Rod Machado's New PPL Manual [Archive]

news.chi.sbcglobal.net

March 24th 08, 08:35 PM

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

Matt W. Barrow

March 24th 08, 08:52 PM

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 24th 08, 08:58 PM

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

Dan[_10_]

March 24th 08, 09:14 PM

On Mar 24, 3:12 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> I have just received a copy of Rod Machado's Private Pilot Handbook
> Second Edition from the publisher to review.
>
> I haven't had a chance to read all of it yet, but just from what I've
> seen thus far, I have no doubt whatsoever that I will be recommending
> this book as a study manual to all student pilots.
>
> This hard cover top quality heavyweight glossy paper
> manual is the most well written and comprehensive work I have ever seen
> done by anyone in the industry.
>
> Throughout my career as a CFI I have always used and recommended Bill
> Kershner's fine manuals, and these are still fine books today.
> But what Rod has done with his books is absolutely amazing. The
> presentation is not only accurate, but done with the "average person"
> and "everyday pilot" in mind. Rod takes the most complicated of issues
> and presents them intelligently and with a splash of humor that is
> unbelievably educational. The drawings and graphics are exceptional.
> I can't stress enough my positive opinion of this book.
> --
> Dudley Henriques

I have Rod M's Instrument book. It's very good - the only issue I have
with the book is that the layout is very busy -- even distracting.

Has the layout been tamed in the PPL texts?

I have one of each -- Jepp, ASA, Kershner -- and all the Gleim. I find
the Gleim's are good for just before the test (practical and
knowledge), the Jepps are the best designed and laid out, and the ASA
series is a very close second and much more reasonably priced.

The Kershner books are very good, but the presentation is dated,
compared to the ASA and Jepp.

Dan Mc

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 24th 08, 09:47 PM

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 24, 3:12 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> I have just received a copy of Rod Machado's Private Pilot Handbook
>> Second Edition from the publisher to review.
>>
>> I haven't had a chance to read all of it yet, but just from what I've
>> seen thus far, I have no doubt whatsoever that I will be recommending
>> this book as a study manual to all student pilots.
>>
>> This hard cover top quality heavyweight glossy paper
>> manual is the most well written and comprehensive work I have ever seen
>> done by anyone in the industry.
>>
>> Throughout my career as a CFI I have always used and recommended Bill
>> Kershner's fine manuals, and these are still fine books today.
>> But what Rod has done with his books is absolutely amazing. The
>> presentation is not only accurate, but done with the "average person"
>> and "everyday pilot" in mind. Rod takes the most complicated of issues
>> and presents them intelligently and with a splash of humor that is
>> unbelievably educational. The drawings and graphics are exceptional.
>> I can't stress enough my positive opinion of this book.
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I have Rod M's Instrument book. It's very good - the only issue I have
> with the book is that the layout is very busy -- even distracting.
>
> Has the layout been tamed in the PPL texts?
>
> I have one of each -- Jepp, ASA, Kershner -- and all the Gleim. I find
> the Gleim's are good for just before the test (practical and
> knowledge), the Jepps are the best designed and laid out, and the ASA
> series is a very close second and much more reasonably priced.
>
> The Kershner books are very good, but the presentation is dated,
> compared to the ASA and Jepp.
>
> Dan Mc

All of these books are good, each in it's own way.

I think what's been lacking for many years in the business has been a
manual totally designed for the "average Joe" or if you will, the
housewife next door who wants to enter General Aviation and possibly
learn to fly.

Through the years I've seen one after another of this type of person
take the initial step and seek an introductory flight, then be
intimidated by the complexity of the system and the manuals as they were
presented to them. Many have simply not gone further and been lost.
This isn't to say that the manuals are not sufficient or well done. They
are. I simply believe that Machado has bridged a gap that might go a
long way to solving this "initial impression" loss issue.

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.

GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If GA is to
flourish in the future, it will have to attract more "average" people
into it's ranks.
Rod Machado has gone a long long way toward filling this gap.

--
Dudley Henriques

Dan[_10_]

March 24th 08, 10:01 PM

On Mar 24, 5:47 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> > On Mar 24, 3:12 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> I have just received a copy of Rod Machado's Private Pilot Handbook
> >> Second Edition from the publisher to review.
>
> >> I haven't had a chance to read all of it yet, but just from what I've
> >> seen thus far, I have no doubt whatsoever that I will be recommending
> >> this book as a study manual to all student pilots.
>
> >> This hard cover top quality heavyweight glossy paper
> >> manual is the most well written and comprehensive work I have ever seen
> >> done by anyone in the industry.
>
> >> Throughout my career as a CFI I have always used and recommended Bill
> >> Kershner's fine manuals, and these are still fine books today.
> >> But what Rod has done with his books is absolutely amazing. The
> >> presentation is not only accurate, but done with the "average person"
> >> and "everyday pilot" in mind. Rod takes the most complicated of issues
> >> and presents them intelligently and with a splash of humor that is
> >> unbelievably educational. The drawings and graphics are exceptional.
> >> I can't stress enough my positive opinion of this book.
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > I have Rod M's Instrument book. It's very good - the only issue I have
> > with the book is that the layout is very busy -- even distracting.
>
> > Has the layout been tamed in the PPL texts?
>
> > I have one of each -- Jepp, ASA, Kershner -- and all the Gleim. I find
> > the Gleim's are good for just before the test (practical and
> > knowledge), the Jepps are the best designed and laid out, and the ASA
> > series is a very close second and much more reasonably priced.
>
> > The Kershner books are very good, but the presentation is dated,
> > compared to the ASA and Jepp.
>
> > Dan Mc
>
> All of these books are good, each in it's own way.
>
> I think what's been lacking for many years in the business has been a
> manual totally designed for the "average Joe" or if you will, the
> housewife next door who wants to enter General Aviation and possibly
> learn to fly.
>
> Through the years I've seen one after another of this type of person
> take the initial step and seek an introductory flight, then be
> intimidated by the complexity of the system and the manuals as they were
> presented to them. Many have simply not gone further and been lost.
> This isn't to say that the manuals are not sufficient or well done. They
> are. I simply believe that Machado has bridged a gap that might go a
> long way to solving this "initial impression" loss issue.
>
> 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.
>
> GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If GA is to
> flourish in the future, it will have to attract more "average" people
> into it's ranks.
> Rod Machado has gone a long long way toward filling this gap.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

That's an interesting angle.

I don't think you mean that we need to add to the ranks of the casual
pilot -- just ease the transition from "jus lookin" to pilot, right?

Cirrus seemed to attack that market, but problems there.

Or maybe flying has these hurdles built-in, to force people to decide
"Is this all really for me?" before spending time and treasure?

I don't know for sure. I've been in other sports/pursuits/interests
that have a barrier to entry. After you spend some time, you figure
out why they exist.

Motorcycle racing is one -- the costs in cash and time are exorbitant,
and the rewards paltry. There's no one welcoming you with open arms,
no friendly web site "Welcome to racing," no paid instructors.

But you realize soon enough that you can get killed, have to really
love it, and prepare to spend ALOT of money for no promise of reward.

There's no way to pretend there isn't a lot to know and learn before
flying off into the sunset. I suppose better prepared and presented
books can help in that regard, but in the end there needs to be the
desire and ability on the part of the want-to-be.

Anyway -- no conclusions, just thoughts.

Dan Mc

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 24th 08, 10:15 PM

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 24, 5:47 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>> On Mar 24, 3:12 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> I have just received a copy of Rod Machado's Private Pilot Handbook
>>>> Second Edition from the publisher to review.
>>>> I haven't had a chance to read all of it yet, but just from what I've
>>>> seen thus far, I have no doubt whatsoever that I will be recommending
>>>> this book as a study manual to all student pilots.
>>>> This hard cover top quality heavyweight glossy paper
>>>> manual is the most well written and comprehensive work I have ever seen
>>>> done by anyone in the industry.
>>>> Throughout my career as a CFI I have always used and recommended Bill
>>>> Kershner's fine manuals, and these are still fine books today.
>>>> But what Rod has done with his books is absolutely amazing. The
>>>> presentation is not only accurate, but done with the "average person"
>>>> and "everyday pilot" in mind. Rod takes the most complicated of issues
>>>> and presents them intelligently and with a splash of humor that is
>>>> unbelievably educational. The drawings and graphics are exceptional.
>>>> I can't stress enough my positive opinion of this book.
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> I have Rod M's Instrument book. It's very good - the only issue I have
>>> with the book is that the layout is very busy -- even distracting.
>>> Has the layout been tamed in the PPL texts?
>>> I have one of each -- Jepp, ASA, Kershner -- and all the Gleim. I find
>>> the Gleim's are good for just before the test (practical and
>>> knowledge), the Jepps are the best designed and laid out, and the ASA
>>> series is a very close second and much more reasonably priced.
>>> The Kershner books are very good, but the presentation is dated,
>>> compared to the ASA and Jepp.
>>> Dan Mc
>> All of these books are good, each in it's own way.
>>
>> I think what's been lacking for many years in the business has been a
>> manual totally designed for the "average Joe" or if you will, the
>> housewife next door who wants to enter General Aviation and possibly
>> learn to fly.
>>
>> Through the years I've seen one after another of this type of person
>> take the initial step and seek an introductory flight, then be
>> intimidated by the complexity of the system and the manuals as they were
>> presented to them. Many have simply not gone further and been lost.
>> This isn't to say that the manuals are not sufficient or well done. They
>> are. I simply believe that Machado has bridged a gap that might go a
>> long way to solving this "initial impression" loss issue.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If GA is to
>> flourish in the future, it will have to attract more "average" people
>> into it's ranks.
>> Rod Machado has gone a long long way toward filling this gap.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> That's an interesting angle.
>
> I don't think you mean that we need to add to the ranks of the casual
> pilot -- just ease the transition from "jus lookin" to pilot, right?
>
> Cirrus seemed to attack that market, but problems there.
>
> Or maybe flying has these hurdles built-in, to force people to decide
> "Is this all really for me?" before spending time and treasure?
>
> I don't know for sure. I've been in other sports/pursuits/interests
> that have a barrier to entry. After you spend some time, you figure
> out why they exist.
>
> Motorcycle racing is one -- the costs in cash and time are exorbitant,
> and the rewards paltry. There's no one welcoming you with open arms,
> no friendly web site "Welcome to racing," no paid instructors.
>
> But you realize soon enough that you can get killed, have to really
> love it, and prepare to spend ALOT of money for no promise of reward.
>
> There's no way to pretend there isn't a lot to know and learn before
> flying off into the sunset. I suppose better prepared and presented
> books can help in that regard, but in the end there needs to be the
> desire and ability on the part of the want-to-be.
>
> Anyway -- no conclusions, just thoughts.
>
>
> Dan Mc
>
>
>
Ah.motorcycle racing. Tried it once. I used to ride a lot and had quite
a few bikes. A friend of mine conned me into trying my hand at an
amatuer dirt track. Like the idiot I was at that age I thought this
might be fun so I saddled up and qualified. There were about 20 bikes on
the starting line with me when the gun went off. For some ungodly reason
(probably from my earlier days as a champion speed skater) I hit the gun
just right just right. I think I was opening the throttle as the charge
was going up the barrel of the pistol :-)
Anyway, there I was...all alone out front dragging my butt into the
first turn when I lost the bike and down I went. Just about the time I
was realizing that there were 19 bikes about to run me over, they did!
Man, I STILL don't know how I survived that day. Nobody hit me, but I
was doing a REAL credible impression of Fred Astaire getting out of the way.
That was the end of my bike racing :-))

> I don't think you mean that we need to add to the ranks of the casual
> pilot -- just ease the transition from "jus lookin" to pilot, right?

I little bit of both actually. We need new blood for sure, and the
transition into GA could be made more attractive.

--
Dudley Henriques

Larry Dighera

March 24th 08, 11:01 PM

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

>GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If GA is to
>flourish in the future, it will have to attract more "average" people
>into it's ranks.

Isn't that the philosophy of NASA's Free Flight concept?

RELEASE: 99-17

GENERAL AVIATION TO GET A NASA-INDUSTRY 'LIFT'

In the not-too-distant future, there may be a virtual
"highway in the sky," as the average person could take to the sky
in small, safe and affordable, easy-to-fly personal aircraft,
traveling four times the speed of today's cars.

NASA has selected a team of industry partners to help develop
the highway in the sky system, a key element of the government-
industry effort to revitalize general aviation in the United
States.

Development costs will be shared equally between NASA and
the seven-member industry team, with both contributing
approximately $3 million. Team members are Avidyne Corp.,
Lexington, MA; AvroTec Inc., Portland, OR; Lancair, Redmond, OR;
Raytheon Aircraft, Wichita, KS; Rockwell Collins, Cedar Rapids,
IA; Seagull Technologies, Los Gatos, CA; and AlliedSignal,
Olathe, KS.

The team, with AvroTec as team lead and Avidyne as technical
project manager, has 2 1/2 years to complete hardware and
software development of a totally new concept for presenting
critical, flight-path guidance information to the pilot.

Dubbed "highway in the sky," the cockpit display system
includes a computer-drawn highway that the pilot follows to a
preprogrammed destination. The highway is drawn on a highly
intuitive, low-cost flat panel display -- the primary flight
display of the future -- that will displace decades-old "steam
gauge" instrumentation.

The system also includes a multi-function display of
position navigation, terrain map, weather and air traffic
information. In addition, digital (datalink) radios will send
and receive flight data, and a solid-state attitude and heading
reference system will replace gyroscopes.

Together, the displays and other equipment will provide
intuitive situational awareness and enough information for a
pilot to perform safely, with reduced workload, in nearly all
weather conditions.

In addition to transforming cockpits, the technology
developed by the team will redefine the relationship between
pilots and air traffic control and fundamentally change the way
future general aviation pilots fly. This technology is expected
to significantly increase freedom, safety and ease-of-flying by
providing pilots with affordable, direct access to information
needed for future "free-flight" air traffic control systems.
Pilots will have the ability to safely determine their routes,
speeds and proximity to dangerous weather, terrain and other
airplanes.

The team will work toward flight certification of the
highway in the sky system around the year 2001. This will be the
first attempt to certify such a system using affordable
commercial "off-the-shelf" computer technology in aircraft.

Development of the highway in the sky system has been
fostered by the Advanced General Aviation Transports Experiment
(AGATE) -- a consortium of more than 70 members from industry,
universities, the Federal Aviation Administration and other
government agencies. All seven highway in the sky team members
are AGATE members.

AGATE was created by NASA in 1994 to develop affordable new
technology -- as well as industry standards and certification
methods -- for airframe, cockpit, flight training systems and
airspace infrastructure for next-generation single pilot, four-
to-six seat, near all-weather light airplanes.

Along with a parallel program -- the General Aviation
Propulsion program for development of revolutionary engines --
AGATE is providing industry partners with technologies leading to
a small aircraft transportation system in the early 21st century.
These investments support the national general aviation "roadmap"
goal to "enable doorstep-to-destination travel at four times
highway speeds to virtually all of the nation's suburban, rural
and remote communities."

- end -

H. Keith Henry
Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
(Phone: 757/864-6120/24)

Mary Nolan
AvroTec, Inc., Portland, OR
(Phone: 503/221-1220)

Dan[_10_]

March 24th 08, 11:34 PM

On Mar 24, 7:01 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:47:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>
> > wrote:
> >GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If GA is to
> >flourish in the future, it will have to attract more "average" people
> >into it's ranks.
>
> Isn't that the philosophy of NASA's Free Flight concept?

Most people are only comfortable flying along with a herd. Try
diverting the typical 737 load into the requisite 30 Bonanzas and hear
the howls on the tarmac --" I have to fly in THAT!?"

It sounds good, but I think it's an unrealistic expectation.

Dan Mc

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 24th 08, 11:39 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:47:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If GA is to
>> flourish in the future, it will have to attract more "average" people
>> into it's ranks.
>
> Isn't that the philosophy of NASA's Free Flight concept?

