accomplished.
They are willing to pass on what they know to others if not only to prevent
them from repeating mistakes that they once made, but hopefully to save a
life. They know to leave their ego tucked away in the back of their minds,
only to come out while alone and away from those who are impressionable.
They know they should act as if somebody is watching them, even if there
isn't, because the people that look up to you and depend on you are always
watching.

They also know that they must continue to learn and that if they fall behind
it is often impossible to catch up. They must be alert to the newest
technology because without it they loose a competitive edge, sometimes the
ONLY edge they have to make a profit or allow them to reach their
destination safely. Every decision must be thought out with immediate
goals, long range goals, and consequences taken into consideration.

Farmers and pilots, especially airplane owners, also know that the effort is
well worth the cost and that the fun is in the journey, not at the
destination.

Jim

F.A.R.M.E.R.
CP/IR/CFI(I)/AGI/IGI
SEL/MEL
none of which really matter
and no advanced degrees

"G. Sylvester" wrote
> My background, BS and MS from the top 2 bioengineering programs
> in the US. (note, I put *much* more weight to experience over letters
> after a name including my own). Flying-wise, I have a PPL and
> about 33 hours into my IFR ticket.

Well Gerald.....
Here in the USofA, those of us with just a high school diploma
know that you don't have a "PPL" and there is no such thing as
an "IFR ticket".
You may very well posess a "Private Pilot Certificate" and might
just be studying for an "Instrument Rating".
Unlike Europe and other parts of the world, the US government does
not "license" pilots, but instead issues them a "certificate" of
competence. In FAA speak, IFR means Instrument Flight Rules and
a ticket will just get you into the movie theater or a ball game.

Bob Moore

Gee Bob, you must be "new" to aviation in the USofA.
We used to call it a Private Pilot License here until the political
correctness and such nonsense took over the government in the late 70's.
We also used to call it an Instrument Ticket if we had an IFR rating.

> "G. Sylvester" wrote
>>My background, BS and MS from the top 2 bioengineering programs
>>in the US. (note, I put *much* more weight to experience over letters
>>after a name including my own). Flying-wise, I have a PPL and
>>about 33 hours into my IFR ticket.

Bob Moore wrote:
> Well Gerald.....
> Here in the USofA, those of us with just a high school diploma
> know that you don't have a "PPL" and there is no such thing as
> an "IFR ticket".
> You may very well posess a "Private Pilot Certificate" and might
> just be studying for an "Instrument Rating".
> Unlike Europe and other parts of the world, the US government does
> not "license" pilots, but instead issues them a "certificate" of
> competence. In FAA speak, IFR means Instrument Flight Rules and
> a ticket will just get you into the movie theater or a ball game.

"G. Sylvester" > wrote in message
m...
>
> I got into a discussion with an non-pilot MD comparing
> a professional degree versus flying.

I would probably comparing a pilot's license to something like getting an
EMT certification. A doctor I know once told me that the way he looked at
medicine was that no single thing in it was all that difficult, but in order
to be a physician you needed to know thousands upon thousands of specific
things and how they all fit together. An EMT may not have a HS diploma but
knows a handful of things to try to keep you alive for the 30 minutes it
takes to get you to the hospital. The MD equivalent for aviation might be an
ATP/A&P who once worked as an air traffic controller and has an aerospace
engineering degree.

I do however think there are some similarities, in that both medicine and
aviation are the practice of both art and science. Both fields pay a lot of
respect to experience, and while they give people the "MD" as soon as they
finish med school, they still make you spend another four (or more) years as
a resident before turning you loose. Another similarity is that both are
"high consequence" activities that are potentially very intolerant of small
errors. On the other hand, when a doctor screws up, he usually doesn't get
killed along with the patient.

I've had the pleasure of knowing a couple very distinguished physicians, and
they are among the most humble and self-effacing people I know, far more so
than a lot of corporate VPs, lawyers, and real estate agents who have no
remote right to their arrogance.

-cwk.

john smith wrote
> Gee Bob, you must be "new" to aviation in the USofA.

New since 1958 :-) :-) and an FAA certificated instrument
instructor since 1970 and I've never taught IFR ratings or
tickets. I have ,however, taught many students training for
their instrument rating.

Bob

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 17:42:44 GMT, Bob Moore >
wrote:

>john smith wrote
>> Gee Bob, you must be "new" to aviation in the USofA.
>
>New since 1958 :-) :-) and an FAA certificated instrument
>instructor since 1970 and I've never taught IFR ratings or
>tickets. I have ,however, taught many students training for
>their instrument rating.
>
>Bob


Well, technically, you are not an "instrument instructor", but rather
a "flight instructor" with an "instrument" rating.

