The Differences Between PPLicensing And Learning

Steve Foley wrote:

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

I had that training when I got my PPL about 20 yrs. ago. When we got to
the section on accelerated stalls, my instructor took me out and we performed
them at altitude, simulating a buzz job. He noted that the most common
scenario where a private pilot might encounter an accelerated stall would be
during a botched buzzing. The lesson stuck pretty well.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

"WJRFlyBoy" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:35:14 -0800 (PST), William Hung wrote:

For your written, I recommend the King's video and computer test prep
set. They were boring, but was watchable. The practice test was
very helpful. After spending on average 1-2 hours a day in 15-20
intervals I got 95% on the test. The test itself only took me 15-20
minutes to complete. I think I would have gotten a 100% if I wasn't
so overly confident. I rushed thru it.

Wil

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?

The Jeppeson Private Pilot book is good. Also, Machado is enormously
popular: http://www.rodmachado.com/

Plenty of others and I'm probably missing a couple of authors who are on
this forum. I recommend them as well. :

-c

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:30:52 GMT, Steve Foley wrote:

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.

If you did, you would argue that it was a lack of experience not training
to make it fit your argument.

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

Wouldn't that depend on what was learned in the training, or better yet,
not learned?

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

The Differences Between PPLicensing And Learning /is/ the Subject of the
thread.

--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:32:44 GMT, kontiki wrote:

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/

Thanks, the FAA stuff I pulled, printed and the ASA I purchased.
Self-taught works for me, it fits my work (IT), home office environ, my
learning style and my preferences.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

"WJRFlyBoy" wrote in message
...

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/

Thanks, the FAA stuff I pulled, printed and the ASA I purchased.
Self-taught works for me, it fits my work (IT), home office environ, my
learning style and my preferences.

The ASA textbook will teach you everything you need to know that doesn't
require being in the airplane to learn it. You don't need to have
mastered all of it before you solo, and it doesn't sound like you'll make
the mistake of putting the textbooks away once you've passed the written.

When people here talking about getting it done quickly or in as little
flight time as possible, it's important to distinguish between license mills
and people who just want to provide -EFFICIENT- training. There's no point
in drilling holes in the sky if you're not learning in the process.
An -effective and efficient- training program will get you through in a
shorter time because less training time will have been wasted, not because
your training is being short-changed.

-c

On Feb 28, 6:34 am, kontiki wrote:

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.

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.

I tend to disagree in some ways. I will agree that some students may
make the assumption that the PC simulator is exactly like the real
thing and make the assumption that after mastering the simulator they
can jump into the aircraft and fly it just as well. However, I
believe that the PC simulator can be used to teach basic techniques
and principles such as basic aircraft control, basic aerodynamics, use
and function of instruments, etc. As long as the student understands
that the simulator and the aircraft are different, they can transition
from one to the other and apply what they learned from the simulator
to the actual aircraft.

Additionally, the student can experience things in the simulator that
he/she can't or shouldn't do in the actual aircraft. The PC simulator
is, in my opinion, a valuable tool if used correctly.

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:43:14 -0500, WJRFlyBoy wrote:

when talking with CFIs, they are geared to quick rather than
thorough.

I personally appreciate that attitude in a CFI considering that time really
is money in this business... your money. His job is to get you to the
checkride ready to pass and if he's good he'll know exactly what that
takes.

But your thinking is correct, there is much, much more to learn than the
minimum to pass the checkride and that will be up to you on your own. How
much extra frosting you want to put on the cake is what makes the
difference between a pilot and a good pilot.


--
Dallas

I don't understand. For the most part, I see people who want to get x
hours
in y (shortest) time to get their license.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I know you're not a pilot yet, and that this is all very exciting and
intoxicating. Flying IS the best thing you can do, head and shoulders
(literally!) above every other human endeavor, but I'm about to let you in
on a little secret.

It's a secret that your government, and most of the "big watch" pilot crowd,
will never, EVER tell you. You may want to be sitting down when you read
this -- but here it is:

Flying is easy. You're making it into a much bigger deal than it is.

Not that flying can't kill you in a heartbeat -- it can. But that's true of
most skills in life, from driving on the freeway to working with power
tools. The FAA and a large segment of the pilot population would like you
to believe that it takes some sort of super-human skill and intelligence to
learn to fly, but it just ain't true.

Why is this so? How has this situation evolved?

1. The FAA is "government", which is in the regulatory business. Thus, each
year requires more regulations, lest the FAA find itself large pointless
(which, on the GA side of flying, it largely *is*). Since, by nature, no
government agency can EVER solve the problems it was set up to address (or
risk being eliminated), it *must* continue to make things more complex. It
also must find new problems to fix, since most of the original problems were
quickly resolved. If that means largely inventing new problems, all the
better.

2. The "big watch" crowd likes to boast of their flying prowess, and likes
to feel above and separate from the "folks on the ground". Obviously, if
flying were easy and accessible, this would destroy their self image, so it
plays into their game to make flying appear really, really hard. Thus, many
airports have unfriendly, elitist FBOs, and pilot groups are traditionally
exclusionary good ol' boy clubs, unfriendly and suspicious of newcomers.

After long observations and pondering, I believe this attitude evolved from
the combat pilots of World War II, who truly demonstrated superior skills
and abilities. Those guys moved to their local airports after the war, and
their natural attitudes toward newcomers (not combat pilots) was an "us and
them" mentality. To some degree, this attitude has been imprinted on every
generation of new pilots ever since.

These two groups, inadvertently working together, have almost killed general
aviation in America. As usual, the FAA's work is done under the guise of
"safety" -- the catch-word that makes EVERYTHING okay. (The only words in
our society that kick open the treasury vault quicker, and eliminates our
rights quicker, is: "It's for the children" -- which have been used for
everything from school busing to the building of government-sponsored
casinos.)

We can fix the FAA, given enough political will -- but I don't know what to
do about the big watch crowd. I belong to every pilot's group, both locally
and nationally, and I see this attitude toward newcomers slowly improving
(basically as a result of their numbers dwindling to the point of death)
but it's been a glacially slow change.

I hate to burst your bubble like this -- I, too, once thought learning to
fly was beyond my means, and must be really, really hard -- but once you've
learned the truth, you can quickly and efficiently move from standing on the
ground to soaring through the sky. Find a mentor through AOPA (if you need
help finding one, email me off-group), and get to it -- you'll never regret
it!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Deadstick wrote:


I tend to disagree in some ways. I will agree that some students may
make the assumption that the PC simulator is exactly like the real
thing and make the assumption that after mastering the simulator they
can jump into the aircraft and fly it just as well. However, I
believe that the PC simulator can be used to teach basic techniques
and principles such as basic aircraft control, basic aerodynamics, use
and function of instruments, etc. As long as the student understands
that the simulator and the aircraft are different, they can transition
from one to the other and apply what they learned from the simulator
to the actual aircraft.

Additionally, the student can experience things in the simulator that
he/she can't or shouldn't do in the actual aircraft. The PC simulator
is, in my opinion, a valuable tool if used correctly.


How many hours you got there Deadstick?

In article ,
WJRFlyBoy wrote:

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:04:54 GMT, Steve Foley wrote:

"WJRFlyBoy" wrote in message
...
I have been reading the various threads about spins, forced landings, etc
and talking with CFIs. The road to a PPL is preset in requirements by FAA.
I see that most people are happy to do nothing more than that.

Where do you see that?

I don't understand. For the most part, I see people who want to get x hours
in y (shortest) time to get their license.

How does that show that they don't want to do anything past the minimum
requirements?