Sounds more to me like NASA coming up with another excuse for spending a
ton of our tax dollars :-)

What I have in mind is a bit more achievable; 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

Larry Dighera

March 24th 08, 11:41 PM

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:34:32 -0700 (PDT), Dan >
wrote:

>On Mar 24, 7:01 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:47:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If GA is to
>> >flourish in the future, it will have to attract more "average" people
>> >into it's ranks.
>>
>> Isn't that the philosophy of NASA's Free Flight concept?
>
>Most people are only comfortable flying along with a herd. Try
>diverting the typical 737 load into the requisite 30 Bonanzas and hear
>the howls on the tarmac --" I have to fly in THAT!?"

You'll have to explain that to Dudley.

>It sounds good, but I think it's an unrealistic expectation.
>
>Dan Mc

The fact that the 1994 prediction was for Free Flight to be
implemented by 2001 seems to support that opinion.

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 24th 08, 11:52 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:34:32 -0700 (PDT), Dan >
> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 24, 7:01 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:47:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>>
>>> > wrote:
>>>> GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If GA is to
>>>> flourish in the future, it will have to attract more "average" people
>>>> into it's ranks.
>>> Isn't that the philosophy of NASA's Free Flight concept?
>> Most people are only comfortable flying along with a herd. Try
>> diverting the typical 737 load into the requisite 30 Bonanzas and hear
>> the howls on the tarmac --" I have to fly in THAT!?"
>
> You'll have to explain that to Dudley.

Don't be an imbecile.
>
>> It sounds good, but I think it's an unrealistic expectation.
>>
>> Dan Mc
>
>
> The fact that the 1994 prediction was for Free Flight to be
> implemented by 2001 seems to support that opinion.
>
>

--
Dudley Henriques

Dan[_10_]

March 24th 08, 11:57 PM

On Mar 24, 6:15 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> Ah.motorcycle racing. Tried it once. I used to ride a lot and had quite
> That was the end of my bike racing :-))

This is true of nealry every race sport -- You realize quickly that
the potential for harm is quite high, and Monday morning you need
functioning limbs to earn the $ to ride again.

> > I don't think you mean that we need to add to the ranks of the casual
> > pilot -- just ease the transition from "jus lookin" to pilot, right?
>
> I little bit of both actually. We need new blood for sure, and the
> transition into GA could be made more attractive.
>
> --> Dudley Henriques

I agree that it could be made more attractive, but I think it would be
disingenuous to promise absolute safety, minimal training, and
immediate gratification (such as car driving).

The Cessna ads of the late 60s early 70s were bent this way. Even the
names "Skywagon" were meant to equate the airplane to the car.

We'll need total failsafe automation and complete dependence on it
before Joe Average flies with as little thought as we drive. I think
that's a combination of systems far beyond today's capabilities and
psychological assent far beyond what most will accede to today.

That said, In my very humble opinion -- The biggest problem with
primary flight training is the lack of money and focus -- so many FBOs
are run on a shoestring (or a loss) trying to run charter and a
school. The Big Schools are all focused on airline wannabes and
require moving to their location for an extended period of time.

The Cessna Pilot Center concept was a good one a while back, but in my
region it's gone the way of Sinclair gas. Plus, it was focused on
selling one brand of airplane. Not everyone wants to learn how to
drive at the Plymouth Car Center.

We haven't done a good job at providing an easily understood
transition from "I think I might want to do that" to new Private Pilot
in most FBOs. Caveat -- this is based on anecdotal evidence on a
limited sampling, but based on conversations with others, it's not so
unusual.

Consider what happens to the guy or girl that walks into the local FBO
-- Maybe someone is there, maybe not. If so "How can I help you?" is
offered, but the person doesn't even know how to reply, "Well, I'm
thinking about, maybe..."

"Private Pilot Training? Ok, you'll need to talk to Cal -- I'm a
double I."

"Oh yeah, umm.. ok."

"Come back Saturday -- Cal works all the discoveries and students."

"Discoveries? Students?" Our unlikely candidate thinks, "I'm a
successful XYZ -- here I'm a student?"

He/she then drives home and orders a Jet Ski.

In a car dealership, the guy in charge of trucks will walk you over or
-better yet -- page the guy in charge of cars and make sure you talk
to him/her.

Please -- before you flame .. I'm sure there are plenty of FBOs/Pilot
Schools that do it all perfectly.

But apparently they are the minority or we wouldn't have a shrinking
GA population.

Dan Mc

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 25th 08, 12:05 AM

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 24, 6:15 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> Ah.motorcycle racing. Tried it once. I used to ride a lot and had quite
>> That was the end of my bike racing :-))
>
> This is true of nealry every race sport -- You realize quickly that
> the potential for harm is quite high, and Monday morning you need
> functioning limbs to earn the $ to ride again.
>
>> > I don't think you mean that we need to add to the ranks of the casual
>> > pilot -- just ease the transition from "jus lookin" to pilot, right?
>>
>> I little bit of both actually. We need new blood for sure, and the
>> transition into GA could be made more attractive.
>>
>> --> Dudley Henriques
>
> I agree that it could be made more attractive, but I think it would be
> disingenuous to promise absolute safety, minimal training, and
> immediate gratification (such as car driving).
>
> The Cessna ads of the late 60s early 70s were bent this way. Even the
> names "Skywagon" were meant to equate the airplane to the car.
>
> We'll need total failsafe automation and complete dependence on it
> before Joe Average flies with as little thought as we drive. I think
> that's a combination of systems far beyond today's capabilities and
> psychological assent far beyond what most will accede to today.
>
> That said, In my very humble opinion -- The biggest problem with
> primary flight training is the lack of money and focus -- so many FBOs
> are run on a shoestring (or a loss) trying to run charter and a
> school. The Big Schools are all focused on airline wannabes and
> require moving to their location for an extended period of time.
>
> The Cessna Pilot Center concept was a good one a while back, but in my
> region it's gone the way of Sinclair gas. Plus, it was focused on
> selling one brand of airplane. Not everyone wants to learn how to
> drive at the Plymouth Car Center.
>
> We haven't done a good job at providing an easily understood
> transition from "I think I might want to do that" to new Private Pilot
> in most FBOs. Caveat -- this is based on anecdotal evidence on a
> limited sampling, but based on conversations with others, it's not so
> unusual.
>
> Consider what happens to the guy or girl that walks into the local FBO
> -- Maybe someone is there, maybe not. If so "How can I help you?" is
> offered, but the person doesn't even know how to reply, "Well, I'm
> thinking about, maybe..."
>
> "Private Pilot Training? Ok, you'll need to talk to Cal -- I'm a
> double I."
>
> "Oh yeah, umm.. ok."
>
> "Come back Saturday -- Cal works all the discoveries and students."
>
> "Discoveries? Students?" Our unlikely candidate thinks, "I'm a
> successful XYZ -- here I'm a student?"
>
> He/she then drives home and orders a Jet Ski.
>
> In a car dealership, the guy in charge of trucks will walk you over or
> -better yet -- page the guy in charge of cars and make sure you talk
> to him/her.
>
> Please -- before you flame .. I'm sure there are plenty of FBOs/Pilot
> Schools that do it all perfectly.
>
> But apparently they are the minority or we wouldn't have a shrinking
> GA population.
>
>
> Dan Mc
No need to flame. In fact what you are saying here is simply restating
what I've been saying.

I'm in no way even implying anything about "guarantees" in GA. What I
believe is needed is a revamping and cleanup of the way we handle the
part of the potential student market we are missing by the factors I
have mentioned and those you are mentioning as well.
What's needed is an added approach to the manuals issue, which I believe
Machado is addressing (filling a gap) and as you have said, a general
cleanup in the way business is conducted by the industry.

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 25th 08, 12:11 AM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:HuydnVcI-
:

> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:34:32 -0700 (PDT), Dan >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 24, 7:01 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:47:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>>>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If GA is
to
>>>>> flourish in the future, it will have to attract more "average"
people
>>>>> into it's ranks.
>>>> Isn't that the philosophy of NASA's Free Flight concept?
>>> Most people are only comfortable flying along with a herd. Try
>>> diverting the typical 737 load into the requisite 30 Bonanzas and
hear
>>> the howls on the tarmac --" I have to fly in THAT!?"
>>
>> You'll have to explain that to Dudley.
>
> Don't be an imbecile.
>>
>>

Would you tell a bird not to fly?

Bertie

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 25th 08, 12:15 AM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:HuydnVcI-
> :
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:34:32 -0700 (PDT), Dan >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 24, 7:01 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:47:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>>>>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If GA is
> to
>>>>>> flourish in the future, it will have to attract more "average"
> people
>>>>>> into it's ranks.
>>>>> Isn't that the philosophy of NASA's Free Flight concept?
>>>> Most people are only comfortable flying along with a herd. Try
>>>> diverting the typical 737 load into the requisite 30 Bonanzas and
> hear
>>>> the howls on the tarmac --" I have to fly in THAT!?"
>>> You'll have to explain that to Dudley.
>> Don't be an imbecile.
>>>
>
>
> Would you tell a bird not to fly?
>
>
> Bertie

Being a stubborn character, I'd probably try, and most likely get the
same result :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Maxwell[_2_]

March 25th 08, 12:32 AM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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.
>

So what, a Google search for "home made dog ****" reveals 2,270,000 hits.

Talking bull**** reveals 275,000. Probably more applicable to your
situation.

Dan[_10_]

March 25th 08, 12:42 AM

On Mar 24, 8:05 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> > Please -- before you flame .. I'm sure there are plenty of FBOs/Pilot
> > Schools that do it all perfectly.
>
> > But apparently they are the minority or we wouldn't have a shrinking
> > GA population.
>
> > Dan Mc
>
> No need to flame. In fact what you are saying here is simply restating
> what I've been saying.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Sorry, I wasn't directed that comment to you directly, but to the know-
it-alls who live to pounce, but probably haven't ever darkened a
hangar floor.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 25th 08, 12:44 AM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:HuydnVcI-
>> :
>>
>>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:34:32 -0700 (PDT), Dan >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 24, 7:01 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:47:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>> GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If GA is
>> to
>>>>>>> flourish in the future, it will have to attract more "average"
>> people
>>>>>>> into it's ranks.
>>>>>> Isn't that the philosophy of NASA's Free Flight concept?
>>>>> Most people are only comfortable flying along with a herd. Try
>>>>> diverting the typical 737 load into the requisite 30 Bonanzas and
>> hear
>>>>> the howls on the tarmac --" I have to fly in THAT!?"
>>>> You'll have to explain that to Dudley.
>>> Don't be an imbecile.
>>>>
>>
>>
>> Would you tell a bird not to fly?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Being a stubborn character, I'd probably try, and most likely get the
> same result :-))
>

Xactly

( not snipped just to annoy people)

Bertie

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 25th 08, 12:45 AM

Maxwell wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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.
>>
>
> So what, a Google search for "home made dog ****" reveals 2,270,000 hits.
>
> Talking bull**** reveals 275,000. Probably more applicable to your
> situation.
>
>
>

Your usual I see; irrelevant, and in this case disingenuous and
misleading as well.

You see, in actuality, your statement is not correct. You put quotation
marks on the phrase "home made dog ****". This in fact reveals a Google
search of 1, not the 2,270,000 hits you implied.

Unfortunately, this seems to imply that it is YOU, who are full of "home
made dog ****" :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 25th 08, 12:46 AM

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 24, 8:05 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>>> Please -- before you flame .. I'm sure there are plenty of FBOs/Pilot
>>> Schools that do it all perfectly.
>>> But apparently they are the minority or we wouldn't have a shrinking
>>> GA population.
>>> Dan Mc
>> No need to flame. In fact what you are saying here is simply restating
>> what I've been saying.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> Sorry, I wasn't directed that comment to you directly, but to the know-
> it-alls who live to pounce, but probably haven't ever darkened a
> hangar floor.
>
>
>

I have one above now. See Maxwell. He likes to chime in with "useful and
relevant comment" once in awhile :-))))))))))))))))))

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 25th 08, 12:47 AM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:HuydnVcI-
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:34:32 -0700 (PDT), Dan >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 24, 7:01 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:47:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>> GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If GA is
>>> to
>>>>>>>> flourish in the future, it will have to attract more "average"
>>> people
>>>>>>>> into it's ranks.
>>>>>>> Isn't that the philosophy of NASA's Free Flight concept?
>>>>>> Most people are only comfortable flying along with a herd. Try
>>>>>> diverting the typical 737 load into the requisite 30 Bonanzas and
>>> hear
>>>>>> the howls on the tarmac --" I have to fly in THAT!?"
>>>>> You'll have to explain that to Dudley.
>>>> Don't be an imbecile.
>>>
>>> Would you tell a bird not to fly?
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Being a stubborn character, I'd probably try, and most likely get the
>> same result :-))
>>
>
> Xactly
>
>
> ( not snipped just to annoy people)
>
>
> Bertie

I see I've attracted old Maxwell again. I love this guy. :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Maxwell[_2_]

March 25th 08, 12:50 AM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> So what, a Google search for "home made dog ****" reveals 2,270,000 hits.
>>
>> Talking bull**** reveals 275,000. Probably more applicable to your
>> situation.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Your usual I see; irrelevant, and in this case disingenuous and misleading
> as well.
>
> You see, in actuality, your statement is not correct. You put quotation
> marks on the phrase "home made dog ****". This in fact reveals a Google
> search of 1, not the 2,270,000 hits you implied.
>
> Unfortunately, this seems to imply that it is YOU, who are full of "home
> made dog ****" :-))
>

Nice try, but you are totally incorrect, and completely out of context.

But I will give you credit for being about to respond in less than 5000
words this time!

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 25th 08, 12:53 AM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:HuydnVcI-
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:34:32 -0700 (PDT), Dan >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 24, 7:01 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:47:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If GA
is
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> flourish in the future, it will have to attract more
"average"
>>>> people
>>>>>>>>> into it's ranks.
>>>>>>>> Isn't that the philosophy of NASA's Free Flight concept?
>>>>>>> Most people are only comfortable flying along with a herd. Try
>>>>>>> diverting the typical 737 load into the requisite 30 Bonanzas
and
>>>> hear
>>>>>>> the howls on the tarmac --" I have to fly in THAT!?"
>>>>>> You'll have to explain that to Dudley.
>>>>> Don't be an imbecile.
>>>>
>>>> Would you tell a bird not to fly?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> Being a stubborn character, I'd probably try, and most likely get
the
>>> same result :-))
>>>
>>
>> Xactly
>>
>>
>> ( not snipped just to annoy people)
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I see I've attracted old Maxwell again. I love this guy. :-))
>

I'm a big fan of Whack a mole. When on of those little devils pops his
head up on my panel.....

Bertie

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 25th 08, 01:03 AM

Maxwell wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Maxwell wrote:
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> So what, a Google search for "home made dog ****" reveals 2,270,000 hits.
>>>
>>> Talking bull**** reveals 275,000. Probably more applicable to your
>>> situation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Your usual I see; irrelevant, and in this case disingenuous and misleading
>> as well.
>>
>> You see, in actuality, your statement is not correct. You put quotation
>> marks on the phrase "home made dog ****". This in fact reveals a Google
>> search of 1, not the 2,270,000 hits you implied.
>>
>> Unfortunately, this seems to imply that it is YOU, who are full of "home
>> made dog ****" :-))
>>
>
> Nice try, but you are totally incorrect, and completely out of context.
>
> But I will give you credit for being about to respond in less than 5000
> words this time!
>
>
>
Whatever. Have a nice day.

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 25th 08, 01:04 AM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:HuydnVcI-
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:34:32 -0700 (PDT), Dan >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mar 24, 7:01 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:47:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If GA
> is
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> flourish in the future, it will have to attract more
> "average"
>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>> into it's ranks.
>>>>>>>>> Isn't that the philosophy of NASA's Free Flight concept?
>>>>>>>> Most people are only comfortable flying along with a herd. Try
>>>>>>>> diverting the typical 737 load into the requisite 30 Bonanzas
> and
>>>>> hear
>>>>>>>> the howls on the tarmac --" I have to fly in THAT!?"
>>>>>>> You'll have to explain that to Dudley.
>>>>>> Don't be an imbecile.
>>>>> Would you tell a bird not to fly?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> Being a stubborn character, I'd probably try, and most likely get
> the
>>>> same result :-))
>>>>
>>> Xactly
>>>
>>>
>>> ( not snipped just to annoy people)
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> I see I've attracted old Maxwell again. I love this guy. :-))
>>
>
> I'm a big fan of Whack a mole. When on of those little devils pops his
> head up on my panel.....
>
>
>
> Bertie

I think I ate some of that once. Whackamole? Terrible green stuff!!