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 18:44:37 GMT, wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 17:42:44 GMT, Bob Moore >
>wrote:
>
>>john smith wrote
>>> Gee Bob, you must be "new" to aviation in the USofA.
>>
>>New since 1958 :-) :-) and an FAA certificated instrument
>>instructor since 1970 and I've never taught IFR ratings or
>>tickets. I have ,however, taught many students training for
>>their instrument rating.
>>
>>Bob
>
>
>Well, technically, you are not an "instrument instructor", but rather
>a "flight instructor" with an "instrument" rating.


And, while I think of it, your do not teach "training" unless you are
teaching how to train.

You are, instead, "giving" the training for their instrument ratings.

(God, but isn't pedantry a lot of fun sometimes?)

I think your MD friend is mostly correct. Flying is only mentally
challenging until you become competent, then it becomes automatic and easy
like driving. You can't really know that IFR flying will always be
challenging since you are so new to it that you don't even have the rating
yet. There are basically four phases to learning:

1) unconscious incompetent-you don't know what to do and you can't do the
task
2) conscious incompetent- you mentally know what to do but can't do it
3) conscious competent-you mentally know what to do and you cam do it
4) Unconsious competent-you can do the task without thinking about it.

As an instrument sutdent you are probably at level two.

Mike
MU-2

"G. Sylvester" > wrote in message
m...
>
> I got into a discussion with an non-pilot MD comparing
> a professional degree versus flying.
>
> My background, BS and MS from the top 2 bioengineering programs
> in the US. (note, I put *much* more weight to experience over letters
> after a name including my own). Flying-wise, I have a PPL and
> about 33 hours into my IFR ticket. I should be able to complete
> it in under 45 so I'm probably ahead of the curve but a I gotta put
> much of this on my book and mental preparation before each
> flight and ahead of time that others didn't commit to. I plan
> on doing this for the challenge, excitement and unique lifestyle
> of being a pilot. I might, in fact, probably will become a CFI(I)
> but not full time. We'll see. If someone pays me $10 (or better
> yet $500,000) to fly their challenger or Citation to wherever I want
> to go, I'll consider. ;-) I've been in professional challenging
> situations and none have come close to IFR in IMC.
>
> Overall, my flying experience is just like everyone elses. It is
> challenging but by the time you get your ticket and after that
> still challenging as it is a never ending battle with learning to stay
> ahead of the plane.
> The IFR ticket is definitely a step above that as the consequences
> is a LOT greater. It is a licence to kill and there is a NEVER ending
> true battle with learning everything to save the asses to which the plane
> is strapped to. IFR is and will always be for me, the non-professional,
> challenging. Certainly after my training, my head hurts from the
> concentration level required. All of this is absolutely impossible to
> explain to a non-pilot...even a non-IFR pilot it is difficult.
>
> Back to the original question. This person I had the discussion with
> is under the impression of flying is probably more like driving and
> anybody
> can do it. This person is the typical MD, their way is the only way and
> they
> are the only ones who do it right and no one else can comprehend (I work
> for a medical device company and have dealt with hundreds of
> neurosurgeons, oncologists and medical physicists around the world).
>
> So the big question, compared to a your profession, how does flying
> VFR and IFR compare with regards to training, proficiency, continued
> training, mental challenge and anything else that comes to mind? No
> need to convince me but more to convince the non-pilot. In particular
> I'd like to hear from the professions that require advanced degrees.
>
> Gerald Sylvester
>
>
>
>

I'm an insurance actuary; it took me 8 years of home study to be fully
accredited. The IFR written was a lot easier.

I just got my rating last year, and find that routine IFR is no big
deal, but proficiency is another story - the process of doing 3
approaches in rapid succession with successive holds and route
intersections typical of what you do for the practical exam requires a
level of concentration which in my life compares only with high-level
musical performance (I'm a singer in my spare time).

"Mike Rapoport" wrote:
> 4) Unconsious competent-you can do the task without thinking about it.

Have you made it to "unconscious competent" yet?

After 5+ years of instrument flying, I must say I haven't achieved this
state. I doubt I ever shall, flying only about ten actual approaches per
year plus a dozen for practice. I find that flying approaches in IMC still
requires intense, deliberate concentration for me to stay ahead of the
situation.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

I think that I have. I recieved the IR in 1998 and have flown over 1500hrs
since then in the same airplane and virtually all of the flying in the MU-2
is IFR because of the fuel savings in the flight levels. I no longer
consciously "scan" the instruments, I just look at the panel and take in the
information. I also find that my skills don't atrophy as fast as they did
1000hrs ago. I get about 6hrs of simulator time every year at Simcom,
virtually all of which is IMC. I don't do any practice approaches or
training in the airplane. I don't know how much of this is avionics (Garmin
530/430, GPS roll steering, Flight Director, dual HSI's and RMI's) and a
stable airplane vs how much is applicable to experience.

I am somewhere between conscious competent and unconscious competent in the
Helio. I certainly haven't mastered the airplane but I no longer conciously
think about "dancing" on the rudder pedals and that kind of stuff.

