The Differences Between PPLicensing And Learning

"WJRFlyBoy" wrote in message
...


1) I passed on answering your questions that honestly aren't worth my
effort or the Usenet space.

And I will to the same

plonk

WJRFlyBoy wrote:

Thanks, I have heard more or less the same. What would you recommend that
/isn't/ test oriented (reading, testing and other materials); that is
learning oriented without regard to the test results?

If haven't purchased any books or training materials yet I'd
recommend a complete package like the ASA Private Pilot Kit.
There are two versions of it, one for Part 61 and one for Part 141
but the 141 kit is better because the textbooks included are
more comprehensive if you are into studying on your own. Here's
a link to that: http://www.mypilotstore.com/MyPilotStore/sep/2713

Of course you can buy the items in that kit separately but you
really need all of them. There are a number of FAA publications
that are very good and can be downloaded in PDF format from
he http://www.faa.gov/pilots/training/

--

On Feb 28, 5:04 am, "Steve Foley" wrote:
"WJRFlyBoy" wrote in message

Outside of the cost factors, I find this much more than curious
considering the
consequences. You can get killed, that one keeps jumping out at me

I don't follow. Reading accident reports, I see very few incidents of pilots
getting killed because they had inadequate training (unless you consider VFR
into IMC).

There are plenty of examples. The ones that jump out at me
are the landing accidents that often don't hit the headlines,
accidents caused by poor training. Landing fast and flat, running off
the end, ballooning and stalling and landing hard. Accelerated stalls
caused by pulling back hard after a buzz job. (Those are usually fatal
and hit the newspapers.) Failing to understand DA and trying to depart
an inadequate runway. A really common one is carb ice; we hear of
accidents/incidents all the time due to that one. It's not well taught
or understood. And, of course as you mentioned, VFR into IMC.

Dan

On Feb 28, 8:51*am, WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:34:16 GMT, kontiki wrote:
Understand what and how the instrumentation works (shortcomings included)
Own all the fundamentally necessary flight gear (i.e carry-ons in flight
bag or on person)

Obtain hours in flight simulation

See Dudley's comments regarding pre-solo students and simulators.
More...enough for now.

Ye, a point I neglected to mention. We've already had one poster
here who had a disappointing discovery flight by going into it with
a severe case of overconfidence and unrealistic expectations due to
having spent so many hours 'perfecting' his technique on a simulator.

Thanks for the heads up.

Except for the purpose of explaining how the COM and NAV radios and
instrumentation works by a CFI, simulator time should be avoided
by pre-solo students. Post solo, other than to experiment with
navigation methods, simulators should be avoided by students also.

Interesting opinion.

By simulators, I am talking about the basic PC based units, not
the multi-million dollar, full motion simulators used to train
commercial pilots. But even they should not be used pre-solo.

Followed by another one.

So it is fair to say that the outcome of pre-solo sim is generally
negative?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

First, so you can gauge how much to believe me: I am a recent Private
Pilot (April 2006) who works in the simulation industry.

Yes, it is fair to say that pre-solo sim is not helpful and may even
hurt. Much of what is learned in pre-solo and getting to solo (which
is the point of pre-solo) is physical cues and muscle memory. None of
that is recreated in any PC based sim environment. Also the limited
visual area and field of view (even in a 3 screen uber-setup) causes
dependence on the instruments and prevents using many of the visual
cues which are important in VFR flying. I was quite good at instrument
flying (for a PP student) but not so hot at watching for traffic,
watching the horizon for attitude, etc.

I am now working on my instrument rating and in that environment the
simulator is helpful. I can use it to practice procedures and
sequences. Control pressures, sounds, etc. are still missing. (To be
clear: the sim makes sounds, but the cues do not match what sounds are
important in the real plane. Force feedback controls also do not match
the real world - it's a matter of energy and mass as well as
programming.)

You will hear from simulation proponents how wrong this opinion is,
but those folks (at least the loudest on these groups) do not and have
not flown a real airplane. Those of us who have done both, seem to
pretty much share this opinion. Simulation has its place, but it is
_not_ pre-solo.

John

On 2008-02-28, wrote:
Yes, it is fair to say that pre-solo sim is not helpful and may even
hurt. Much of what is learned in pre-solo and getting to solo (which
is the point of pre-solo) is physical cues and muscle memory. None of
that is recreated in any PC based sim environment.

Don't underestimate the power of muscle memory, too. My ease of flying the
Tecnam Sierra and difficulty transitioning into the Zodiac, both after 15
years out of the cockpit, are directly related to that.