--
Dudley Henriques

Matt W. Barrow

March 25th 08, 01:10 AM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>
> Unfortunately, this seems to imply that it is YOU, who are full of "home
> made dog ****" :-))

Hey, is that Labrador, man?

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 25th 08, 01:18 AM

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Unfortunately, this seems to imply that it is YOU, who are full of "home
>> made dog ****" :-))
>
> Hey, is that Labrador, man?
>
>
In his case, probably something a bit more vicious and stupid I'm afraid.

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 25th 08, 02:14 AM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:HuydnVcI-
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:34:32 -0700 (PDT), Dan <danmc61
@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 24, 7:01 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:47:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If
GA
>> is
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> flourish in the future, it will have to attract more
>> "average"
>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>> into it's ranks.
>>>>>>>>>> Isn't that the philosophy of NASA's Free Flight concept?
>>>>>>>>> Most people are only comfortable flying along with a herd. Try
>>>>>>>>> diverting the typical 737 load into the requisite 30 Bonanzas
>> and
>>>>>> hear
>>>>>>>>> the howls on the tarmac --" I have to fly in THAT!?"
>>>>>>>> You'll have to explain that to Dudley.
>>>>>>> Don't be an imbecile.
>>>>>> Would you tell a bird not to fly?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> Being a stubborn character, I'd probably try, and most likely get
>> the
>>>>> same result :-))
>>>>>
>>>> Xactly
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ( not snipped just to annoy people)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> I see I've attracted old Maxwell again. I love this guy. :-))
>>>
>>
>> I'm a big fan of Whack a mole. When on of those little devils pops
his
>> head up on my panel.....
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I think I ate some of that once. Whackamole? Terrible green stuff!!
>

Oh I like it. God for cooling the hot stuff.

bertie

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 25th 08, 02:16 AM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:HuydnVcI-
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:34:32 -0700 (PDT), Dan <danmc61
> @gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 24, 7:01 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:47:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If
> GA
>>> is
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> flourish in the future, it will have to attract more
>>> "average"
>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>>> into it's ranks.
>>>>>>>>>>> Isn't that the philosophy of NASA's Free Flight concept?
>>>>>>>>>> Most people are only comfortable flying along with a herd. Try
>>>>>>>>>> diverting the typical 737 load into the requisite 30 Bonanzas
>>> and
>>>>>>> hear
>>>>>>>>>> the howls on the tarmac --" I have to fly in THAT!?"
>>>>>>>>> You'll have to explain that to Dudley.
>>>>>>>> Don't be an imbecile.
>>>>>>> Would you tell a bird not to fly?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>> Being a stubborn character, I'd probably try, and most likely get
>>> the
>>>>>> same result :-))
>>>>>>
>>>>> Xactly
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ( not snipped just to annoy people)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> I see I've attracted old Maxwell again. I love this guy. :-))
>>>>
>>> I'm a big fan of Whack a mole. When on of those little devils pops
> his
>>> head up on my panel.....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> I think I ate some of that once. Whackamole? Terrible green stuff!!
>>
>
> Oh I like it. God for cooling the hot stuff.
>
> bertie

I'm on a Doritos kick right now. Should fit right in :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

buttman

March 25th 08, 02:17 AM

On Mar 24, 2:35 pm, "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.

Agreed. The thing I dislike about the Ron Machado book is how it
shoves the "humor" down your throat. Sometimes I just want to look up
something and not have to wade through heaps of goofyness. I prefer
the more dry, subtle humor.

At the place I used to instruct at, if a student skipped a bunch of
ground lessons, we'd lock him in a room and make him watch a few hours
of the King School videos as punishment. Those videos might hit the
mark for the older generation, but not so much with the "south park"
generation these days.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 25th 08, 02:25 AM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:xr-
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:HuydnVcI-
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:34:32 -0700 (PDT), Dan <danmc61
>> @gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 24, 7:01 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:47:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If
>> GA
>>>> is
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> flourish in the future, it will have to attract more
>>>> "average"
>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>>>> into it's ranks.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Isn't that the philosophy of NASA's Free Flight concept?
>>>>>>>>>>> Most people are only comfortable flying along with a herd.
Try
>>>>>>>>>>> diverting the typical 737 load into the requisite 30
Bonanzas
>>>> and
>>>>>>>> hear
>>>>>>>>>>> the howls on the tarmac --" I have to fly in THAT!?"
>>>>>>>>>> You'll have to explain that to Dudley.
>>>>>>>>> Don't be an imbecile.
>>>>>>>> Would you tell a bird not to fly?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>> Being a stubborn character, I'd probably try, and most likely
get
>>>> the
>>>>>>> same result :-))
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Xactly
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ( not snipped just to annoy people)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>> I see I've attracted old Maxwell again. I love this guy. :-))
>>>>>
>>>> I'm a big fan of Whack a mole. When on of those little devils pops
>> his
>>>> head up on my panel.....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> I think I ate some of that once. Whackamole? Terrible green stuff!!
>>>
>>
>> Oh I like it. God for cooling the hot stuff.
>>
>> bertie
>
> I'm on a Doritos kick right now. Should fit right in :-)
>
Now oyu have me hankering fo them.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 25th 08, 02:25 AM

buttman > wrote in
:

> On Mar 24, 2:35 pm, "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.
>
> Agreed. The thing I dislike about the Ron Machado book is how it
> shoves the "humor" down your throat. Sometimes I just want to look up
> something and not have to wade through heaps of goofyness. I prefer
> the more dry, subtle humor.

No you don't

Bertie

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 25th 08, 02:32 AM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:xr-
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:HuydnVcI-
>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:34:32 -0700 (PDT), Dan <danmc61
>>> @gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 24, 7:01 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:47:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If
>>> GA
>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flourish in the future, it will have to attract more
>>>>> "average"
>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into it's ranks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isn't that the philosophy of NASA's Free Flight concept?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Most people are only comfortable flying along with a herd.
> Try
>>>>>>>>>>>> diverting the typical 737 load into the requisite 30
> Bonanzas
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> hear
>>>>>>>>>>>> the howls on the tarmac --" I have to fly in THAT!?"
>>>>>>>>>>> You'll have to explain that to Dudley.
>>>>>>>>>> Don't be an imbecile.
>>>>>>>>> Would you tell a bird not to fly?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>>> Being a stubborn character, I'd probably try, and most likely
> get
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> same result :-))
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Xactly
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ( not snipped just to annoy people)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>> I see I've attracted old Maxwell again. I love this guy. :-))
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm a big fan of Whack a mole. When on of those little devils pops
>>> his
>>>>> head up on my panel.....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>> I think I ate some of that once. Whackamole? Terrible green stuff!!
>>>>
>>> Oh I like it. God for cooling the hot stuff.
>>>
>>> bertie
>> I'm on a Doritos kick right now. Should fit right in :-)
>>
> Now oyu have me hankering fo them.
>
>
> Bertie

They advertize you can't eat just one of them. Trust me....they are on
to something here :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 25th 08, 02:36 AM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:Ntqdndwvn_za-
:

> They advertize you can't eat just one of them. Trust me....they are on
> to something here :-))
>

Doritos... If I wasn't already full of easter chocolate...

Bertie

Matt W. Barrow

March 25th 08, 02:36 AM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Unfortunately, this seems to imply that it is YOU, who are full of "home
>>> made dog ****" :-))
>>
>> Hey, is that Labrador, man?
>>
>>
> In his case, probably something a bit more vicious and stupid I'm afraid.
>

I suspect a man of your eminent distinction never watched "Up in Smoke"! :~)

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 25th 08, 02:42 AM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:Ntqdndwvn_za-
> :
>
>
>> They advertize you can't eat just one of them. Trust me....they are on
>> to something here :-))
>>
>
> Doritos... If I wasn't already full of easter chocolate...
>
>
>
> Bertie
The kids gave us chocolate bunnies. I've discovered that it's true.
EVERYBODY chomps the ears off first.

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 25th 08, 02:46 AM

Matt W. Barrow wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Matt W. Barrow wrote:
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Unfortunately, this seems to imply that it is YOU, who are full of "home
>>>> made dog ****" :-))
>>> Hey, is that Labrador, man?
>>>
>>>
>> In his case, probably something a bit more vicious and stupid I'm afraid.
>>
>
> I suspect a man of your eminent distinction never watched "Up in Smoke"! :~)
>
>
Cheech and Chong? Not bad guys,,,,,,Hey...ANYTHING'S better than Tucker
and Msxmanic!! :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 25th 08, 02:57 AM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:kpidneKW2-rg-
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:Ntqdndwvn_za-
>> :
>>
>>
>>> They advertize you can't eat just one of them. Trust me....they are
on
>>> to something here :-))
>>>
>>
>> Doritos... If I wasn't already full of easter chocolate...
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
> The kids gave us chocolate bunnies. I've discovered that it's true.
> EVERYBODY chomps the ears off first.
>

I bite their asses off first. Seems to be a habit.

Bertie

buttman

March 25th 08, 02:58 AM

On Mar 24, 8:25*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> buttman > wrote :
>
> > On Mar 24, 2:35 pm, "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.
>
> > Agreed. The thing I dislike about the Ron Machado book is how it
> > shoves the "humor" down your throat. Sometimes I just want to look up
> > something and not have to wade through heaps of goofyness. I prefer
> > the more dry, subtle humor.
>
> No you don't
>
> Bertie

how would you know, you don't fly, fjukkwjit

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 25th 08, 02:59 AM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:kpidneKW2-rg-
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:Ntqdndwvn_za-
>>> :
>>>
>>>
>>>> They advertize you can't eat just one of them. Trust me....they are
> on
>>>> to something here :-))
>>>>
>>> Doritos... If I wasn't already full of easter chocolate...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> The kids gave us chocolate bunnies. I've discovered that it's true.
>> EVERYBODY chomps the ears off first.
>>
>
> I bite their asses off first. Seems to be a habit.

A habit huh!! Must be just a Tolkin bite :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 25th 08, 03:19 AM

buttman > wrote in
:

> On Mar 24, 8:25*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> buttman > wrote
>> innews:e07a996d-852e-4d69-8c4e-25c4ae41f
> :
>>
>> > On Mar 24, 2:35 pm, "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.
>>
>> > Agreed. The thing I dislike about the Ron Machado book is how it
>> > shoves the "humor" down your throat. Sometimes I just want to look
>> > up something and not have to wade through heaps of goofyness. I
>> > prefer the more dry, subtle humor.
>>
>> No you don't
>>
>> Bertie
>
> how would you know, you don't fly, fjukkwjit
>

Ah you hurted Bertie. That makes you look so much more clever.

Do tell, fjukktard..

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

March 25th 08, 03:20 AM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:kpidneKW2-rg-
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:Ntqdndwvn_za-
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> They advertize you can't eat just one of them. Trust me....they
are
>> on
>>>>> to something here :-))
>>>>>
>>>> Doritos... If I wasn't already full of easter chocolate...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> The kids gave us chocolate bunnies. I've discovered that it's true.
>>> EVERYBODY chomps the ears off first.
>>>
>>
>> I bite their asses off first. Seems to be a habit.
>
> A habit huh!! Must be just a Tolkin bite :-))
>
>

Oh dear

Bertie

buttman

March 25th 08, 03:26 AM

On Mar 24, 9:19*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> buttman > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Mar 24, 8:25*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> buttman > wrote
> >> innews:e07a996d-852e-4d69-8c4e-25c4ae41f
> > :
>
> >> > On Mar 24, 2:35 pm, "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.
>
> >> > Agreed. The thing I dislike about the Ron Machado book is how it
> >> > shoves the "humor" down your throat. Sometimes I just want to look
> >> > up something and not have to wade through heaps of goofyness. I
> >> > prefer the more dry, subtle humor.
>
> >> No you don't
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > how would you know, you don't fly, fjukkwjit
>
> Ah you hurted Bertie. That makes you look so much more clever.
>
> Do tell, fjukktard..
>
> Bertie

more clevar than you, gearup boi

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 25th 08, 03:29 AM

buttman > wrote in
:

> On Mar 24, 9:19*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> buttman > wrote
>> innews:7c82f9d2-b7fb-4435-a6bd-c0e2e21d4
> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 24, 8:25*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> buttman > wrote
>> >> innews:e07a996d-852e-4d69-8c4e-25c4ae41f
>> > :
>>
>> >> > On Mar 24, 2:35 pm, "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.
>>
>> >> > Agreed. The thing I dislike about the Ron Machado book is how it
>> >> > shoves the "humor" down your throat. Sometimes I just want to
>> >> > look up something and not have to wade through heaps of
>> >> > goofyness. I prefer the more dry, subtle humor.
>>
>> >> No you don't
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > how would you know, you don't fly, fjukkwjit
>>
>> Ah you hurted Bertie. That makes you look so much more clever.
>>
>> Do tell, fjukktard..
>>
>> Bertie
>
> more clevar than you, gearup boi
>

Oh yeah, and more arteekulate as well.

Bertie

Bob Gardner

March 25th 08, 04:58 AM

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

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 24, 6:15 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> Ah.motorcycle racing. Tried it once. I used to ride a lot and had quite
>> That was the end of my bike racing :-))
>
> This is true of nealry every race sport -- You realize quickly that
> the potential for harm is quite high, and Monday morning you need
> functioning limbs to earn the $ to ride again.
>
>> > I don't think you mean that we need to add to the ranks of the casual
>> > pilot -- just ease the transition from "jus lookin" to pilot, right?
>>
>> I little bit of both actually. We need new blood for sure, and the
>> transition into GA could be made more attractive.
>>
>> --> Dudley Henriques
>
> I agree that it could be made more attractive, but I think it would be
> disingenuous to promise absolute safety, minimal training, and
> immediate gratification (such as car driving).
>
> The Cessna ads of the late 60s early 70s were bent this way. Even the
> names "Skywagon" were meant to equate the airplane to the car.
>
> We'll need total failsafe automation and complete dependence on it
> before Joe Average flies with as little thought as we drive. I think
> that's a combination of systems far beyond today's capabilities and
> psychological assent far beyond what most will accede to today.
>
> That said, In my very humble opinion -- The biggest problem with
> primary flight training is the lack of money and focus -- so many FBOs
> are run on a shoestring (or a loss) trying to run charter and a
> school. The Big Schools are all focused on airline wannabes and
> require moving to their location for an extended period of time.
>
> The Cessna Pilot Center concept was a good one a while back, but in my
> region it's gone the way of Sinclair gas. Plus, it was focused on
> selling one brand of airplane. Not everyone wants to learn how to
> drive at the Plymouth Car Center.
>
> We haven't done a good job at providing an easily understood
> transition from "I think I might want to do that" to new Private Pilot
> in most FBOs. Caveat -- this is based on anecdotal evidence on a
> limited sampling, but based on conversations with others, it's not so
> unusual.
>
> Consider what happens to the guy or girl that walks into the local FBO
> -- Maybe someone is there, maybe not. If so "How can I help you?" is
> offered, but the person doesn't even know how to reply, "Well, I'm
> thinking about, maybe..."
>
> "Private Pilot Training? Ok, you'll need to talk to Cal -- I'm a
> double I."
>
> "Oh yeah, umm.. ok."
>
> "Come back Saturday -- Cal works all the discoveries and students."
>
> "Discoveries? Students?" Our unlikely candidate thinks, "I'm a
> successful XYZ -- here I'm a student?"
>
> He/she then drives home and orders a Jet Ski.
>
> In a car dealership, the guy in charge of trucks will walk you over or
> -better yet -- page the guy in charge of cars and make sure you talk
> to him/her.
>
> Please -- before you flame .. I'm sure there are plenty of FBOs/Pilot
> Schools that do it all perfectly.
>
> But apparently they are the minority or we wouldn't have a shrinking
> GA population.
>
>
> Dan Mc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 25th 08, 08:22 AM

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

I couldn't agree more with this assessment.