Mike
MU-2


"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" wrote:
>> 4) Unconsious competent-you can do the task without thinking about it.
>
> Have you made it to "unconscious competent" yet?
>
> After 5+ years of instrument flying, I must say I haven't achieved this
> state. I doubt I ever shall, flying only about ten actual approaches per
> year plus a dozen for practice. I find that flying approaches in IMC
> still
> requires intense, deliberate concentration for me to stay ahead of the
> situation.
> --
> Dan
> C-172RG at BFM
>
>

Interesting how many engineers, and especially EEs there are on this
thread.

Anyway, I've got a BSEE and work in the semiconductor business. To me,
comparing flying IFR and doing my job is really just apples and
oranges.

I don't do enough flying in IMC to say that it is second nature for me,
and it probably never will be, but overall, the intellectual task is
not anywhere as difficult as circuit design. Then again, when I was
doing design, if I got confused while doing my day job, I could get up,
get a cup of coffee and chat in the breakroom until I was ready to face
my workstation. Can't do that in an airplane.

Nowadays, I'm an FAE (Field Apps) and, while meeting with customers
there is a real-time component to the job, but still, it's nothing like
IFR flight. As someone else said: death is not a likely outcome from a
customer meeting. (Aside from the times I want to kill my customers.)

So, I think the difference is that learning to fly IFR is not as taxing
mentally as an advanced degree or practicing an art that requires an
advanced degree. However, flying requires quick thinking and constant
attention that few other domains approach.

For the computer nerds: design engineering is like running a huge, cpu
and disk instensive cad tool on your GHz PC. Flying is like a little
high-priority service routine that only burns a few MIPS of that CPU.
However, god help you if you don't handle that interrupt in a timely
manner.

For all you super-duper engineer pilots out there, try solving
Schroedinger's wave equation while flying in IMC. No autopilots or
scratch paper allowed.

Dave J

jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com

So Bob,
what kind of plane do you drive?

:)

Gerald


Bob Moore wrote:
> "G. Sylvester" wrote
>
>>My background, BS and MS from the top 2 bioengineering programs
>>in the US. (note, I put *much* more weight to experience over letters
>>after a name including my own). Flying-wise, I have a PPL and
>>about 33 hours into my IFR ticket.
>
>
> Well Gerald.....
> Here in the USofA, those of us with just a high school diploma
> know that you don't have a "PPL" and there is no such thing as
> an "IFR ticket".
> You may very well posess a "Private Pilot Certificate" and might
> just be studying for an "Instrument Rating".
> Unlike Europe and other parts of the world, the US government does
> not "license" pilots, but instead issues them a "certificate" of
> competence. In FAA speak, IFR means Instrument Flight Rules and
> a ticket will just get you into the movie theater or a ball game.
>
> Bob Moore

> I would probably comparing a pilot's license to something like getting an
> EMT certification. A doctor I know once told me that the way he looked at
> medicine was that no single thing in it was all that difficult, but in order
> to be a physician you needed to know thousands upon thousands of specific
> things and how they all fit together. An EMT may not have a HS diploma but
> knows a handful of things to try to keep you alive for the 30 minutes it
> takes to get you to the hospital. The MD equivalent for aviation might be an
> ATP/A&P who once worked as an air traffic controller and has an aerospace
> engineering degree.

that's probably the best comparison in my view. Thanks.

> I do however think there are some similarities, in that both medicine and
> aviation are the practice of both art and science... Another similarity is that both are
> "high consequence" activities that are potentially very intolerant of small
> errors. On the other hand, when a doctor screws up, he usually doesn't get
> killed along with the patient.

exactly and this was a big point that I was trying to make to this MD.
He just thought of flying like jumping into the car and going for a spin
but it takes quite a bit more to do it competently, proficiently and safely.

> I've had the pleasure of knowing a couple very distinguished physicians, and
> they are among the most humble and self-effacing people I know, far more so
> than a lot of corporate VPs, lawyers, and real estate agents who have no
> remote right to their arrogance.

You don't deal with many neurosurgeons. The word ego is defined by them.
....not all, but 98% of them. They are probably the F22 and F116
drivers of our bunch. ;-)


Gerald

wrote:
> As someone else said: death is not a likely outcome from a
> customer meeting. (Aside from the times I want to kill my customers.)

awesome. :) :)


And thanks everyone else for the interesting comparisons.

Gerald

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 121...
> Well Gerald.....
> Here in the USofA, those of us with just a high school diploma
> know that you don't have a "PPL"and there is no such thing as
> an "IFR ticket".
> Unlike Europe and other parts
> of the world, the US government does not "license" pilots, but instead
> issues them a "certificate" of competence.

Of course the US government licenses pilots. A "license" is a document that
confers permission to do something that is otherwise forbidden. A
private-pilot certificate is therefore a license, and is reasonably called a
PPL.

As for "ticket", check your dictionary: "ticket 1a: a document that serves
as a certificate, license, or permit; especially: a mariner's or airman's
certificate" (www.m-w.com).

