Viable alternatives for serious aviation discussion

Mxsmanic wrote:

You can spend years in prison for hitting someone; only very stupid people
disregard that risk.

You sure are fixated on "risk".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote:
Jim Logajan wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:
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.
Hey - how did this on-topic subthread get in this thread!? I demand a
refund!

Anyway, you are probably correct, but I'm always a little suspicious of
anything that suggests changing of "personality". Sounds like a mistake
some people make when they get married. ;-)

I have to agree "personality" is a **** poor choice of words.

"Attitude towards learning" is the shortest I can think of that might
be more appropriate.


Not really. A pilot's attitude about flying can easily become an
integral part of their overall personality and indeed does for many
pilots. For example, I don't tolorate fools gladly around and in
airplanes and thoroughly enjoy pilots who demonstrate safe and
intelligent handling of the airplanes they fly. This reflects daily in
every facet involved with my interaction with other pilots.
I am known throughout the world for these "traits" and they indeed make
up part of my overall personality.
Ask my wife if you need verification on these things.
:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

wrote in :

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

By the government.

By anyone. Freedom of speech is independent of the venue.

You're confusing laws that guarantee or eliminate freedom of speech
with the freedom itself.

Without laws you have mob rule and there is no freedom for anyone
other than the leader of the mob.

You have no right to say anything to any individual or group of
individuals who don't wish to listen to you.

Oh yes, you do. They don't have to listen. If nobody had the right
to speak unless everyone else within earshot approved of what he
said, the world would be a very sad and bizarre place.

That is NOT what I said.

Try going into the nearest church and making a speech about the
insanity of religion and see how far you get.



Not a problem if it's Buddhist.

Bertie

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.

I have all sorts of students. Some continue to improve even after I've taught
them, entirely on their own. Others fossilize moments after the class
finishes, and they never get any better. It's a question of personality (and
motivation), and even the best instructors get the same results.

Someone who just wants to be an airline pilot for the money, for example,
isn't going to care about anything beyond the minimum he needs to learn to get
into that position. Someone who just loves to fly may improve a little on
every single flight, even though he might never feel inclined to work for an
airline.

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.

Dudley Henriques writes:

Remember, you aren't picking this person, I AM!! :-) You won't have any
idea what the reaction will be when you speak.

The implication is pretty clear.

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.

Happens every day my friend, and people get away with it every day.

Many men are too macho to file a complaint. Also, when the police are
involved, often both parties go to jail, at least briefly. If guilt can be
determined, one might go away for several years.

Are you telling me you are willing to bet that I couldn't pick someone
from this forum to stand in front of you while you tell them they don't
have the guts to slam you in the chops?

Why would that be difficult?

Hardly. Simply an everyday example of possible consequences vs your
"right" to speak.

With men, the "everyday examples" almost universally involve violence. This
is not a coincidence.

writes:

You sure are fixated on "risk".

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

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in :

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

By the government.

By anyone. Freedom of speech is independent of the venue.

You're confusing laws that guarantee or eliminate freedom of speech
with the freedom itself.

Without laws you have mob rule and there is no freedom for anyone
other than the leader of the mob.

You have no right to say anything to any individual or group of
individuals who don't wish to listen to you.

Oh yes, you do. They don't have to listen. If nobody had the right
to speak unless everyone else within earshot approved of what he
said, the world would be a very sad and bizarre place.

That is NOT what I said.

Try going into the nearest church and making a speech about the
insanity of religion and see how far you get.



Not a problem if it's Buddhist.

None I've been in was called a "church" by the members and though
it is hard to do, I've seen devout Buddhists ****ed off.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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.)

wrote in :

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote in news:jaasn5-t8h.ln1
@mail.specsol.com:

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

By the government.

By anyone. Freedom of speech is independent of the venue.

You're confusing laws that guarantee or eliminate freedom of speech
with the freedom itself.

Without laws you have mob rule and there is no freedom for anyone
other than the leader of the mob.

You have no right to say anything to any individual or group of
individuals who don't wish to listen to you.

Oh yes, you do. They don't have to listen. If nobody had the
right
to speak unless everyone else within earshot approved of what he
said, the world would be a very sad and bizarre place.

That is NOT what I said.

Try going into the nearest church and making a speech about the
insanity of religion and see how far you get.



Not a problem if it's Buddhist.

None I've been in was called a "church" by the members and though
it is hard to do, I've seen devout Buddhists ****ed off.


And why wouldn't you? They just wouldn't get ****ed of by that
particular speech.

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



Bertie