--
Dudley Henriques

Larry Dighera

March 25th 08, 09:55 AM

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:52:16 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:34:32 -0700 (PDT), Dan >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 24, 7:01 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:47:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>>>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If GA is to
>>>>> flourish in the future, it will have to attract more "average" people
>>>>> into it's ranks.
>>>> Isn't that the philosophy of NASA's Free Flight concept?
>>> Most people are only comfortable flying along with a herd. Try
>>> diverting the typical 737 load into the requisite 30 Bonanzas and hear
>>> the howls on the tarmac --" I have to fly in THAT!?"
>>
>> You'll have to explain that to Dudley.
>
>Don't be an imbecile.
>>

No need to take offence; I didn't mean that the way it may have
sounded.

Dan was telling me why he didn't think NASA's Free Flight concept was
viable, although I didn't say I believed it to be. As it was you who
apparently believed in the desirability to attract more student pilots
to GA who are uncomfortable with the systems engineering approach
required to effectively navigate within the NAS, so he should have
addressed his comment to you who may or may not believe NASA's Free
Flight concept to be capable of causing GA to "flourish in the
future."

I should have been clearer.

Personally, I can see that if GA is to continue to exist in the face
of the current opposing head wind posed by the airlines, DHS, and
those who would privatize ATC, it's imperative that GA's political
clout be strong. Despite that necessity, I seriously doubt that
"Soccer Mom's" and their ilk would be welcomed with open arms by the
current users of the NAS. It seems to me, that given the specific and
immediate demands involved in flying, an individual uncomfortable with
the absolutes involved in engineering would not do very well despite
successfully earning an airmans certificate due to a "dummed down"
training syllabus unless technological aids (al la Free Flight, etc.)
are provided. That's my opinion; of course you are free to disagree.

Larry Dighera

March 25th 08, 10:05 AM

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:57:50 -0700 (PDT), Dan >
wrote:

>Please -- before you flame .. I'm sure there are plenty of FBOs/Pilot
>Schools that do it all perfectly.
>
>But apparently they are the minority or we wouldn't have a shrinking
>GA population.

I don't see the down turn in new students as a result of the failure
of flight schools to attract unsuitable students. I believe it's the
result of the high cost of training and operating, the continual
necessity for ongoing currency flights, the less than perfect utility
offered by GA, and the enormous time commitment demanded. Time,
money, and price performance ratio are paramount; overwhelming desire
to ply the skies is imperative, IMO.

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 25th 08, 10:19 AM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:57:50 -0700 (PDT), Dan >
> wrote:
>
>> Please -- before you flame .. I'm sure there are plenty of FBOs/Pilot
>> Schools that do it all perfectly.
>>
>> But apparently they are the minority or we wouldn't have a shrinking
>> GA population.
>
> I don't see the down turn in new students as a result of the failure
> of flight schools to attract unsuitable students. I believe it's the
> result of the high cost of training and operating, the continual
> necessity for ongoing currency flights, the less than perfect utility
> offered by GA, and the enormous time commitment demanded. Time,
> money, and price performance ratio are paramount; overwhelming desire
> to ply the skies is imperative, IMO.

All of these points are pertinent. There are as well HUGE issues
concerning the manner in which many flight schools and instructors
integrate with new students. Much could be done to improve the general
business model.

--
Dudley Henriques

WingFlaps

March 25th 08, 10:22 AM

On Mar 25, 1:45*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

>
> Unfortunately, this seems to imply that it is YOU, who are full of "home
> made dog ****" :-))
>

I don't see anything unfortunate in that...

Cheers

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 25th 08, 10:25 AM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:52:16 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:34:32 -0700 (PDT), Dan >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 24, 7:01 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:47:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>>>>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If GA is to
>>>>>> flourish in the future, it will have to attract more "average" people
>>>>>> into it's ranks.
>>>>> Isn't that the philosophy of NASA's Free Flight concept?
>>>> Most people are only comfortable flying along with a herd. Try
>>>> diverting the typical 737 load into the requisite 30 Bonanzas and hear
>>>> the howls on the tarmac --" I have to fly in THAT!?"
>>> You'll have to explain that to Dudley.
>> Don't be an imbecile.
>
> No need to take offence; I didn't mean that the way it may have
> sounded.
>
> Dan was telling me why he didn't think NASA's Free Flight concept was
> viable, although I didn't say I believed it to be. As it was you who
> apparently believed in the desirability to attract more student pilots
> to GA who are uncomfortable with the systems engineering approach
> required to effectively navigate within the NAS, so he should have
> addressed his comment to you who may or may not believe NASA's Free
> Flight concept to be capable of causing GA to "flourish in the
> future."
>
> I should have been clearer.
>
> Personally, I can see that if GA is to continue to exist in the face
> of the current opposing head wind posed by the airlines, DHS, and
> those who would privatize ATC, it's imperative that GA's political
> clout be strong. Despite that necessity, I seriously doubt that
> "Soccer Mom's" and their ilk would be welcomed with open arms by the
> current users of the NAS. It seems to me, that given the specific and
> immediate demands involved in flying, an individual uncomfortable with
> the absolutes involved in engineering would not do very well despite
> successfully earning an airmans certificate due to a "dummed down"
> training syllabus unless technological aids (al la Free Flight, etc.)
> are provided. That's my opinion; of course you are free to disagree.
>
>
I don't disagree. All these points are pertinent. My concerns are for
the purpose of this discussion not addressing the macro situation which
could fill a book with opinion back and forth. My comments in this
thread only concern training manuals and their interface with new
students. The rest has been thread creep.

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 25th 08, 10:29 AM

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Mar 25, 1:45 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, this seems to imply that it is YOU, who are full of "home
>> made dog ****" :-))
>>
>
> I don't see anything unfortunate in that...
>
> Cheers

Existential.

--
Dudley Henriques

Larry Dighera

March 25th 08, 10:31 AM

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

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:47:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If GA is to
>>> flourish in the future, it will have to attract more "average" people
>>> into it's ranks.
>>
>> Isn't that the philosophy of NASA's Free Flight concept?
>
>Sounds more to me like NASA coming up with another excuse for spending a
>ton of our tax dollars :-)
>

Given the failure of NASA's Free Flight concept to produce tangible
results, I'd have to agree.

>What I have in mind is a bit more achievable; 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.

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.

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 25th 08, 10:46 AM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:39:20 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:47:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If GA is to
>>>> flourish in the future, it will have to attract more "average" people
>>>> into it's ranks.
>>> Isn't that the philosophy of NASA's Free Flight concept?
>> Sounds more to me like NASA coming up with another excuse for spending a
>> ton of our tax dollars :-)
>>
>
> Given the failure of NASA's Free Flight concept to produce tangible
> results, I'd have to agree.
>
>> What I have in mind is a bit more achievable; 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.
>
> 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.

That's pure unadulterated bull hockey. I've spent over 50 years involved
in the flight instruction business and I know it fairly well. Given the
right instructor, there's absolutely no reason in the world that would
preclude anyone with normal intelligence and in average physical
condition from learning to fly and fly well; system or no system.
All this "engineering crap is just that...crap; and the pilots who
spread this crap are in part guilty of discouraging people from entering
aviation.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to fly an airplane. My students
have ranged from airline pilots to a guy who used to own the deli down
the street. All were entirely competent and understood the material
quite well; and all went flawlessly through the "system".

--
Dudley Henriques

Larry Dighera

March 25th 08, 11:25 AM

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 06:46:11 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:39:20 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:47:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If GA is to
>>>>> flourish in the future, it will have to attract more "average" people
>>>>> into it's ranks.
>>>> Isn't that the philosophy of NASA's Free Flight concept?
>>> Sounds more to me like NASA coming up with another excuse for spending a
>>> ton of our tax dollars :-)
>>>
>>
>> Given the failure of NASA's Free Flight concept to produce tangible
>> results, I'd have to agree.
>>
>>> What I have in mind is a bit more achievable; 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
>That's pure unadulterated bull hockey. I've spent over 50 years involved
>in the flight instruction business and I know it fairly well. Given the
>right instructor, there's absolutely no reason in the world that would
>preclude anyone with normal intelligence and in average physical
>condition from learning to fly and fly well; system or no system.
>All this "engineering crap is just that...crap; and the pilots who
>spread this crap are in part guilty of discouraging people from entering
>aviation.

Granted, I don't have the breadth of knowledge on the subject of
natural aptitude for airmanship and the depth of personal experience
you claim, but in my limited time of 38 years as an airman I've seen
several students fail to complete their flight instruction due to
either what I perceive as (probably well deserved) self-doubt in their
ability perform adequately in the NAS, or the lack of adequate funds
and time. Those students had no difficulty mastering the flight
lessons, they simply weren't able to meet the demands required for
being a pilot. Those whose financial and time circumstances may
pursue flight training at a later date. Those who recognized the
unsuitability of their individual personality mix for commanding a
flight moved on toward other "hobbies" like golf.

>You don't have to be a rocket scientist to fly an airplane.

All who fly airplanes are not qualified to command a flight.

>My students have ranged from airline pilots to a guy who used to
>own the deli down the street. All were entirely competent and
>understood the material quite well; and all went flawlessly
>through the "system".

Although I find it difficult to believe, that in 50 years you have
never encountered a flight student who was unsuitable for the role of
airman, I firmly believe that there are many of our fellow citizens
who are not so suited. I believe the dilatant has no place in the
sky. To attract that sort of person to flight training, without
benefit of some technical enhancement (GPS, Capstone, etc.) does them,
and current airmen, a disservice. The current demands of competent
airmanship must be reduced if the inept and ill suited are to be
accommodated, IMO. It's not just a matter of making it easy for them
to comprehend the syllabus materials if such results in them merely
becoming certificate holders.

buttman

March 25th 08, 11:44 AM

On Mar 25, 4:46*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> I've spent over 50 years involved
> in the flight instruction business

No kidding, you only mention this in every other post you make...

Matt W. Barrow

March 25th 08, 11:53 AM

"buttman" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 25, 4:46 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> I've spent over 50 years involved
> in the flight instruction business

:>No kidding, you only mention this in every other post you make...

Only when he needs to demonstrate his credentials to a clueless dimwit.

Morgans[_2_]

March 25th 08, 11:57 AM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote

> All of these points are pertinent. There are as well HUGE issues
> concerning the manner in which many flight schools and instructors
> integrate with new students. Much could be done to improve the general
> business model.

At many flight schools, it seems as though flight instruction is an
accidental by-product.

The real goal seems to be to give time builders (instructors, though I
hesitate to use that term for some) a chance to log hours, and to move on to
bigger and better careers. The instructor's schedule flexibility is more
important than keeping the student's scheduled lesson appointment.

Yes, I know there are exceptions, and this has been lamented over before,
but it is still relevant.

I feel that the time commitment is the next biggest impediment, and the big
roadblock to more students and pilots getting and staying current is still
the price. I don't know what could be done to greatly improve the
situation, and I don't see it changing very much. I do feel that Light
Sport is a step in the right direction, but it is still expensive, and
moving very slowly in the right direction.
--
Jim in NC

Dan[_10_]

March 25th 08, 12:00 PM

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Dan Mc

Dan[_10_]

March 25th 08, 01:44 PM

On Mar 25, 4:22 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> > 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

Absolutely...

What's your idea of a "well-designed and performed discovery flight"?

Shouldn't each be tailored to the potential new pilot? Or are there
specific elements that you include no matter what their interest?

I haven't figured out the perfect combination, but some key elements
are:
Clear morning (avoid thermal turbulence)
Well maintained and clean airplane (nice paint helps)
Short (avoid possibility of motion sickness)
Comfortable, clean headsets
Breath mints for the CFI (seriously)
Explain everything that will happen before it happens without
information overload (a delicate balance)
Time at the controls in flight regimes that don't require grabbing
the yoke
If time allows -- fly over landmarks familiar to the person taking
the flight

Dan Mc

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 25th 08, 03:05 PM

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 25, 4:22 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>>> 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
>
> Absolutely...
>
> What's your idea of a "well-designed and performed discovery flight"?
>
> Shouldn't each be tailored to the potential new pilot? Or are there
> specific elements that you include no matter what their interest?
>
> I haven't figured out the perfect combination, but some key elements
> are:
> Clear morning (avoid thermal turbulence)
> Well maintained and clean airplane (nice paint helps)
> Short (avoid possibility of motion sickness)
> Comfortable, clean headsets
> Breath mints for the CFI (seriously)
> Explain everything that will happen before it happens without
> information overload (a delicate balance)
> Time at the controls in flight regimes that don't require grabbing
> the yoke
> If time allows -- fly over landmarks familiar to the person taking
> the flight
>
> Dan Mc
>
>
>
I couldn't structure a discovery flight any better myself. The only
thing I would add to what you have said is that the "mood" both before
and during the flight is of the greatest importance. The manner in which
the CFI verbally projects is critical.
What you want to achieve with the flight is to "read" the newbie and be
totally flexible in how you conduct the flight. Be especially alert on
reading ANY apprehension or fear. If the slightest is detected, your
mood and manner should reflect "extra" confidence. You deal with any
trace of apprehension FIRST. If need be, you spend the entire flight
with the goal of easing that apprehension.

If you're any good at all, by the end of the flight, you have both
convinced the newbie that flying is not only safe, but instilled a
burning desire in the newbie to sign up and start taking lessons. The
point here is that with this type of newbie, can the technical stuff and
instead spend the time allowing the newbie to "adjust" to the flying
environment. It is in this scenario where the good CFI is at their best.
You were right when you said to lead everything going on in the airplane
with gentle explanations.

What I teach instructors to do in these discovery flights is to first,
sell themselves as professionals to the newbie. This is done by treating
the newbie as an individual. The absolute worst thing you can do in one
of these flights is to conduct it with any kind of structure. You must
be TOTALLY flexible. The newbie MUST be relaxed and receptive, or the
flight will be wasted effort.

There will be those newbies who are NOT apprehensive in any way. You
deal with these the same way....as individuals. After reading them as
above, your latitude in conducting the flight should include giving them
the airplane from engine start through shutdown if their confidence
warrants you doing this.

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

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 25th 08, 03:15 PM

Morgans wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>
>> All of these points are pertinent. There are as well HUGE issues
>> concerning the manner in which many flight schools and instructors
>> integrate with new students. Much could be done to improve the general
>> business model.
>
> At many flight schools, it seems as though flight instruction is an
> accidental by-product.
>
> The real goal seems to be to give time builders (instructors, though I
> hesitate to use that term for some) a chance to log hours, and to move on to
> bigger and better careers. The instructor's schedule flexibility is more
> important than keeping the student's scheduled lesson appointment.
>
> Yes, I know there are exceptions, and this has been lamented over before,
> but it is still relevant.
>
> I feel that the time commitment is the next biggest impediment, and the big
> roadblock to more students and pilots getting and staying current is still
> the price. I don't know what could be done to greatly improve the
> situation, and I don't see it changing very much. I do feel that Light
> Sport is a step in the right direction, but it is still expensive, and
> moving very slowly in the right direction.

Your points are all valid. The entire structure dealing with the way
CFI's and flight school management interface has been built over time on
a foundation weakened by the way BOTH the instructors and the system
integrate with each other.
You are correct that it is indeed a poor business model. I don't have
the answer to all this, but one thing I do know. NOTHING will change
until the role of the instructor is seen as a professional role, and
this requires BOTH the system AND the instructor corps to re-evaluate
and restructure themselves. I don't see this happening.

This being said, the only thing that can improve the situation is for
individual CFI's to improve their own image. Some are doing this. Many
are not.
The state of the art is not optimized by a long shot.