--Gary

"G. Sylvester" > wrote in message
m...
>
> I got into a discussion with an non-pilot MD comparing
> a professional degree versus flying...
> This person I had the discussion with
> is under the impression of flying is probably more like driving and
> anybody
> can do it...
> So the big question, compared to a your profession, how does flying
> VFR and IFR compare with regards to training, proficiency, continued
> training, mental challenge and anything else that comes to mind?

There are two comparisons in question here: flying vs. driving, and flying
vs. professional training.

Flying is harder than driving, in several respects. There are important
aspects of flying that are initially counterintuitive (not just pulling the
nose up if you're about to land short, for instance). Flying (safely)
requires more knowledge about weather conditions and the vehicle's
interaction with them. There are more emergency procedures that need to be
instantly deployable. Navigation while flying is more complicated than while
driving (except perhaps with GPS). Flying requires more multitasking. There
are more regulations to be familiar with when flying.

But there's no comparison between flying and professional training. Flying
requires only a high-school student's knowledge, skill, and judgment (that's
why we license 16-year-olds to solo, and 17-year-olds to carry passengers).
Getting a PPL requires perhaps a month's full-time study (usually spread out
over a much longer period, though); an instrument rating is perhaps another
month. Compared to the years of complex study needed for an MD or a PhD,
flight training is a relaxing diversion. That's why retired doctors and
scientists often become pilots, but retired pilots seldom become doctors or
scientists. :)

--Gary

"G. Sylvester" > wrote in message
...
>
> > I've had the pleasure of knowing a couple very distinguished
physicians, and
> > they are among the most humble and self-effacing people I know, far more
so
> > than a lot of corporate VPs, lawyers, and real estate agents who have no
> > remote right to their arrogance.
>
> You don't deal with many neurosurgeons. The word ego is defined by them.
> ....not all, but 98% of them. They are probably the F22 and F116
> drivers of our bunch. ;-)

Actually one of the ones I was thinking of is a chief of neurosurgery at a
large hospital, and had served as president of the Massachusetts Medical
Society (which publishes the NEJM). I suppose he's in that 2%.

Arrogance is annoying wherever it's found but I resent it a lot less in
neurosurgeons et. al. than in so many other less-deserved areas.

Cheers,
-cwk.

>I don't know how much of this is avionics (Garmin
>530/430, GPS roll steering, Flight Director, dual HSI's and RMI's) and
a
>stable airplane vs how much is applicable to experience.

I suspect it's mostly flight experience. My experience and outlook is
rather similar to yours, except that I do my recurrent training in the
airplane. My recurrent training cycle is about 3-5 hours every 6-10
months, mostly under the hood or in IMC. Last time I stretched it a
bit to fit in the ATP. I don't have any of those gadgets in my
airplane (not even a single HSI) and don't miss them. I find that an
approach is IMC is no particular challenge unless I'm doing something
unusual, like a full procedure NDB to mins where I've decided to
actually fly the ADF needle rather than LORAN/GPS.

Michael

>The MD equivalent for aviation might be an
>ATP/A&P who once worked as an air traffic controller and has an
aerospace
>engineering degree.

I think even that is being way generous unless there is way more to
being an ATCS than to being an ATP/A&P.

I have a PhD in engineering and use it professionally. I am also and
ATP/A&P recreationally, and I think the training and skull sweat
required to get to that level in aviation doesn't even come close to
what it takes to get a BS in engineering, never mind the PhD. In fact,
I know at least one ATP/A&P who flunked out of engineering school.

When it comes to the private/instrument, I think the professional
equivalent might be something along the lines of those 3 month training
courses required to become a VCR repairman - and then only if it's done
right, rather than just meeting minimum requirements.

Michael

I happen to be one of those physicians, and also work as a surgeon in Level
I trauma center. Additionally I also had an additional six years of graduate
school and research training along with my multi instrument rating. My
flying time is spent between cross countries in a twin or more fun doing
aerobatics.

Regardless, there is no comparison between the rigors of medical training,
especially surgery, and flight training. As a resident, and still today we
often have to stay up an entire night operating or monitoring a patient who
is gravely ill or injured. There are times when we need to make immediate
decisions regarding the need to do something that might save someone's life
or limb.

Some may call this arrogance, but some times this is created from the
necessity of having the confidence to make critical decisions in the face of
crisis situations. Lack of confidence and indecisiveness can lead to fatal
delays.

The pressures and stresses of making these decisions is much greater than
seeing the ground rushing up at 200k while flying acro- there is simply no
comparison.

Interestingly, while working as a flight surgeon in a fighter unit, I saw
the same attitudes in the pilots- some people called it arrogance, but most
would agree that it was confidence from having to carry out a difficult and
stressful job.

