Viable alternatives for serious aviation discussion

Mxsmanic wrote:
Dudley Henriques writes:

Sorry, this is incorrect. It's instruction 101 for the instructor to
evaluate and ascertain the personality of the student as the student's
personality will interface with their flying. If this is done correctly,
the student's "personality" is molded and/or changed as necessary to
develop into what is needed to have the student do exactly as you have
said they need to do after leaving the instructor; continuing the
learning process. That process exists for the "pilot" all through their
careers in aviation.
On the other hand, if the instructor fails to instill whatever
"personality" change is needed during the time of exposure with the
student, the student will become the "driver" we are discussing.

Either way, the responsibility lies with the instructor. The student is
the workpiece the instructor must complete.



If that were really true, then every student of a good instructor would become
a good pilot. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.


It most certainly does work this way. If the student doesn't graduate a
good pilot, the instructor has failed. Therefore the instructor by
definition isn't the good instructor in your example.


--
Dudley Henriques

Jim Logajan wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:
You're right. We can't have aviation talk on this forum. Something will
have to be done :-))

That "personality change" is nothing more than the instilling in a
student of the proper habit patterns necessary to develop further into
an "attitude" about flying that will be conducive to the continuing
learning curve that must exist in a "pilot", but can be found to be
missing in an airplane "driver" as they say.
The development of this state of mind in a pilot is the direct
responsibility of the CFI and should be considered job one for the
instructor.

Ah - that makes sense. For a minute there I was afraid you were advocating
that my CFI should nag me to become a more caring person, worry about _her_
needs for once, that I should enjoy gardening, pay more attention to what
she is saying, and that sort of thing. ;-)

(Okay - I DO pay attention to what she is saying. I was just telling her
the other day right after we landed that she _doesn't_ nag me enough! She
said she doesn't nag once it is clear a student knows what they should be
doing. I'm quite the self-nagger.)

She sounds like she knows what she's doing.
I've noticed over time that there seems to be a virtual TON of female
CFI's out here today as opposed to my era. It's good to see the girls
doing the job.

--
Dudley Henriques

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

You sure are fixated on "risk".

Proper assessment of risk has kept me alive and safe for many years.

Aren't you supposed to weigh risk with the corresponding personal value or
benefit of any particular action?

Mxsmanic wrote:
Dudley Henriques writes:

Then Usenet is your best bet. Many people find it difficult to have
their input moderated. You are simply expressing a preference to which
you are entitled.

Most people tolerate moderation very poorly, but they love to see other people
with whom they disagree being silenced. Many people will choose a venue in
which they know that the allowed opinions match their own; that way anyone who
disagrees with them will be "moderated," and those who agree with them will be
left unmolested.

The problem is that many discussion venues stagnate, since nobody is willing
to discuss anything on which there might be a difference of opinion. The only
things people will discuss are the things about which they all agree already.
It gets pretty boring after a while.

The group rec.food.recipes has been moderated, healthy and around for
about a quarter century now.

Most moderated groups don't disallow disagreement, they just don't allow
posting 486 lines of old posting just to add a one word comment or
rebuttles to postings with content free ad hominems.

Most moderated groups would eventually ban you not because of the content
of your posts at first, but because your posts are normally carefully
crafted to **** people off and be disruptive in the long run.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:

In reality, a lot of people are wise enough to not get into any type of
physical altercation, so you can almost say anything you want with impunity.
But many males can be goaded into physical violence with words alone, if the
words are well chosen. And some jump immediately into violence with any words
at all. Women are more level-headed, as a rule.

I see you have little experience with real women.

--
Jim Pennino

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

You sure are fixated on "risk".

Proper assessment of risk has kept me alive and safe for many years.

You sure are fixated on "safe".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

BTW, you shouldn't be talking to me. You get on the lits, vol 6

Once in a while, when you aren't quoting 4,891 lines of old text to
add a one word retort, you can be interesting.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in :

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

BTW, you shouldn't be talking to me. You get on the lits, vol 6

Once in a while, when you aren't quoting 4,891 lines of old text to
add a one word retort, you can be interesting.



I could cut and paste War and Peace if you're missing it.


Bertie

Actually the other reason Anthony wouldn't make it on a moderated board is
that Pilots of America (for example) is geared toward pilots (these people,
by definition, are people who actually fly airplanes).

Of course, Anthony's rationale, like always, is specious- he simply doesn't
fly and has nothing to contribute.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Dudley Henriques writes:

Then Usenet is your best bet. Many people find it difficult to have
their input moderated. You are simply expressing a preference to which
you are entitled.

Most people tolerate moderation very poorly, but they love to see other people
with whom they disagree being silenced. Many people will choose a venue in
which they know that the allowed opinions match their own; that way anyone who
disagrees with them will be "moderated," and those who agree with them will be
left unmolested.

The problem is that many discussion venues stagnate, since nobody is willing
to discuss anything on which there might be a difference of opinion. The only
things people will discuss are the things about which they all agree already.
It gets pretty boring after a while.

Not for me. For example, I've been involved directly with flight
instruction in one way or another for over 50 years. I'll discuss the
subject with you as I am doing now on another posting. I tolorate you
"telling me" instead of asking me about a subject in which I have
expertise and you have never been involved in.
I won't attack your opposing views even though you present them to me as
statements instead of questions.
I'll do this as long as I feel the discussion is respectful and on
topic. If I determine, after several exchanges of direct opposing
opinion that we are in total disagreement on something, instead of
attacking you directly, I'll allow you your opinion and simply
disengage. You are entitled to both your opinion AND your right to
disagree, even though you are not a flight instructor.
I try to do this with everyone who approaches me with respect. I save
the GFY posts for those who deviate from this criteria.



--
Dudley Henriques