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 25th 08, 03:25 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 06:46:11 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:39:20 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:47:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If GA is to
>>>>>> flourish in the future, it will have to attract more "average" people
>>>>>> into it's ranks.
>>>>> Isn't that the philosophy of NASA's Free Flight concept?
>>>> Sounds more to me like NASA coming up with another excuse for spending a
>>>> ton of our tax dollars :-)
>>>>
>>> Given the failure of NASA's Free Flight concept to produce tangible
>>> results, I'd have to agree.
>>>
>>>> What I have in mind is a bit more achievable; 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.
>>> 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.
>> That's pure unadulterated bull hockey. I've spent over 50 years involved
>> in the flight instruction business and I know it fairly well. Given the
>> right instructor, there's absolutely no reason in the world that would
>> preclude anyone with normal intelligence and in average physical
>> condition from learning to fly and fly well; system or no system.
>> All this "engineering crap is just that...crap; and the pilots who
>> spread this crap are in part guilty of discouraging people from entering
>> aviation.
>
> Granted, I don't have the breadth of knowledge on the subject of
> natural aptitude for airmanship and the depth of personal experience
> you claim, but in my limited time of 38 years as an airman I've seen
> several students fail to complete their flight instruction due to
> either what I perceive as (probably well deserved) self-doubt in their
> ability perform adequately in the NAS, or the lack of adequate funds
> and time. Those students had no difficulty mastering the flight
> lessons, they simply weren't able to meet the demands required for
> being a pilot. Those whose financial and time circumstances may
> pursue flight training at a later date. Those who recognized the
> unsuitability of their individual personality mix for commanding a
> flight moved on toward other "hobbies" like golf.
>
>> You don't have to be a rocket scientist to fly an airplane.
>
> All who fly airplanes are not qualified to command a flight.
>
>> My students have ranged from airline pilots to a guy who used to
>> own the deli down the street. All were entirely competent and
>> understood the material quite well; and all went flawlessly
>> through the "system".
>
> Although I find it difficult to believe, that in 50 years you have
> never encountered a flight student who was unsuitable for the role of
> airman, I firmly believe that there are many of our fellow citizens
> who are not so suited. I believe the dilatant has no place in the
> sky. To attract that sort of person to flight training, without
> benefit of some technical enhancement (GPS, Capstone, etc.) does them,
> and current airmen, a disservice. The current demands of competent
> airmanship must be reduced if the inept and ill suited are to be
> accommodated, IMO. It's not just a matter of making it easy for them
> to comprehend the syllabus materials if such results in them merely
> becoming certificate holders.
>
>

Larry;

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.
Naturally I've encountered these people in my career. Every instructor
encounters them once in a while. They are the exception, not the norm.
But these people aren't what we're dealing with here. 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.

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 25th 08, 03:27 PM

buttman wrote:
> On Mar 25, 4:46 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> I've spent over 50 years involved
>> in the flight instruction business
>
> No kidding, you only mention this in every other post you make...

Well Butts, if this is all you're getting out of my posts on the forum,
I can see why we have little in common as instructors.
:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Dan[_10_]

March 25th 08, 03:28 PM

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?

;-)

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 25th 08, 03:49 PM

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 :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 25th 08, 03:53 PM

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

xyzzy

March 25th 08, 04:08 PM

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.

WJRFlyBoy

March 25th 08, 04:29 PM

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.

WJRFlyBoy

March 25th 08, 04:37 PM

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.

Dan[_10_]

March 25th 08, 04:45 PM

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!

Larry Dighera

March 25th 08, 05:08 PM

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

Dan[_10_]

March 25th 08, 05:20 PM

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

Larry Dighera

March 25th 08, 06:00 PM

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_loan/find_student_loan/training_loans/career_training_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

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 25th 08, 06:06 PM

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

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 25th 08, 06:13 PM

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

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 25th 08, 06:18 PM

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

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 25th 08, 06:22 PM

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_loan/find_student_loan/training_loans/career_training_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

Larry Dighera

March 25th 08, 06:27 PM

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.

Little Endian

March 25th 08, 07:43 PM

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
>

Larry Dighera

March 25th 08, 07:58 PM

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/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/01/10/state/n180720S66.DTL&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.

Dan[_10_]

March 25th 08, 08:26 PM

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

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 25th 08, 08:52 PM

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

Euan Kilgour

March 25th 08, 09:57 PM

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.

Saville

March 25th 08, 10:00 PM

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

Dan[_10_]

March 25th 08, 10:12 PM

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!

:-)

Saville

March 25th 08, 10:13 PM

Dan wrote:

> That said, In my very humble opinion -- The biggest problem with
> primary flight training is the lack of money and focus -- so many FBOs
> are run on a shoestring (or a loss) trying to run charter and a
> school. The Big Schools are all focused on airline wannabes and
> require moving to their location for an extended period of time.

Tis true.

A buddy of my listened to my flying stories and he started taking lessons
at a local FBO. Like everyone he gets canceled out by WX. But worse..his
instructor canceled out 50% of the flyable days for one reason or another.
Very annoying as my buddy went two months without being able to fly. He was
afraid he'd lose whatever skills he learned.

I suggested he get a different instructor and he resisted that for a while
because he liked the way the guy taught. But finally the FBO operator took
over - they just barely avoided losing a student.

> Please -- before you flame .. I'm sure there are plenty of FBOs/Pilot
> Schools that do it all perfectly.
>
> But apparently they are the minority or we wouldn't have a shrinking
> GA population.
>

I don't know if it's a minority, but it's certainly a substantial impact.

Gregg

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 25th 08, 10:28 PM

Dan wrote:
> 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!
>
> :-)

Most assuredly!! :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Bob Gardner

March 25th 08, 11:03 PM

I agree with Dudley's agreement. By "well designed" I mean one that supports
the applicant's goals...and that means that every one is different. If
business use is a goal, emphasize how quickly you got into the air and on
your way (not skipping the preflight, of course) without the airline hassle;
if recreational use is the goal, head out toward a likely destination...the
San Juan Islands work well in this area)...and emphasize the scenery
enroute, the islands visible off in the distance, etc. If the newbie has an
aviation career in mind, point out how GA fits in with and shares the skies
with the air carriers. All during the ride, of course, scan for traffic,
point out how few airplanes there really are in a given area at a given
time, point out how the newbie will fly in dickie-bird weather until he or
she gets instrument rated, etc etc. I do a minimum of instruction per se,
although everyone gets to fly the airplane, and I do point out the various
instruments and draw parallels between the airplane's instruments and those
in the newbie's car. A little pre-ride probing of the newbie's background
can open up some areas of discussion: "Oh, you're a budding geologist? There
are some neat formations in the Cascades, and an erratic just off I-5 in
Oregon."

Bob Gardner

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 25, 4:22 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> > 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
>
> Absolutely...
>
> What's your idea of a "well-designed and performed discovery flight"?
>
> Shouldn't each be tailored to the potential new pilot? Or are there
> specific elements that you include no matter what their interest?
>
> I haven't figured out the perfect combination, but some key elements
> are:
> Clear morning (avoid thermal turbulence)
> Well maintained and clean airplane (nice paint helps)
> Short (avoid possibility of motion sickness)
> Comfortable, clean headsets
> Breath mints for the CFI (seriously)
> Explain everything that will happen before it happens without
> information overload (a delicate balance)
> Time at the controls in flight regimes that don't require grabbing
> the yoke
> If time allows -- fly over landmarks familiar to the person taking
> the flight
>
> Dan Mc
>
>
>

Larry Dighera

March 25th 08, 11:14 PM

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:57:24 -0700 (PDT), Euan Kilgour
> wrote:

>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.

There are at least a couple of orders of magnitude less information
required to operate an automobile on the highways, so the comparison
isn't valid in my opinion. They both share regulations and motor
skills, but flying requires the mastery of many times more
regulations, meteorology and its presentation lingo, understanding
aircraft systems, radio operation and communications phraseology,
several methods of navigation and the charts and plates associated
with each, ...

Further, the licensing requirements for motorists are woefully
inadequate; it's an absolute wonder that there aren't more than 50,000
highway deaths annually.

>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.

That last qualifier "within a GA environment" is just a little vague.
There is flying a NORDO champ of the flat lands neatly crisscrossed
with a grid roads spaced a mile apart and little traffic, and there is
operating in IMC in the Los Angeles basin. The two are not equal by
any means. An airman with an instrument rating is expected to be
competent to safely pilot his aircraft in the latter environment
without causing a hazard to himself or other flights.

>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.

An if you don't approach your goal?

Mrs Smith

March 26th 08, 12:51 AM

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 03:29:54 +0000, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> buttman > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Mar 24, 9:19*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> buttman > wrote
>>> innews:7c82f9d2-b7fb-4435-a6bd-c0e2e21d4
>> :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Mar 24, 8:25*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> >> buttman > wrote
>>> >> innews:e07a996d-852e-4d69-8c4e-25c4ae41f
>>> > :
>>>
>>> >> > On Mar 24, 2:35 pm, "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.
>>>
>>> >> > Agreed. The thing I dislike about the Ron Machado book is how it
>>> >> > shoves the "humor" down your throat. Sometimes I just want to
>>> >> > look up something and not have to wade through heaps of
>>> >> > goofyness. I prefer the more dry, subtle humor.
>>>
>>> >> No you don't
>>>
>>> >> Bertie
>>>
>>> > how would you know, you don't fly, fjukkwjit
>>>
>>> Ah you hurted Bertie. That makes you look so much more clever.
>>>
>>> Do tell, fjukktard..
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> more clevar than you, gearup boi
>>
>
> Oh yeah, and more arteekulate as well.
>
>
> Bertie

That wouldn't be too difficult, I would imagine.

Dan Camper

March 26th 08, 01:32 AM

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:08:38 -0700 (PDT), xyzzy wrote:

> 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.

What a croc. Blow me like the fish.

Dan[_10_]

March 26th 08, 01:48 AM

On Mar 25, 7:14 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> That last qualifier "within a GA environment" is just a little vague.
> There is flying a NORDO champ of the flat lands neatly crisscrossed
> with a grid roads spaced a mile apart and little traffic, and there is
> operating in IMC in the Los Angeles basin. The two are not equal by
> any means. An airman with an instrument rating is expected to be
> competent to safely pilot his aircraft in the latter environment
> without causing a hazard to himself or other flights.

We're not talking about Instrument Rated students -- we're talking
about the artificially high attrition in GA due to inadequate
counseling, assistance, and guidance.

We all know about the price -- but we lose more than we should due to
just plain Old School, Dumb, Inflexible, unenlightened, unadaptable
FBOs that don't realize what an asset a well run flight school is to
General Aviation, the students, the instructors, the airport, and the
FBO

Dan Mc

Maxwell[_2_]

March 26th 08, 03:22 AM

"news.chi.sbcglobal.net" > wrote in message
. net...
> 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 ;-)
>
>

I agree with you and Larry. Most of the instructors I have encountered with
a sense of humor, have a very strong tendency to laugh ONLY at their own
jokes.

Kind of like Dudley, doesn't have much interest in any opinion other than
his own.

Maxwell[_2_]

March 26th 08, 03:24 AM

"xyzzy" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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.

My thoughts exactly.

WJRFlyBoy

March 26th 08, 04:32 AM

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:27:28 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

> 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?

Future revenues. The building of a popular sales base. Going back to the
reason that Rod's manual is being well received. It is operational
education, geared to the non technical potential and student pilot.
Education, I mean to say) in breaking through the barriers many of which
are perceived and not real. Removing fears (GA is unavoidably
dangerous)and false assumptions (only for engineer-types; extremely
expensive).

Larry Dighera

March 26th 08, 04:35 AM

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:48:25 -0700 (PDT), Dan >
wrote:

>On Mar 25, 7:14 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>> That last qualifier "within a GA environment" is just a little vague.
>> There is flying a NORDO champ of the flat lands neatly crisscrossed
>> with a grid roads spaced a mile apart and little traffic, and there is
>> operating in IMC in the Los Angeles basin. The two are not equal by
>> any means. An airman with an instrument rating is expected to be
>> competent to safely pilot his aircraft in the latter environment
>> without causing a hazard to himself or other flights.
>
>We're not talking about Instrument Rated students -- we're talking
>about the artificially high attrition in GA due to inadequate
>counseling, assistance, and guidance.
>
>We all know about the price -- but we lose more than we should due to
>just plain Old School, Dumb, Inflexible, unenlightened, unadaptable
>FBOs that don't realize what an asset a well run flight school is to
>General Aviation, the students, the instructors, the airport, and the
>FBO

You sound like a man with a plan. How would you suggest enlightening
those FBOs you mention?

WJRFlyBoy

March 26th 08, 04:39 AM

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:27:28 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

>>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/

Larry, agreed. Let me point out that I have been hard at my study,
education and preparation and until you sent this link, I had no
attention to this organization.

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

They do. How many potential, not student pilots, know who AOPA is? I
didn't until I came to Rec.Aviation.*.

GA is only available to those whose family or friends have involvement
or those, like myself, that are willing to spend hours simply finding
out the very basics (such as AOPA, FAR regs, etc).

GA is not mainstream from an awareness standpoint.

WJRFlyBoy

March 26th 08, 04:47 AM

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:18:44 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:

>> 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.

This is a fundamental failure that has to be laid at the feet of the
Cessnas of the world. Unless I missed it (surely could have), where is
the consolidation of the major mfgs efforts (monies) to promote GA? Not
to promote Piper, to promote GA?

Competitors in most any underexposed market, when faced with entry level
barriers, have found that it is a strong economic model to *first*
promote their market (GA); let the competition begin...when there are
folks to compete for.

WJRFlyBoy

March 26th 08, 05:44 AM

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:31:59 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

> 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.

Unqualified or undesirable? GA as a business cannot survive if the
qualifications omit the undesirables.

> 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.

GA as a business cannot survive if the qualifications require passionate
airmen only.

> 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.

They test it but not for the reasons you report. They have not succeeded
in their plans to market GA, the obstacles are there because the GA
industry as a whole has failed to eliminate them.

Can you seriously imagine the CEO of Cessna standing in front of the
Textron Board and stockholders grinning and saying:

"We have had a great year. 100,000 potential Cessna owners have been
blocked out of the marketplace. The airs, Gentlemen, are safer today
than ever"."

WJRFlyBoy

March 26th 08, 05:55 AM

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 18:48:25 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote:

> but we lose more than we should due to
> just plain Old School, Dumb, Inflexible, unenlightened, unadaptable
> FBOs that don't realize what an asset a well run flight school is to
> General Aviation, the students, the instructors, the airport, and the
> FBO
>
> Dan Mc

Aside from all the "feel good" reasons, the FBOs, like any other
business, do not see the risk-reward economic benefits in their favor.
Like most small businessmen, they have great fear in leading the market
rather than following and reacting to it. If all FBOs had a slew of
people waiting to spend their flight instruction $$$ with them, things
would rapidly change. The GA industry, led by the mfgs, have failed to
develop that demand.

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 26th 08, 11:16 AM

Maxwell wrote:
> "news.chi.sbcglobal.net" > wrote in message
> . net...
>> 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 ;-)
>>
>>
>
> I agree with you and Larry. Most of the instructors I have encountered with
> a sense of humor, have a very strong tendency to laugh ONLY at their own
> jokes.
>
> Kind of like Dudley, doesn't have much interest in any opinion other than
> his own.
>
>

Not true. I share opinion with people all the time on Usenet. In fact,
the computer I'm writing this on was purchased to do just that.

Perhaps the reason I don't share opinion with you personally is that all
you seem capable of offering in the way of "opinion" are posts like this
one; non aviation oriented, and simply a totally ineffective and
uncalled for jab in the ribs.
There's no "opinion" to be shared with people like you. Only back and
forth flames that achieve absolutely nothing of use to the forum, or to
me personally. :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

Dan[_10_]

March 26th 08, 11:42 AM

On Mar 26, 1:55 am, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
> Aside from all the "feel good" reasons, the FBOs, like any other
> business, do not see the risk-reward economic benefits in their favor.
> Like most small businessmen, they have great fear in leading the market
> rather than following and reacting to it. If all FBOs had a slew of
> people waiting to spend their flight instruction $$$ with them, things
> would rapidly change. The GA industry, led by the mfgs, have failed to
> develop that demand.

If you think "feel good reasons" don't play a part in choice of what,
when, and where to purchase, you really don't understand the
marketplace and business at all.