My airplane partner is a neurosurgeon and he is a lot less arrogant then
I am!! I guess he is in the 2% too... :-)

Jon Kraus
PP-ASEL-IA
N4443H Mooney '79 M20J

Colin W Kingsbury wrote:

> "G. Sylvester" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> I've had the pleasure of knowing a couple very distinguished
>
> physicians, and
>
>>>they are among the most humble and self-effacing people I know, far more
>
> so
>
>>>than a lot of corporate VPs, lawyers, and real estate agents who have no
>>>remote right to their arrogance.
>>
>>You don't deal with many neurosurgeons. The word ego is defined by them.
>> ....not all, but 98% of them. They are probably the F22 and F116
>>drivers of our bunch. ;-)
>
>
> Actually one of the ones I was thinking of is a chief of neurosurgery at a
> large hospital, and had served as president of the Massachusetts Medical
> Society (which publishes the NEJM). I suppose he's in that 2%.
>
> Arrogance is annoying wherever it's found but I resent it a lot less in
> neurosurgeons et. al. than in so many other less-deserved areas.
>
> Cheers,
> -cwk.
>
>

Jon Kraus wrote:

> My airplane partner is a neurosurgeon and he is a lot less arrogant then
> I am!! I guess he is in the 2% too... :-)

Or you are just WAY too arrogant. :-)


Matt

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 01:08:20 GMT, "G. Sylvester"
> wrote:

>
>I got into a discussion with an non-pilot MD comparing
>a professional degree versus flying.
>
<snip>
>So the big question, compared to a your profession, how does flying
>VFR and IFR compare with regards to training, proficiency, continued
>training, mental challenge and anything else that comes to mind? No
>need to convince me but more to convince the non-pilot. In particular
>I'd like to hear from the professions that require advanced degrees.

You don't have to get as far as the advanced degrees.
As someone else already said, aviation is a technical field.

Look at it this way.
PPL Ground school: one term, one class.
Practical experience to get ready to test: about the equivalent in
hours of one class, one term.
Instrument rating: An additional class one term for flight and one
class for books.

Overall: 4 one term classes.
I would liken flying more as an art than mechanical endeavor though.
True, there are those who will never get beyond the mechanical phase
of flying, but to those who do it is like music.

However, going beyond the basic private with the instrument rating
takes more learning and more time. If your add up the flying hours
required to reach ATP (and get a job) it's probably close to the same
as getting a bachelors degree.

Continued training is a fact of life in many professions so I'd not
set aviation apart in that respect.

As far as flying IFR Vs my job: With only me and maybe my wife and/or
a couple of passengers my decisions and competency affect only them
and maybe a few people on the ground if I really screw up.

As a project manager in industry and although primarily a computer
jockey, the ramifications of a mistake in process control or quality
control could affect thousands of individuals. Some mistakes could
result in the evacuation of many people from their homes.

The same is true for many of the Chemical and Electrical Engineers I
worked with. I've seen things go amiss where the engineers were
truely happy a particular plant was out in the country.

As far as individual responsibility and pressure, I'd rate flying in
solid IMC no different than going into work through rush hour traffic
during a storm. Actually, I don't think I'd rate single pilot IMC as
any where near that stressful.

I have never felt any undue pressure flying in IMC (except as a
student). Possibly as I had some very thorough instructors and lots
of time in actual right down to minimums prior to taking the PTS to
get the rating, I feel much more comfortable than many.

I much prefer to fly cross country IFR now days as it makes things
much simpler. Of course I still pick the smaller airports as my choice
for destinations. It puts me up higher and *generally* out of the see
and avoid crowd in high density areas. Of course it never takes away
that responsibility.

So, to directly answer the question: Only going through the PPL with
the instrument rating is no where near as time consuming or difficult
on an overall basis than getting a Bachelor of Science degree, let
alone Masters or PHD. BUT this is sorta the proverbial, Apples to
Oranges comparison.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Gerald Sylvester
>
>
>

Hi Gerald,
As I sat yesterday and watched my wife get another sonogram on our now
T-minus-12-weeks old fetus, your post came to mind.

The Field of Medicine is very complex and covers a wide variety of
topics. To become a physician, one must go through years of rigorous
training, from learning theory like the scientific method, to techniques
like suturing, to learning biology to be able to recognize and put
together the pieces of that puzzle - the human body and spirit.

There's no question in my mind that it requires an inordinate amount of
discipline, training, wisdom, and talent to become a doctor, let alone a
good one. It can barely be compared to what it takes to become a pilot.

A better comparison might be to the Sonogram Technician who took the
beautiful pictures of my unborn child.

She sat in front of what is basically a PC with a trackball and a few
extra buttons. She took a small handheld echo transceiver device and
pushed it onto my wife's belly as she watched the pictures on the
screen, and used the trackball and buttons to measure and take pictures
of the various parts of the baby's body - the head, abdomen, femur,
heart, kidneys, diaphragm, even the aorta and certain blood vessels.

Your friend's statement that "flying is probably more like driving and
anybody can do it" is not untrue. By the same token, doing a complete
biophysical on a fetus with a sonogram is probably just like surfing the
web, and anyone can do that too. For that matter, anyone who can cut
their steak at dinner can probably use a scalpel. But does that really
qualify them to be a brain surgeon?