I can't fly a sim worth a damn, and it's because the muscle memory expects
feel that just isn't there.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

wrote in message
...
On Feb 28, 5:04 am, "Steve Foley" wrote:

I don't follow. Reading accident reports, I see very few incidents of
pilots
getting killed because they had inadequate training (unless you consider
VFR
into IMC).

There are plenty of examples. The ones that jump out at me
are the landing accidents that often don't hit the headlines,
accidents caused by poor training. Landing fast and flat, running off
the end, ballooning and stalling and landing hard. Accelerated stalls
caused by pulling back hard after a buzz job. (Those are usually fatal
and hit the newspapers.) Failing to understand DA and trying to depart
an inadequate runway. A really common one is carb ice; we hear of
accidents/incidents all the time due to that one. It's not well taught
or understood. And, of course as you mentioned, VFR into IMC.

Dan


If this were truly a lack of training, I would expect to see more of these
types of accidents immediately after getting a certificate.

When they occur years later, I can't see how they can be attributed to
inadequate training from years ago.

I think most good pilots agree that a private certificate is really a
license to learn.

I'd love to see a syllabus that includes "avoiding accelerated stalls after
a buzz job"g

"WJRFlyBoy" wrote in message
...

Pass all tests with a 95% minimum

That's a good goal, but, if you sweat it too much you'll never get your
rating. -Most- of the stuff you miss on the written, if you're scoring
above, say, 85%, you'll pick up in training anyway.

Handle with ease all traffic control and similar commo

That'll save you a little money, but, you learn all that during the lessons
anyway.

Dissect the anatomy of my training aircraft

Always good. It makes flying the airplane a lot richer of an experience.

Understand what and how the instrumentation works (shortcomings included)

That's part of ground school (as is most of the above.) You will learn it
all before you solo one way or the other.

Own all the fundamentally necessary flight gear (i.e carry-ons in flight
bag or on person)

That'll take care of itself when you start training. There's a whole lot
of crap for sale that pilots generally don't need.

-c

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 07:55:54 -0800 (PST), wrote:

So it is fair to say that the outcome of pre-solo sim is generally
negative?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

First, so you can gauge how much to believe me: I am a recent Private
Pilot (April 2006) who works in the simulation industry.

Yes, it is fair to say that pre-solo sim is not helpful and may even
hurt. Much of what is learned in pre-solo and getting to solo (which
is the point of pre-solo) is physical cues and muscle memory. None of
that is recreated in any PC based sim environment. Also the limited
visual area and field of view (even in a 3 screen uber-setup) causes
dependence on the instruments and prevents using many of the visual
cues which are important in VFR flying. I was quite good at instrument
flying (for a PP student) but not so hot at watching for traffic,
watching the horizon for attitude, etc.

I am now working on my instrument rating and in that environment the
simulator is helpful. I can use it to practice procedures and
sequences. Control pressures, sounds, etc. are still missing. (To be
clear: the sim makes sounds, but the cues do not match what sounds are
important in the real plane. Force feedback controls also do not match
the real world - it's a matter of energy and mass as well as
programming.)

You will hear from simulation proponents how wrong this opinion is,
but those folks (at least the loudest on these groups) do not and have
not flown a real airplane. Those of us who have done both, seem to
pretty much share this opinion. Simulation has its place, but it is
_not_ pre-solo.

John

John, thanks, this makes a lot of sense. I spent a chunk of years strength
and power training athletes. The f,m,a relationships you mentioned hit home
as did the cross-over training strategies (or lack thereof) in
visualization systems. Good luck on your IFR.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

"WJRFlyBoy" wrote in message
...


So it is fair to say that the outcome of pre-solo sim is generally
negative?

Flights sims are spectacular for teaching you the instrument panel and
navigation, but overuse can reinforce bad habits (like radio com, use of
checklists, cheating by looking at the map or GPS, taxi procedures, etc)
Their biggest downfall for student pilots is that the experiences of
peripheral vision and flight control pressures are different. The yoke on
a Cessna 152 will require a different amount and type of touch than a
typical joystick or plastic PC yoke.

Having said that, I'm a fan of MSFS and play with it one or twice a week.

-c
CP-ASEL-IA

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:56:26 GMT, Steve Foley wrote:

"WJRFlyBoy" wrote in message
...

1) I passed on answering your questions that honestly aren't worth my
effort or the Usenet space.

And I will to the same

plonk

lol Touchy I would say.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!