Dan Mc

WJRFlyBoy

March 26th 08, 05:14 PM

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 04:42:49 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote:

> On Mar 26, 1:55 am, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>>
>> Aside from all the "feel good" reasons, the FBOs, like any other
>> business, do not see the risk-reward economic benefits in their favor.
>> Like most small businessmen, they have great fear in leading the market
>> rather than following and reacting to it. If all FBOs had a slew of
>> people waiting to spend their flight instruction $$$ with them, things
>> would rapidly change. The GA industry, led by the mfgs, have failed to
>> develop that demand.
>
> If you think "feel good reasons" don't play a part in choice of what,
> when, and where to purchase, you really don't understand the
> marketplace and business at all.
>
> Dan Mc

After 35 years as a sole proprietor, in ten different industries, I have
been one of the luckiest businessmen on the face of the Earth.

Back to "feel good" reasons, you said "FBOs that don't realize what an
asset a well run flight school is to General Aviation, the students, the
instructors, the airport, and the FBO"

This must be another failing of mine, the inability to make profits out
of being community spirited. To operate their businesses fueled by their
love of aviation and supporting GA, translating that to income exceeding
expense.

Or maybe in your muppet on crack attack on my post you purposefully
twisted your own words to mean purchasing determinations, that ppl
purchase because it makes them feel good. I dunno, what do ya' think?

Over to you, Kermit.

Dan[_10_]

March 26th 08, 05:29 PM

On Mar 26, 1:14 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
> After 35 years as a sole proprietor, in ten different industries, I have
> been one of the luckiest businessmen on the face of the Earth.
>
> Back to "feel good" reasons, you said "FBOs that don't realize what an
> asset a well run flight school is to General Aviation, the students, the
> instructors, the airport, and the FBO"
>

Take you all morning to write that one?

I'll ignore the chest pounding self aggrandizement and address your
"point":

Read and learn -- The successful sales process is part education
(appeal to reason), motivation (appeal to aesthetics), and self
interest (appeal to ego).

The sales process consists of several well known steps: Prospecting
(Leads), Qualifying, Need identification, Proposing,Closing, and the
Transaction (deal).

I'm not alone in contending that GA is doing a very poor job in every
stage of the sales process.

To repeat -- in words perhaps more comprehensible -- many (too many)
FBOs have *no* sales approach. They share Larry's view that "if they
wanna be a pilot, they'll put up with the crap."

Dan Mc

WJRFlyBoy

March 26th 08, 08:37 PM

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:29:03 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote:

> Read and learn -- The successful sales process is part education
> (appeal to reason), motivation (appeal to aesthetics), and self
> interest (appeal to ego).

Kewl. Go on.

> The sales process consists of several well known steps: Prospecting
> (Leads), Qualifying, Need identification, Proposing,Closing, and the
> Transaction (deal).

This is where we differ. You're a salesman, I am an owner who sells.
Guess what very important piece of the customer/client cycle you missed.
it gave you away as a salesman, not an owner.

Collection.

> I'm not alone in contending that GA is doing a very poor job in every
> stage of the sales process.

Considering that I have posted exactly that 3-4 times in this thread
alone....

> To repeat -- in words perhaps more comprehensible -- many (too many)
> FBOs have *no* sales approach. They share Larry's view that "if they
> wanna be a pilot, they'll put up with the crap."
>
> Dan Mc

Make sure you send then Dan's Six Steps To Success. Be ready when they
ask you "what about collections."

And for God's sake, don't give them my email.
--
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.

Dan[_10_]

March 26th 08, 09:39 PM

On Mar 26, 4:37 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:

>
> This is where we differ. You're a salesman, I am an owner who sells.
> Guess what very important piece of the customer/client cycle you missed.
> it gave you away as a salesman, not an owner.
>
> Collection.

First - I am not a salesman nor do I play one on TV. I did not even
stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Second-- If you read, you'd see the last step is "Transaction."

By definition a "transaction" is X in exchange for Y.

Get it?

> > I'm not alone in contending that GA is doing a very poor job in every
> > stage of the sales process.
>
> Considering that I have posted exactly that 3-4 times in this thread
> alone....

No, you haven't.

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 26th 08, 10:05 PM

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 14:18:44 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> This is a fundamental failure that has to be laid at the feet of the
> Cessnas of the world. Unless I missed it (surely could have), where is
> the consolidation of the major mfgs efforts (monies) to promote GA? Not
> to promote Piper, to promote GA?
>
> Competitors in most any underexposed market, when faced with entry level
> barriers, have found that it is a strong economic model to *first*
> promote their market (GA); let the competition begin...when there are
> folks to compete for.
>
It's an interesting concept for sure, and to some extent has been done
by the major manufacturers in the past, but not as a push into the GA
base as a push for GA alone.

With only a few major manufactures competing for the same customer base,
and in such a limited market, anytime this has been done, the pitch has
usually centered both on the positives of GA, AND as these positives
applied to the manufacturer's product.

Both Cessna and Piper have done the introductory pilot program and
sponsored the "Flight Center" concept. I don't recall any major
manufacturer advertising or promoting the concept of GA without a
product tie in.

I believe there are industries that do general activity advertising but
to my knowledge aviation might not have been one of them. I'm sure an
argument could be made for doing it, but I just can't see any of the
existing majors going that route. There might be some benefit, but none
that I personally can see that would justify the expenditure as opposed
to a pure product advertising program that includes the benefits of
enjoying what GA has to offer as a residual or peripheral built into the
advertising push.

--
Dudley Henriques

Jim Logajan

March 26th 08, 11:14 PM

WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> Unless I missed it (surely could have), where is
> the consolidation of the major mfgs efforts (monies) to promote GA?
> Not to promote Piper, to promote GA?

Well, GAMA (General Aviation Manufacturers Association) already exists and
could be one organization around which such generic promotion might happen:

http://www.gama.aero/home.php

Likewise EAA and AOPA both are vendor neutral organizations that I believe
attempt such promotion.

Also, I found this web site that deals with a few aspects of sport aviation
marketing:

http://www.sportaviationmarketing.com/

WJRFlyBoy

March 27th 08, 04:12 AM

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:39:09 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote:

> On Mar 26, 4:37 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
>>
>> This is where we differ. You're a salesman, I am an owner who sells.
>> Guess what very important piece of the customer/client cycle you missed.
>> it gave you away as a salesman, not an owner.
>>
>> Collection.
>
> First - I am not a salesman nor do I play one on TV. I did not even
> stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

But you feel that you can lecture about sales without being one.
Interesting. Got any words of wisdom on plyometrics?

> Second-- If you read, you'd see the last step is "Transaction."
>
> By definition a "transaction" is X in exchange for Y.
>
> Get it?

As a non-seller and a non-owner, you're the one that doesn't get it. A
transaction does not necessitate an exchange.

>>> I'm not alone in contending that GA is doing a very poor job in every
>>> stage of the sales process.
>>
>> Considering that I have posted exactly that 3-4 times in this thread
>> alone....
>
> No, you haven't.

You're having a bad day/week/year, regardless, get off the booze.

WJRFlyBoy

March 27th 08, 04:19 AM

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:05:52 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:

>> This is a fundamental failure that has to be laid at the feet of the
>> Cessnas of the world. Unless I missed it (surely could have), where is
>> the consolidation of the major mfgs efforts (monies) to promote GA? Not
>> to promote Piper, to promote GA?
>>
>> Competitors in most any underexposed market, when faced with entry level
>> barriers, have found that it is a strong economic model to *first*
>> promote their market (GA); let the competition begin...when there are
>> folks to compete for.
>>
> It's an interesting concept for sure, and to some extent has been done
> by the major manufacturers in the past, but not as a push into the GA
> base as a push for GA alone.
>
> With only a few major manufactures competing for the same customer base,
> and in such a limited market, anytime this has been done, the pitch has
> usually centered both on the positives of GA, AND as these positives
> applied to the manufacturer's product.
>
> Both Cessna and Piper have done the introductory pilot program and
> sponsored the "Flight Center" concept. I don't recall any major
> manufacturer advertising or promoting the concept of GA without a
> product tie in.

You would think that this limited competition would be the perfect
market scenario to push GA, the $$$ spent wouldn't get spread to 50 or
100 potential competitors. Piper or Cessnas chances of receiving direct
benefits would be enhanced, not like pushing "soap" to find that the
consumer has 100 brands to choose from.

Dudley, I'm going to give these guys the benefit of the doubt. They have
been at this quite a while so there must be something we are missing.
the concept and the organization of such an effort is not that difficult
with so few players.
--
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.

WJRFlyBoy

March 27th 08, 04:25 AM

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:14:21 -0000, Jim Logajan wrote:

> WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>> Unless I missed it (surely could have), where is
>> the consolidation of the major mfgs efforts (monies) to promote GA?
>> Not to promote Piper, to promote GA?
>
> Well, GAMA (General Aviation Manufacturers Association) already exists and
> could be one organization around which such generic promotion might happen:
>
> http://www.gama.aero/home.php

Thx, looks like the pieces are there but their agenda doesn't reflect
any communal advertising effort for GA. They appear to be more of a
collective power brokering ops.

http://www.gama.aero/aboutGAMA/agenda.php

http://www.gama.aero/aboutGAMA/organizationalStructure.php
--
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.

WJRFlyBoy

March 27th 08, 04:40 AM

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:14:21 -0000, Jim Logajan wrote:

> Likewise EAA and AOPA both are vendor neutral organizations that I believe
> attempt such promotion.

EAA gets a Thumbs Up for effort for sure. AOPA too, great value for the
$$$

> Also, I found this web site that deals with a few aspects of sport aviation
> marketing:
>
> http://www.sportaviationmarketing.com/

I think the guy died, Jim. No updates for two years :)
--
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.

Maxwell[_2_]

March 27th 08, 04:53 AM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell wrote:
>> "news.chi.sbcglobal.net" > wrote in message
>> . net...
>>> 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 ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I agree with you and Larry. Most of the instructors I have encountered
>> with a sense of humor, have a very strong tendency to laugh ONLY at their
>> own jokes.
>>
>> Kind of like Dudley, doesn't have much interest in any opinion other than
>> his own.
>>
>>
>
> Not true. I share opinion with people all the time on Usenet. In fact, the
> computer I'm writing this on was purchased to do just that.

No you don't, you use it to promote your self created image.

>
> Perhaps the reason I don't share opinion with you personally is that all
> you seem capable of offering in the way of "opinion" are posts like this
> one; non aviation oriented, and simply a totally ineffective and uncalled
> for jab in the ribs.
> There's no "opinion" to be shared with people like you. Only back and
> forth flames that achieve absolutely nothing of use to the forum, or to me
> personally. :-)
>

Why bother, trying to discuss anything with someone like you is about as
productive as arguing with a Japanese radio.

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 27th 08, 05:04 AM

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:05:52 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>>> This is a fundamental failure that has to be laid at the feet of the
>>> Cessnas of the world. Unless I missed it (surely could have), where is
>>> the consolidation of the major mfgs efforts (monies) to promote GA? Not
>>> to promote Piper, to promote GA?
>>>
>>> Competitors in most any underexposed market, when faced with entry level
>>> barriers, have found that it is a strong economic model to *first*
>>> promote their market (GA); let the competition begin...when there are
>>> folks to compete for.
>>>
>> It's an interesting concept for sure, and to some extent has been done
>> by the major manufacturers in the past, but not as a push into the GA
>> base as a push for GA alone.
>>
>> With only a few major manufactures competing for the same customer base,
>> and in such a limited market, anytime this has been done, the pitch has
>> usually centered both on the positives of GA, AND as these positives
>> applied to the manufacturer's product.
>>
>> Both Cessna and Piper have done the introductory pilot program and
>> sponsored the "Flight Center" concept. I don't recall any major
>> manufacturer advertising or promoting the concept of GA without a
>> product tie in.
>
> You would think that this limited competition would be the perfect
> market scenario to push GA, the $$$ spent wouldn't get spread to 50 or
> 100 potential competitors. Piper or Cessnas chances of receiving direct
> benefits would be enhanced, not like pushing "soap" to find that the
> consumer has 100 brands to choose from.
>
> Dudley, I'm going to give these guys the benefit of the doubt. They have
> been at this quite a while so there must be something we are missing.
> the concept and the organization of such an effort is not that difficult
> with so few players.

The concept I believe could have merit if the manufacturers could find a
way to work together. One of the main issues as far as the flight
training venue is concerned is the fact that the training aircraft fleet
in large part consists of aging used airplanes of extremely mixed type.
Also, CFI's, the heart of the training program, are for a large part of
the community part time employees.
The entire training community is fairly unstable, and advertizing in any
general manner to attract people into this market could be quite a
complicated chore.
I believe that the negatives in the training venue need serious overhaul
before any generalized promotion would be effective.
I know I'm painting a fairly dark picture of all these issues. As a CFI
advising in the training community, I sincerely wish the picture was a
bit brighter and more stable.
I do agree with you, considering the overhaul I'm discussing here, that
if this was accomplished, a mass promotion program by the majors could
have positive results within the industry.

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 27th 08, 05:12 AM

Maxwell wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Maxwell wrote:
>>> "news.chi.sbcglobal.net" > wrote in message
>>> . net...
>>>> 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 ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I agree with you and Larry. Most of the instructors I have encountered
>>> with a sense of humor, have a very strong tendency to laugh ONLY at their
>>> own jokes.
>>>
>>> Kind of like Dudley, doesn't have much interest in any opinion other than
>>> his own.
>>>
>>>
>> Not true. I share opinion with people all the time on Usenet. In fact, the
>> computer I'm writing this on was purchased to do just that.
>
> No you don't, you use it to promote your self created image.
>
>> Perhaps the reason I don't share opinion with you personally is that all
>> you seem capable of offering in the way of "opinion" are posts like this
>> one; non aviation oriented, and simply a totally ineffective and uncalled
>> for jab in the ribs.
>> There's no "opinion" to be shared with people like you. Only back and
>> forth flames that achieve absolutely nothing of use to the forum, or to me
>> personally. :-)
>>
>
> Why bother, trying to discuss anything with someone like you is about as
> productive as arguing with a Japanese radio.
>
>
>
>

Sorry you feel this way.
Best to you anyway.

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 27th 08, 05:14 AM

WJRFlyBoy > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:39:09 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote:
>
>> On Mar 26, 4:37 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> This is where we differ. You're a salesman, I am an owner who sells.
>>> Guess what very important piece of the customer/client cycle you
>>> missed. it gave you away as a salesman, not an owner.
>>>
>>> Collection.
>>
>> First - I am not a salesman nor do I play one on TV. I did not even
>> stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
>
> But you feel that you can lecture about sales without being one.
> Interesting. Got any words of wisdom on plyometrics?

I do, but I'd have to have about six beers in me first.

Or I coudl do a Ken and cut and paste.

I must look it up and see what it is now.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

March 27th 08, 05:16 AM

WJRFlyBoy > wrote in
:

plyometrics?

Eww, gross.

Bertie

Dan[_10_]

March 27th 08, 11:10 AM

On Mar 27, 12:12 am, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
> But you feel that you can lecture about sales without being one.

To dullards like you? Sure.

I can go on about fission, if you'd like....

> Interesting. Got any words of wisdom on plyometrics?

Yeah -- it's hard on the knees. What have you got next, FakeFlyBoy?

> As a non-seller and a non-owner, you're the one that doesn't get it. A
> transaction does not necessitate an exchange.

As a business owner, I make fer darn sure all my transactions include
money.

What business are you in that "collections" is your biggest concern?
Furniture rental?

I agree with a poster long ago that said your technique is to post
something stupid and then continually argue around it. Which leads me
to conclude you, sir, are an idiot.

Dan Mc

Larry Dighera

March 27th 08, 03:16 PM

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 00:39:15 -0400, WJRFlyBoy
> wrote:

>GA is not mainstream from an awareness standpoint.

Agreed. It seems that the most frequent subjects of the press
coverage that GA receives are crash reports, and GA's alleged
potential as a terrorist tool.

But the 800 lbs gorilla in the room that no one is mentioning here is
our inate fear of, and the risk posed by, heights. That's probably
the first turn-off for those who bother to consider GA at all.

As an enticement for the uninitiated to consider becoming involved in
GA, Rod's new book with its friendly style may be useful, and I'm sure
it offers lots of sound advice and information.

Dan[_10_]

March 27th 08, 03:43 PM

On Mar 27, 11:16 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:

> But the 800 lbs gorilla in the room that no one is mentioning here is
> our inate fear of, and the risk posed by, heights. That's probably
> the first turn-off for those who bother to consider GA at all.