The technique for flying a trimmed plane straight and level is not very
different from driving. I might even say it's easier than driving. But
there is much more to being a pilot than flying a trimmed plane straight
and level. Just as there is much more to being a sonogram technician
than being able to swivel a trackball, push a button, and have an
opposable thumb to hold the echo transceiver.

A sonogram technician needs to know how to navigate the images she sees
on her screen and use the control surfaces properly to ensure that she
gets the pictures that are required. She needs to be able to recognize
anomolies to ensure that if something is not correct, she gets the right
pictures so the MD can properly diagnose it. She needs to learn a series
of rules and procedures for ensuring the privacy, security, and safety
of the patient who she is working on.

In the same way. a pilot needs to be able to navigate so he knows how
to find point B after leaving point A. He needs to be educated in a
large number of laws and procedures for making sure he gets there
safely. He needs to be able to recognize a variety of anomolies - from
crosswind operations to engine fires, and deal with them properly. He
needs to know how to communate with

Even for driving, many of the same skills are required - navigation,
rules and procedures, safety, even communication (eg: turn signals).
However, because we all do so much driving, I think we take it for
granted.

So next time you talk to your MD friend, ask him why anyone who knows
how to trim the fat off of a piece of steak couldn't do his job. And
maybe for a moment, his ego will stand aside and he'll realize that when
it comes down to it, we're all just people learning skills that most
anyone can do if they acquire the same knowledge and experience.



"G. Sylvester" > wrote in
m:

>
> I got into a discussion with an non-pilot MD comparing
> a professional degree versus flying.
>
> My background, BS and MS from the top 2 bioengineering programs
> in the US. (note, I put *much* more weight to experience over letters
> after a name including my own). Flying-wise, I have a PPL and
> about 33 hours into my IFR ticket. I should be able to complete
> it in under 45 so I'm probably ahead of the curve but a I gotta put
> much of this on my book and mental preparation before each
> flight and ahead of time that others didn't commit to. I plan
> on doing this for the challenge, excitement and unique lifestyle
> of being a pilot. I might, in fact, probably will become a CFI(I)
> but not full time. We'll see. If someone pays me $10 (or better
> yet $500,000) to fly their challenger or Citation to wherever I want
> to go, I'll consider. ;-) I've been in professional challenging
> situations and none have come close to IFR in IMC.
>
> Overall, my flying experience is just like everyone elses. It is
> challenging but by the time you get your ticket and after that
> still challenging as it is a never ending battle with learning to stay
> ahead of the plane.
> The IFR ticket is definitely a step above that as the consequences
> is a LOT greater. It is a licence to kill and there is a NEVER ending
> true battle with learning everything to save the asses to which the
> plane is strapped to. IFR is and will always be for me, the
> non-professional, challenging. Certainly after my training, my head
> hurts from the concentration level required. All of this is
> absolutely impossible to explain to a non-pilot...even a non-IFR pilot
> it is difficult.
>
> Back to the original question. This person I had the discussion with
> is under the impression of flying is probably more like driving and
> anybody can do it. This person is the typical MD, their way is the
> only way and they
> are the only ones who do it right and no one else can comprehend (I
> work for a medical device company and have dealt with hundreds of
> neurosurgeons, oncologists and medical physicists around the world).
>
> So the big question, compared to a your profession, how does flying
> VFR and IFR compare with regards to training, proficiency, continued
> training, mental challenge and anything else that comes to mind? No
> need to convince me but more to convince the non-pilot. In particular
> I'd like to hear from the professions that require advanced degrees.
>
> Gerald Sylvester
>
>
>
>

> Look at it this way.
> PPL Ground school: one term, one class.
> Practical experience to get ready to test: about the equivalent in
> hours of one class, one term.
> Instrument rating: An additional class one term for flight and one
> class for books.

Another point I forgot to make originally was that most classes you
take during undergraduate and even graduate programs have no value
to your final profession. I took 7 semesters of math above calculus.
When was the last time I took a derivative? Ummm, a long time ago.
I use the concept but I certainly didn't need 7 semesters of math.
So with PPL and so far with the IFR, 95% of everything you learn is
practical and therefore the training is a lot more efficient.


Gerald Sylvester

> There's no question in my mind that it requires an inordinate amount of
> discipline, training, wisdom, and talent to become a doctor, let alone a
> good one. It can barely be compared to what it takes to become a pilot.

another fallacy is that all doctors are good because they have had all
this training. Doctors are just like lawyers, pilots and Indian Chiefs.
10% are great, 30% are good, 40% are not good and 10% are horrible.
I might be optimistic side if you asked a doctor. From my undergrad
department where about 55 out of 70 went to med school (13 others
to gradual school <sic>), most I'd avoid like the plague.

I've literally witnessed 2 rad onc's almost get into a fist fight
when contouring a tumor with each drawing entire different volumes.
I've also witnessed a major hospital failing to pre-plan a patient
and realizing the patient had tons of tumors. I literally counted
17 obvious tumors with a quick glance at the MR images. When the
rad onc was told this, they said "well lets treat some of them."
Both of these were at major hospitals. I guess the take home message
is, be carefuly who you get in a plane with and be careful who
you choose as your doctor. Some of the best aren't flying 744's and
some aren't at the biggest of hospitals.

ok, enough of this thread. I got what I wanted. Thanks everyone. :)

Gerald

G. Sylvester wrote:
>> Look at it this way.
>> PPL Ground school: one term, one class. Practical experience to get
>> ready to test: about the equivalent in
>> hours of one class, one term.
>> Instrument rating: An additional class one term for flight and one
>> class for books.
>
>
> Another point I forgot to make originally was that most classes you
> take during undergraduate and even graduate programs have no value
> to your final profession. I took 7 semesters of math above calculus.
> When was the last time I took a derivative? Ummm, a long time ago.
> I use the concept but I certainly didn't need 7 semesters of math.
> So with PPL and so far with the IFR, 95% of everything you learn is
> practical and therefore the training is a lot more efficient.

Yes, don't confuse education with training. A college degree is
intended to educate you, not train you. Pilot training is definitely
training.


Matt

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> G. Sylvester wrote:
> >> Look at it this way.
> >> PPL Ground school: one term, one class. Practical experience to get
> >> ready to test: about the equivalent in
> >> hours of one class, one term.
> >> Instrument rating: An additional class one term for flight and one
> >> class for books.
> >
> >
> > Another point I forgot to make originally was that most classes you
> > take during undergraduate and even graduate programs have no value
> > to your final profession. I took 7 semesters of math above calculus.
> > When was the last time I took a derivative? Ummm, a long time ago.
> > I use the concept but I certainly didn't need 7 semesters of math.
> > So with PPL and so far with the IFR, 95% of everything you learn is
> > practical and therefore the training is a lot more efficient.
>
> Yes, don't confuse education with training. A college degree is
> intended to educate you, not train you. Pilot training is definitely
> training.
>
>
> Matt

Absolutely. Most of my college professors were pleased when you refused
to accept something and insisted on digging deeper (even if that meant
forcing them to defend their claim). Most flight instructors I've known
get ****ed if you question their authority. Could be because most of
them learned by rote the stuff that they're teaching and couldn't defend
it if they tried.

The most important thing to learn is how to learn. Once you know how to
apply your brain and find the appropriate reference material, you can
teach yourself anything.

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:12:50 -0500, Roy Smith > wrote:

> Most flight instructors I've known
>get ****ed if you question their authority. Could be because most of
>them learned by rote the stuff that they're teaching and couldn't defend
>it if they tried.


Most likely.

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 17:29:43 GMT, "G. Sylvester"
> wrote:

>another fallacy is that all doctors are good because they have had all
>this training. Doctors are just like lawyers, pilots and Indian Chiefs.
>10% are great, 30% are good, 40% are not good and 10% are horrible.
>I might be optimistic side if you asked a doctor. From my undergrad
>department where about 55 out of 70 went to med school (13 others
>to gradual school <sic>), most I'd avoid like the plague.


Like the old joke goes -

What do they call the guy who graduated last in medical school?

Ans: "Doctor"

Incidentally, the same goes for pilots.

Some of the young guys I've seen who have gone on to be commuter
pilots are not guys whose flying judgment I feel I would like to bet
my life on.

G. Sylvester wrote:

>> There's no question in my mind that it requires an inordinate amount
>> of discipline, training, wisdom, and talent to become a doctor, let
>> alone a good one. It can barely be compared to what it takes to become
>> a pilot.
>
>
> another fallacy is that all doctors are good because they have had all
> this training. Doctors are just like lawyers, pilots and Indian Chiefs.
> 10% are great, 30% are good, 40% are not good and 10% are horrible.
> I might be optimistic side if you asked a doctor. From my undergrad
> department where about 55 out of 70 went to med school (13 others
> to gradual school <sic>), most I'd avoid like the plague.

And the really scary part is that many (most?) medical schools grade on
a pass/fail basis so it is hard to tell the good from the bad until
they've placed a number of corpses in the morgue. My wife formerly
worked for the pathology department of a local hospital and the stories
she can tell are scary.


Matt

>>Most flight instructors I've known
>>get ****ed if you question their authority. Could be because most of
>>them learned by rote the stuff that they're teaching and couldn't defend
>>it if they tried.
> Most likely.

hehehe. I'm extremely demanding of myself (PTS is nothing, I'll be
satisfied when I can fly an ILS down to minimums in turbulence when that
fan up front ain't working, ie when all hell breaks loose). I also
drill the hell out of my CFII with questions. Fortunately, he
appreciates a demanding a student as he said most students don't think
about flying and don't ask many questions. Makes me wonder if people
really take off in 200 foot ceilings, no approach into the departure
airport and one day short of being out of currency.