Most people are nervous about climbing a 20 foot extension ladder, yet
most readily walk up a jetway to fly to Orlando.

I think the perception of height is very different in an airplane than
it is on a ladder, or a roof, or on belay.

My wife hates heights, but has flown. The thing she doesn't like are
the "bumps" that make the airplane feel like it's "falling."

Dan Mc

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

March 27th 08, 04:13 PM

Dan wrote:
> On Mar 27, 11:16 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> But the 800 lbs gorilla in the room that no one is mentioning here is
>> our inate fear of, and the risk posed by, heights. That's probably
>> the first turn-off for those who bother to consider GA at all.
>
> Most people are nervous about climbing a 20 foot extension ladder, yet
> most readily walk up a jetway to fly to Orlando.
>
> I think the perception of height is very different in an airplane than
> it is on a ladder, or a roof, or on belay.
>
> My wife hates heights, but has flown. The thing she doesn't like are
> the "bumps" that make the airplane feel like it's "falling."
>
>
> Dan Mc
>

I can't stand heights and exactly as you mentioned a 20 ft step ladder
makes me nervous. But I have never been afraid heights in an airplane
even one with an open cockpit.

That was until I took my first helicopter lesson in an R22 with the
doors off. The young instructor showed off a little and I was just about
to make him land so I could get the hell out then he handed me the
controls while in straight and level and I was fine until he took back
over to land.

On the ground we talked about it and then after lunch we were going up
again. When I strapped in I really pushed against the seatbelt hard in
all directions and was very secure that it would hold.

We took off and there was no problem. So this made me figure out that I
wasn't really afraid of heights I was afraid of falling.

Dan[_10_]

March 27th 08, 04:39 PM

On Mar 27, 12:13 pm, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:
>
> We took off and there was no problem. So this made me figure out that I
> wasn't really afraid of heights I was afraid of falling.

Absolutely.

And it's a natural human reaction, which is a good thing.

Dan Mc

Dan[_10_]

March 27th 08, 04:56 PM

Back to the original topic...

The sample pages for this book look much better -- better layout and
graphics, not as busy as the instrument manual.

Amazon isn't stocking this edition yet and the price is steep --
$64.95 plus s/h.

A close second and worth a look is the ASA Pilot Manual series.
Shopping around I purchased all three volumes for less than the price
of the Jepp Private Pilot book.

Dan Mc

WJRFlyBoy

March 27th 08, 05:00 PM

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 05:14:14 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>>> First - I am not a salesman nor do I play one on TV. I did not even
>>> stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
>>
>> But you feel that you can lecture about sales without being one.
>> Interesting. Got any words of wisdom on plyometrics?
>
> I do, but I'd have to have about six beers in me first.
>
> Or I coudl do a Ken and cut and paste.
>
> I must look it up and see what it is now.
>
> Bertie

let me know :)
--
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.

WJRFlyBoy

March 27th 08, 05:06 PM

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:10:21 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote:

> On Mar 27, 12:12 am, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>>
>> But you feel that you can lecture about sales without being one.
>
> To dullards like you? Sure.
>
> I can go on about fission, if you'd like....
>
>> Interesting. Got any words of wisdom on plyometrics?
>
> Yeah -- it's hard on the knees. What have you got next, FakeFlyBoy?

The truth. It isn't hard on the knees; plyometric training can be
applied universally to any neuromuscular, stretch-reflex response that
actions about a joint(s).

For instance, when you talk rapidly and waay too much. As in this
thread. We call that Yammermetrics.

Now, are you dying to ask me what I know about strength and power
training athletes? Remember the 10 industries I discussed earlier?
Before you started drinking?

WJRFlyBoy

March 27th 08, 05:09 PM

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:10:21 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote:

>> As a non-seller and a non-owner, you're the one that doesn't get it. A
>> transaction does not necessitate an exchange.
>
> As a business owner, I make fer darn sure all my transactions include
> money.

Screw barter and precious metals and currency conversion economics.

> What business are you in that "collections" is your biggest concern?

None. It's a concern in any business. Write that down. In case you ever
start one.

> I agree with a poster long ago that said your technique is to post
> something stupid and then continually argue around it. Which leads me
> to conclude you, sir, are an idiot.
>
> Dan Mc

That was painful, Dan, really painful. I'm
hurt...crying...sobbing...getting better...OK, I'm fine.
--
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.

WJRFlyBoy

March 27th 08, 05:12 PM

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:16:36 GMT, Larry Dighera wrote:

> But the 800 lbs gorilla in the room that no one is mentioning here is
> our inate fear of, and the risk posed by, heights. That's probably
> the first turn-off for those who bother to consider GA at all.

Add to that "small plane", "no jets" noise, cramped (some) cockpits;
sensory and psychological overload. Regardless of the facts.

People still hate snakes.

WJRFlyBoy

March 27th 08, 05:18 PM

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:43:00 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote:

> I think the perception of height is very different in an airplane than
> it is on a ladder, or a roof, or on belay.

Or in a boat
On a ledge
Or bidet

You talk about distances, the issues are about fears, Capt. Obvious.

> My wife hates heights, but has flown.

There you go. Why is that?

> The thing she doesn't like are
> the "bumps" that make the airplane feel like it's "falling."

Clues, clues everywhere.
--
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.

WJRFlyBoy

March 27th 08, 05:27 PM

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 01:04:23 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:

> The concept I believe could have merit if the manufacturers could find a
> way to work together. One of the main issues as far as the flight
> training venue is concerned is the fact that the training aircraft fleet
> in large part consists of aging used airplanes of extremely mixed type.
> Also, CFI's, the heart of the training program, are for a large part of
> the community part time employees.
> The entire training community is fairly unstable, and advertizing in any
> general manner to attract people into this market could be quite a
> complicated chore.

Hmmm, franchising would control this.

> I believe that the negatives in the training venue need serious overhaul
> before any generalized promotion would be effective.
> I know I'm painting a fairly dark picture of all these issues. As a CFI
> advising in the training community, I sincerely wish the picture was a
> bit brighter and more stable.

No sense in painting any other picture.

> I do agree with you, considering the overhaul I'm discussing here, that
> if this was accomplished, a mass promotion program by the majors could
> have positive results within the industry.

What about this.

A test market (geographic area, good weather, solid demographics, etc.),
a regional advertising push, pre-determined training plane inventories,
dedicated teaching staff credentials - a typical franchise with
controls, image, etc. It's a test. nothing set in concrete.

Co-funded by XYZ manufacturer or MFGs.
--
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.

Michael Ash

March 27th 08, 05:38 PM

In rec.aviation.student Larry Dighera > wrote:
> But the 800 lbs gorilla in the room that no one is mentioning here is
> our inate fear of, and the risk posed by, heights. That's probably
> the first turn-off for those who bother to consider GA at all.

I'm skeptical of this. Hundreds of millions of people fly commercially all
the time. All the times I've done it, I've never encountered anyone who
mentioned or acted as though they were afraid of heights but felt that
they had to fly anyway. I have no doubt that fear of heights stops some
people, but I don't think it's any large number. (And I realize that
commercial planes and light aircraft would have different effects on
people this way, but I still don't think this accounts for a large
proportion of the population.)

Wandering off the subject a bit, I have a pretty fierce fear of heights.
Any time I'm on the upper floors of a tall building, I try to stay away
from the windows. It's something I can get used to with time; I spent an
entire school year living on the 15th floor of my college dorm building,
but that's not particularly high either. I'll go up to the top of
landmarks to sightsee but tend to stay away from the edges if I can.

Airplanes, on the other hand, cause no problems for me whatsoever. Even in
a really light single-seater getting smacked around by turbulence, or
making steep turns and looking straight down, I have no trouble. It's
weird.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 27th 08, 06:11 PM

WJRFlyBoy wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 01:04:23 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> The concept I believe could have merit if the manufacturers could find a
>> way to work together. One of the main issues as far as the flight
>> training venue is concerned is the fact that the training aircraft fleet
>> in large part consists of aging used airplanes of extremely mixed type.
>> Also, CFI's, the heart of the training program, are for a large part of
>> the community part time employees.
>> The entire training community is fairly unstable, and advertizing in any
>> general manner to attract people into this market could be quite a
>> complicated chore.
>
> Hmmm, franchising would control this.
>
>> I believe that the negatives in the training venue need serious overhaul
>> before any generalized promotion would be effective.
>> I know I'm painting a fairly dark picture of all these issues. As a CFI
>> advising in the training community, I sincerely wish the picture was a
>> bit brighter and more stable.
>
> No sense in painting any other picture.
>
>> I do agree with you, considering the overhaul I'm discussing here, that
>> if this was accomplished, a mass promotion program by the majors could
>> have positive results within the industry.
>
> What about this.
>
> A test market (geographic area, good weather, solid demographics, etc.),
> a regional advertising push, pre-determined training plane inventories,
> dedicated teaching staff credentials - a typical franchise with
> controls, image, etc. It's a test. nothing set in concrete.
>
> Co-funded by XYZ manufacturer or MFGs.

I hate to keep pushing the negatives on this, but considering all the
factors, coupled with my personal experience working within the
industry, my bottom line if asked for serious comment on the possibility
of success for any co- sponsored effort by the industry to attract a
broad customer base into flight training on a generic level would be
that the negatives would preclude the success of such a program.

--
Dudley Henriques

Larry Dighera

March 27th 08, 06:13 PM

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:43:00 -0700 (PDT), Dan >
wrote:

>On Mar 27, 11:16 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> But the 800 lbs gorilla in the room that no one is mentioning here is
>> our inate fear of, and the risk posed by, heights. That's probably
>> the first turn-off for those who bother to consider GA at all.
>
>Most people are nervous about climbing a 20 foot extension ladder, yet
>most readily walk up a jetway to fly to Orlando.
>
>I think the perception of height is very different in an airplane than
>it is on a ladder, or a roof, or on belay.
>
>My wife hates heights, but has flown. The thing she doesn't like are
>the "bumps" that make the airplane feel like it's "falling."
>
>
>Dan Mc
>

I notice your omission of the perceived and real risk involved in
light plane operations. Everybody knows those little planes aren't
safe. :-)

Dan[_10_]

March 27th 08, 06:16 PM

On Mar 27, 2:11 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> I hate to keep pushing the negatives on this, but considering all the
> factors, coupled with my personal experience working within the
> industry, my bottom line if asked for serious comment on the possibility
> of success for any co- sponsored effort by the industry to attract a
> broad customer base into flight training on a generic level would be
> that the negatives would preclude the success of such a program.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Absolutely.

FakeFlyBoy's comments confirm his inexperience with the subject matter
-- aviation.

Dan

Dan[_10_]

March 27th 08, 06:17 PM

On Mar 27, 1:12 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:

> Add to that "small plane", "no jets" noise, cramped (some) cockpits;
> sensory and psychological overload. Regardless of the facts.

Hmm..

perhaps these are clues, clues about why you don't fly?

Dan[_10_]

March 27th 08, 06:22 PM

On Mar 27, 1:06 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
> Now, are you dying to ask me what I know about strength and power
> training athletes? Remember the 10 industries I discussed earlier?
> Before you started drinking?

Now I get it -- you're Tony Little -- that explains your long,
rambling, frenetic posts.

How's that infomercial business going?

WJRFlyBoy

March 27th 08, 09:36 PM

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:22:02 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote:

> On Mar 27, 1:06 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>>
>> Now, are you dying to ask me what I know about strength and power
>> training athletes? Remember the 10 industries I discussed earlier?
>> Before you started drinking?
>
> Now I get it -- you're Tony Little -- that explains your long,
> rambling, frenetic posts.
>
> How's that infomercial business going?

Dan, you did the right thing, for once. I baited, you ran. That will
keep you from looking down and seeing the hatIi would have handed your
ass in to you.

WJRFlyBoy

March 27th 08, 09:48 PM

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:38:53 -0500, Michael Ash wrote:

> Wandering off the subject a bit, I have a pretty fierce fear of heights.
> Any time I'm on the upper floors of a tall building, I try to stay away
> from the windows. It's something I can get used to with time; I spent an
> entire school year living on the 15th floor of my college dorm building,
> but that's not particularly high either. I'll go up to the top of
> landmarks to sightsee but tend to stay away from the edges if I can.

> Airplanes, on the other hand, cause no problems for me whatsoever. Even in
> a really light single-seater getting smacked around by turbulence, or
> making steep turns and looking straight down, I have no trouble. It's
> weird.

Not really. Different phobias most that begin with as sense of
insecurity, could be genetic, certainly is physiological (fear stimulus
biochemistry).

If I am at a height, the situation that places me at that height is the
issue, not the height. phobias irrational fears, are usually very
specific so "heights" are situation specific.

I stood on a 55 story roof, at the edge, in a wind, no problem. Same
thing with WTC 1. BIG problem, never got to the edge, low wind. Was it
the WTC "sway", I don't know. Too scared to figger out :)
--
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.

WJRFlyBoy

March 27th 08, 09:50 PM

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:11:42 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote:

>> What about this.
>>
>> A test market (geographic area, good weather, solid demographics, etc.),
>> a regional advertising push, pre-determined training plane inventories,
>> dedicated teaching staff credentials - a typical franchise with
>> controls, image, etc. It's a test. nothing set in concrete.
>>
>> Co-funded by XYZ manufacturer or MFGs.
>
> I hate to keep pushing the negatives on this, but considering all the
> factors, coupled with my personal experience working within the
> industry, my bottom line if asked for serious comment on the possibility
> of success for any co- sponsored effort by the industry to attract a
> broad customer base into flight training on a generic level would be
> that the negatives would preclude the success of such a program.

I go back to the point where I said that the major mfgs, and their
agencies, they have been at this a long time. I would be surprised if
you are wrong not right.

How about the USGov, hey, let's let them....

nevermind.
--
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.

Matt Whiting

March 27th 08, 09:56 PM

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>> On Mar 27, 11:16 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>>> But the 800 lbs gorilla in the room that no one is mentioning here is
>>> our inate fear of, and the risk posed by, heights. That's probably
>>> the first turn-off for those who bother to consider GA at all.
>>
>> Most people are nervous about climbing a 20 foot extension ladder, yet
>> most readily walk up a jetway to fly to Orlando.
>>
>> I think the perception of height is very different in an airplane than
>> it is on a ladder, or a roof, or on belay.
>>
>> My wife hates heights, but has flown. The thing she doesn't like are
>> the "bumps" that make the airplane feel like it's "falling."
>>
>>
>> Dan Mc
>>
>
> I can't stand heights and exactly as you mentioned a 20 ft step ladder
> makes me nervous. But I have never been afraid heights in an airplane
> even one with an open cockpit.
>
> That was until I took my first helicopter lesson in an R22 with the
> doors off. The young instructor showed off a little and I was just about
> to make him land so I could get the hell out then he handed me the
> controls while in straight and level and I was fine until he took back
> over to land.
>
> On the ground we talked about it and then after lunch we were going up
> again. When I strapped in I really pushed against the seatbelt hard in
> all directions and was very secure that it would hold.
>
> We took off and there was no problem. So this made me figure out that I
> wasn't really afraid of heights I was afraid of falling.

I'm not afraid of falling, but I am afraid of that sudden stop at the
end of the fall!

Matt

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 27th 08, 10:14 PM

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> Dan wrote:
>>> On Mar 27, 11:16 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>>
>>>> But the 800 lbs gorilla in the room that no one is mentioning here is
>>>> our inate fear of, and the risk posed by, heights. That's probably
>>>> the first turn-off for those who bother to consider GA at all.
>>>
>>> Most people are nervous about climbing a 20 foot extension ladder, yet
>>> most readily walk up a jetway to fly to Orlando.
>>>
>>> I think the perception of height is very different in an airplane than
>>> it is on a ladder, or a roof, or on belay.
>>>
>>> My wife hates heights, but has flown. The thing she doesn't like are
>>> the "bumps" that make the airplane feel like it's "falling."
>>>
>>>
>>> Dan Mc
>>>
>>
>> I can't stand heights and exactly as you mentioned a 20 ft step ladder
>> makes me nervous. But I have never been afraid heights in an airplane
>> even one with an open cockpit.
>>
>> That was until I took my first helicopter lesson in an R22 with the
>> doors off. The young instructor showed off a little and I was just
>> about to make him land so I could get the hell out then he handed me
>> the controls while in straight and level and I was fine until he took
>> back over to land.
>>
>> On the ground we talked about it and then after lunch we were going up
>> again. When I strapped in I really pushed against the seatbelt hard in
>> all directions and was very secure that it would hold.
>>
>> We took off and there was no problem. So this made me figure out that
>> I wasn't really afraid of heights I was afraid of falling.
>
> I'm not afraid of falling, but I am afraid of that sudden stop at the
> end of the fall!
>
> Matt

Had a sky diver friend of mine tell me once (there was liquor involved
so I can't attest to the absolute truth of the matter :-) that his
insurance guy, when figuring out the rates for his life insurance, told
him that when the company ran the model through the computers, they
discovered that if he could remain in the free fall part of the jump
indefinitely, the rate would be extremely good, but that it was the end
of the jump and the potential problems associated with the various
endings that part entailed that made the difference and raised the rate.

--
Dudley Henriques

Dan[_10_]

March 27th 08, 10:35 PM

On Mar 27, 5:36 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
> > Now I get it -- you're Tony Little -- that explains your long,
> > rambling, frenetic posts.
>
> > How's that infomercial business going?
>
> Dan, you did the right thing, for once. I baited, you ran. That will
> keep you from looking down and seeing the hatIi would have handed your
> ass in to you.

You're a GSA Contractor?

Lemme guess -- Toilet paper provider? Septic Tank cleaning?

Do Continue -- I'm anxious to hear all about your next area of phony
expertise.

You certainly have no expertise in flying.

Dan Mc

Dan[_10_]

March 27th 08, 10:38 PM

On Mar 27, 5:48 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
> I stood on a 55 story roof, at the edge, in a wind, no problem. Same
> thing with WTC 1. BIG problem, never got to the edge, low wind. Was it
> the WTC "sway", I don't know. Too scared to figger out :)

Nearly a year to the day I stood on the observation platform, I
returned to the WTC site... on September 13th & 14, 2001.

Dan Mc

WJRFlyBoy

March 28th 08, 03:26 AM

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:35:57 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote:

>> Dan, you did the right thing, for once. I baited, you ran. That will
>> keep you from looking down and seeing the hatIi would have handed your
>> ass in to you.
>
> You're a GSA Contractor?

At your service Schedule 70.

> Lemme guess -- Toilet paper provider? Septic Tank cleaning?
>
> Do Continue -- I'm anxious to hear all about your next area of phony
> expertise.

Haven't got any, Dan, sorry.

> You certainly have no expertise in flying.
>
> Dan Mc

Oh, you might be surprised, Dan.
--
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.

Dan[_10_]

March 28th 08, 10:28 AM

On Mar 27, 11:26 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
> > You certainly have no expertise in flying.
>
> Oh, you might be surprised, Dan.

I'm sure.

Do tell.

WJRFlyBoy

March 28th 08, 08:59 PM

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 03:28:46 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote:

> On Mar 27, 11:26 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>>
>>> You certainly have no expertise in flying.
>>
>> Oh, you might be surprised, Dan.
>
> I'm sure.
>
> Do tell.

I have. Read.

Dan[_10_]

March 28th 08, 09:10 PM

On Mar 28, 4:59 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
> I have. Read.

I have.

YAWN

Question: Are you a certified pilot yet with your "200 hours in the
left seat"??

Blueskies

March 28th 08, 09:12 PM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message ...
>
> Had a sky diver friend of mine tell me once (there was liquor involved
> so I can't attest to the absolute truth of the matter :-) that his
> insurance guy, when figuring out the rates for his life insurance, told
> him that when the company ran the model through the computers, they
> discovered that if he could remain in the free fall part of the jump
> indefinitely, the rate would be extremely good, but that it was the end
> of the jump and the potential problems associated with the various
> endings that part entailed that made the difference and raised the rate.
>
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

I guess it is true in skydiving also...the whole trick is how well you can stop...

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

March 28th 08, 10:33 PM

Blueskies wrote:
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Had a sky diver friend of mine tell me once (there was liquor involved
>> so I can't attest to the absolute truth of the matter :-) that his
>> insurance guy, when figuring out the rates for his life insurance,
>> told him that when the company ran the model through the computers,
>> they discovered that if he could remain in the free fall part of the
>> jump indefinitely, the rate would be extremely good, but that it was
>> the end of the jump and the potential problems associated with the
>> various endings that part entailed that made the difference and raised
>> the rate.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I guess it is true in skydiving also...the whole trick is how well you
> can stop...

That works for me :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

WJRFlyBoy

March 28th 08, 10:33 PM

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:10:56 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote:

> On Mar 28, 4:59 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>>
>> I have. Read.
>
> I have.
>
> YAWN
>
> Question: Are you a certified pilot yet with your "200 hours in the
> left seat"??

Then you didn't read.
--
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.

Dan[_10_]

March 29th 08, 12:13 AM

On Mar 28, 6:33 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:10:56 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote:
> > On Mar 28, 4:59 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
> >> I have. Read.
>
> > I have.
>
> > YAWN
>
> > Question: Are you a certified pilot yet with your "200 hours in the
> > left seat"??
>
> Then you didn't read.

Somehow I have better things to do than tracking down every
intentionally deceptive thing you write. There are so many, even a CIA
wiretap would be insufficient.

And -- once again -- you fail to reply to the direct question.

I wonder why?

Dan Mc

WJRFlyBoy

March 29th 08, 05:34 PM

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:13:32 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote:

> On Mar 28, 6:33 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:10:56 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote:
>>> On Mar 28, 4:59 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>>
>>>> I have. Read.
>>
>>> I have.
>>
>>> YAWN
>>
>>> Question: Are you a certified pilot yet with your "200 hours in the
>>> left seat"??
>>
>> Then you didn't read.
>
> Somehow I have better things to do than tracking down every
> intentionally deceptive thing you write

Then don't ask me to answer questions that have been so, My Little Trick
Pony.
--
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.

Dan[_10_]

March 30th 08, 02:41 AM

On Mar 29, 1:34 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:

And -- once again -- you fail to reply to the direct question.

I wonder why?

Dan Mc

Cubdriver

March 31st 08, 09:01 PM

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:08:38 -0700 (PDT), xyzzy >
wrote:

>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.

My feeling also.

That said, I did buy and read his (first?) instructional manual, and I
was less likely to fall asleep over it than with Gleim etc.

It's more the monthly column in AOPA Pilot that wearies me.

Blue skies! -- Dan Ford

Claire Chennault and His American Volunteers, 1941-1942
new from HarperCollins www.FlyingTigersBook.com

WJRFlyBoy

March 31st 08, 09:42 PM

On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:41:18 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote:

> On Mar 29, 1:34 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
> And -- once again -- you fail to reply to the direct question.
>
> I wonder why?
>
> Dan Mc

I don't see a question, Dan. Did you have a question? Better hurry, I'm
considering filtering all Google Groupers, something about "not bright
enough to use a newsreader", whaddya think?

Dan[_10_]

March 31st 08, 09:52 PM

On Mar 31, 4:42 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 18:41:18 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote:
> > On Mar 29, 1:34 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
> > And -- once again -- you fail to reply to the direct question.
>
> > I wonder why?
>
> > Dan Mc
>
> I don't see a question, Dan. Did you have a question? Better hurry, I'm
> considering filtering all Google Groupers, something about "not bright
> enough to use a newsreader", whaddya think?

Oh please do! I'd be so happy to have nothing to do with you!

Oh.. and for the record -- I wrote a newsreader back in 95 for my own
use.

You were probably too busy humping a ruck in that LRRP unit, or
scaling Everest, or building time in a Lear, then...

Dan Mc

WJRFlyBoy

April 1st 08, 02:57 PM

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:52:39 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote:

>> I don't see a question, Dan. Did you have a question? Better hurry, I'm
>> considering filtering all Google Groupers, something about "not bright
>> enough to use a newsreader", whaddya think?
>
> Oh please do! I'd be so happy to have nothing to do with you!
>
> Oh.. and for the record -- I wrote a newsreader back in 95 for my own
> use.

Lost it, I suppose.

Here's a freebie,

www.forte-inc.com

Or Google for 40tude, Xnews, so many choices,

Here's free post and read text servers.

www.motzarella.org
nntp.aioe.org
news.albasani.net

See, you're all set, My Little Trick Pony.

Bet you don't do it, bet you don't. Bet you lied, again, Dan. Hit that
house from 20 yards yet?

> You were probably too busy humping a ruck in that LRRP unit, or
> scaling Everest, or building time in a Lear, then...
>
> Dan Mc

Hump a ruck?

See, with your newsreader you never wrote, or did, then lost, you would
have caught that glaring miSSpelling, :)))) it's a new gadget called
"spell check". Your brand, spanking new newsreader will put you in the
spiffy, My Little Trick Pony.

<thumbs up>

Dan[_10_]

April 1st 08, 03:00 PM

On Apr 1, 9:57 am, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:

> > You were probably too busy humping a ruck in that LRRP unit, or
> > scaling Everest, or building time in a Lear, then...
>
> > Dan Mc
>
> Hump a ruck?

Yep, "hump a ruck."

If you had spent any time in LRRP or Rangers you would know that
expression.

Got ya.

Blanche

April 1st 08, 06:19 PM

In article >,
WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>See, with your newsreader you never wrote, or did, then lost, you would
>have caught that glaring miSSpelling, :)))) it's a new gadget called
>"spell check". Your brand, spanking new newsreader will put you in the
>spiffy, My Little Trick Pony.

And obviously you only check your spells and not your spelling nore
your grammar.

WJRFlyBoy

April 1st 08, 06:55 PM

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:52:39 -0700 (PDT), Dan wrote:

> Oh please do! I'd be so happy to have nothing to do with you!

www.forte-inc.com

Or Google for 40tude, Xnews, so many choices,

Here's free post and read text servers.

www.motzarella.org
nntp.aioe.org
news.albasani.net

See, you're all set, My Little Trick Pony.

--
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.

WJRFlyBoy

April 1st 08, 07:23 PM

> Oh please do! I'd be so happy to have nothing to do with you!
>
> Oh.. and for the record -- I wrote a newsreader back in 95 for my own
> use.

Lost it, I suppose.

Here's a freebie,

www.forte-inc.com

Or Google for 40tude, Xnews, so many choices,

Here's free post and read text servers.

www.motzarella.org
nntp.aioe.org
news.albasani.net

See, you're all set, My Little Trick Pony.

Bet you don't do it, bet you don't. Bet you lied, again, Dan. Hit that
house from 20 yards yet?

WJRFlyBoy

April 1st 08, 08:12 PM

On 01 Apr 2008 17:19:25 GMT, Blanche wrote:

> And obviously you only check your spells and not your spelling nore
> your grammar.

I can check an IP address, you morphing goofball. *plonk*
--
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.

Dan[_10_]

April 1st 08, 10:25 PM

On Apr 1, 2:23 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:

> Hit that house from 20 yards yet?

Stand right over here and we'll see....

Jay Maynard

April 1st 08, 10:26 PM

On 2008-04-01, Dan > wrote:
> Yep, "hump a ruck."
>
> If you had spent any time in LRRP or Rangers you would know that
> expression.

Hell, I know what that means, and I've never done it in my life. I learned
it from reading John Ringo and Eric Flint and David Weber.

And no, I'm not about to claim that knowing what the term means is in any
way equivalent to having done it. I know better than that, just as I know
I'd make a lousy soldier. (Any bets on whether Big John will loudly agree
with that last?)
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

April 1st 08, 10:50 PM

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
:

>
> "Dan" > wrote in message
> news:446bb417-6d49-4bc7-802b-
.
> ..
>> On Apr 1, 2:23 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>>
>>> Hit that house from 20 yards yet?
>>
>> Stand right over here and we'll see....
>
> It's amazing how many schizophrenics (those who 'deny' objective
> reality) won't volunteer to stand in front of an onrushing train to
> prove their point.
>
>
>

Good grief. Your definition of a schizophrenic is someone who denies
objective reality?

Well, it does go a loooong way towards explaining where you come from...

Bertie

Matt W. Barrow

April 1st 08, 10:50 PM

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 1, 2:23 pm, WJRFlyBoy > wrote:
>
>> Hit that house from 20 yards yet?
>
> Stand right over here and we'll see....

It's amazing how many schizophrenics (those who 'deny' objective reality)
won't volunteer to stand in front of an onrushing train to prove their
point.

Dan[_10_]

April 1st 08, 10:52 PM

On Apr 1, 5:50 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
wrote:

>
> >> Hit that house from 20 yards yet?
>
> > Stand right over here and we'll see....
>
> It's amazing how many schizophrenics (those who 'deny' objective reality)
> won't volunteer to stand in front of an onrushing train to prove their
> point.

Umm..ok..?

Matt W. Barrow

April 1st 08, 10:59 PM

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 1, 5:50 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> >> Hit that house from 20 yards yet?
>>
>> > Stand right over here and we'll see....
>>
>> It's amazing how many schizophrenics (those who 'deny' objective reality)
>> won't volunteer to stand in front of an onrushing train to prove their
>> point.
>
> Umm..ok..?

http://tinyurl.com/2xxjcu (Amazon Books)

Dig a little, rather than just feeding trolls.

Dan[_10_]

April 1st 08, 11:02 PM

On Apr 1, 5:59 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
wrote:

> http://tinyurl.com/2xxjcu(Amazon Books)
>
> Dig a little, rather than just feeding trolls.

Sorry, a little too obtuse for me at the end of a day...

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

April 1st 08, 11:06 PM

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in
:

>
> "Dan" > wrote in message
> news:bb0e2093-8b41-436a-ad79-bda31d9075e4
@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com.
> ..
>> On Apr 1, 5:50 pm, "Matt W. Barrow" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> >> Hit that house from 20 yards yet?
>>>
>>> > Stand right over here and we'll see....
>>>
>>> It's amazing how many schizophrenics (those who 'deny' objective
>>> reality) won't volunteer to stand in front of an onrushing train to
>>> prove their point.
>>
>> Umm..ok..?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2xxjcu (Amazon Books)
>
> Dig a little, rather than just feeding trolls.
>
>
>
>
>
>

So, you read an amazon rview of a book and you are an expert? Explains
an awful lot about why you say theh things you do..

Bertie

Cecil E. Chapman

April 2nd 08, 02:28 AM

Thought I'd poke my head into this post.... Rod's book is a fine one,,,,
and his Instrument Pilot manual (the version intended to fully prepare an
instrument pilot,,, not his first instrument publication which was only
intended as a supplement only to other books and training) are books I don't
hesitate to recommend. He really hangs a little too long with his water
analogy of electricity (i.e., I think at some point he could use his analogy
to transition the reader into a working understanding of electrical
current). Aside from the latter,,, fine book! :) It's in my library! :)

--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman

Certificated Flight Instructor
Commercial Pilot, ASEL - Instrument Rated
Reid-Hillview Airport, San Jose, California

Member of:
National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI)
Airplane Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)
Experimental Pilots Association (EAA)

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
>I have just received a copy of Rod Machado's Private Pilot Handbook Second
>Edition from the publisher to review.
>
> I haven't had a chance to read all of it yet, but just from what I've seen
> thus far, I have no doubt whatsoever that I will be recommending this book
> as a study manual to all student pilots.
>
> This hard cover top quality heavyweight glossy paper
> manual is the most well written and comprehensive work I have ever seen
> done by anyone in the industry.
>
> Throughout my career as a CFI I have always used and recommended Bill
> Kershner's fine manuals, and these are still fine books today.
> But what Rod has done with his books is absolutely amazing. The
> presentation is not only accurate, but done with the "average person" and
> "everyday pilot" in mind. Rod takes the most complicated of issues and
> presents them intelligently and with a splash of humor that is
> unbelievably educational. The drawings and graphics are exceptional.
> I can't stress enough my positive opinion of this book.
> --
> Dudley Henriques