Gerald

Standard medical quip: In any given medical school class, the top third
will make the best researchers; the middle third will make the best
teachers; the bottom third will make the most money. Fits my
observations pretty closely.

David

wrote:

> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 17:29:43 GMT, "G. Sylvester"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>another fallacy is that all doctors are good because they have had all
>>this training. Doctors are just like lawyers, pilots and Indian Chiefs.
>>10% are great, 30% are good, 40% are not good and 10% are horrible.
>>I might be optimistic side if you asked a doctor. From my undergrad
>>department where about 55 out of 70 went to med school (13 others
>>to gradual school <sic>), most I'd avoid like the plague.
>
>
>
> Like the old joke goes -
>
> What do they call the guy who graduated last in medical school?
>
> Ans: "Doctor"
>
> Incidentally, the same goes for pilots.
>
> Some of the young guys I've seen who have gone on to be commuter
> pilots are not guys whose flying judgment I feel I would like to bet
> my life on.

In article >,
David Kazdan > wrote:

> Standard medical quip: In any given medical school class, the top third
> will make the best researchers; the middle third will make the best
> teachers; the bottom third will make the most money. Fits my
> observations pretty closely.

I was once at a party and found myself talking to a medical student. He
was going on about how most students don't keep up with current changes
in the field. At first I thought he was talking about reading journals,
going to seminars, and such, but then he said something like, "For
example, I've figured out that sports medicine is where the big money is
going to be in the next few years".

Roy Smith wrote:

> In article >,
> David Kazdan > wrote:
>
>
>>Standard medical quip: In any given medical school class, the top third
>>will make the best researchers; the middle third will make the best
>>teachers; the bottom third will make the most money. Fits my
>>observations pretty closely.
>
>
> I was once at a party and found myself talking to a medical student. He
> was going on about how most students don't keep up with current changes
> in the field. At first I thought he was talking about reading journals,
> going to seminars, and such, but then he said something like, "For
> example, I've figured out that sports medicine is where the big money is
> going to be in the next few years".

Yes, the biggest change is that it is all about the money now rather
than making people well.


Matt

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 21:07:12 GMT, "G. Sylvester"
> wrote:

>>>Most flight instructors I've known
>>>get ****ed if you question their authority. Could be because most of
>>>them learned by rote the stuff that they're teaching and couldn't defend
>>>it if they tried.
>> Most likely.
>
>hehehe. I'm extremely demanding of myself (PTS is nothing, I'll be
>satisfied when I can fly an ILS down to minimums in turbulence when that
>fan up front ain't working, ie when all hell breaks loose). I also

If you are flying the ILS under those conditions in high performance
you can pretty well figure you are going to land a tad short of the
runway.

If the engine quite while coming down the ILS, my only hope would be
to get the gear up. It's one of the reasons I fly instrument
approaches at 120 MPH.

>drill the hell out of my CFII with questions. Fortunately, he
>appreciates a demanding a student as he said most students don't think
>about flying and don't ask many questions. Makes me wonder if people
>really take off in 200 foot ceilings, no approach into the departure
>airport and one day short of being out of currency.

You forgot , single engine.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>Gerald

On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 14:18:28 -0500, Roger
> wrote:

>On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 21:07:12 GMT, "G. Sylvester"
> wrote:
>
>>>>Most flight instructors I've known
>>>>get ****ed if you question their authority. Could be because most of
>>>>them learned by rote the stuff that they're teaching and couldn't defend
>>>>it if they tried.
>>> Most likely.
>>
>>hehehe. I'm extremely demanding of myself (PTS is nothing, I'll be
>>satisfied when I can fly an ILS down to minimums in turbulence when that
>>fan up front ain't working, ie when all hell breaks loose). I also
>
>If you are flying the ILS under those conditions in high performance
>you can pretty well figure you are going to land a tad short of the
>runway.
>

Under any conditions, unless you are flying a glider.

The glide ratio of most ga aircraft are about 10 to 1, meaning from a
2000 ft altitude at the marker, you are going to get about 20000 feet
along the glidepath, or about 3.5nm.



>If the engine quite while coming down the ILS, my only hope would be
>to get the gear up. It's one of the reasons I fly instrument
>approaches at 120 MPH.
>

Even at this speed, I doubt you would get there. Slowing down from
120 to best glide speed wouldn't take that long.

And of course, this is assuming you lose it at the marker or inside
it, a low-probability occurence, I would say. So why bother? Granted
a higher airspeed gives you more kinetic energy to work with if you
lose it, but it seems to me a waste of good fuel.


>>drill the hell out of my CFII with questions. Fortunately, he
>>appreciates a demanding a student as he said most students don't think
>>about flying and don't ask many questions. Makes me wonder if people
>>really take off in 200 foot ceilings, no approach into the departure
>>airport and one day short of being out of currency.
>
>You forgot , single engine.
>
>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>>
>>Gerald