Time to earn license for professionals

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:54:00 -0700, wrote in
. com:

You make some good points Larry. But I've also been rethinking the
issue of flight proficiency as well. I have come to believe (after
having done some...ahem..."interesting" BFRs) that pilot proficiency
has a lot more to do with a reasonable self-assessment of one's
skills, and self-discipline.

The problem with self-assessments is their subjectivity. I can recall
several instances during my Commercial flight instruction during which
I believed that I had fully mastered various of the required maneuvers
during solo sessions only to have my erroneous self-assessments dashed
by my flight instructor.

I believe it is very possible to be an adequately proficient pilot
flying just one hour per month (for example), IF the kind of flying
one does allows for it.

The issue I have with such a notion of proficiency is that the airmans
certificate permits flying of more than one kind, so there is no
assurance that the examinee will only indulge in one kind of flying.

I flew with a guy for a BFR who flew no more
than 20 hours per year. The first thing I do on BFRs is sit down with
a cup of coffee and chat about flying - what kind of flying do you
do...what do you want out of flying...tell me about your last flying
trip, etc.

This guy just loved to fly by himelf on nice days, VFR only...just
flying around, looking at the beauty, enjoying being in the air. He
usualy flew out of a low-traffic 5000 foot asphalt strip, outside of
ATC-controlled airspace. Always flew on nice days, had personal minima
he (said he) never broke. Just flew a 172. Occasionally flew a 60 mile
XC to get a piece of pie or hamburger. In his BFR, he was adequate;
above PP-ASEL PTS standards, but not much more. Now, this kind of low-
risk, low-difficulty flying is (IMO) certainly reasonable for a guy
who only flys once a month, in great weather, to long fields, in a
simple plane he understands. He knew his limitations, and was
seemingly appropriately managing them.

It is difficult to believe that 20 hours a year is adequate to
maintain a significant level of flight proficiency, but I suppose it
depends on the individual pilot's mental and physical strengths and
weaknesses. But how well would he perform if, for instance,
circumstances conspired to put him on a return flight on a moonless
night?

Another guy I flew with flew a lot. Was much more active, and flew IFR
a lot. His logbook showed about 150 hours in the previous year, with
maybe 60 in the soup. He said his last trip was a long XC in a 182RG,
ending in a localizer approach to minimums at an airport he'd never
been to before. He was also OK in the cockpit...better than the first
guy in terms of maneuvers and technical skill, but sometimes he seemed
to have a hard time multitasking well.

Given the intensives requirements of single-pilot IFR operations, it's
difficult to believe that a pilot who does a significant amount of it
has difficulty multitasking. How did you determine that weakness in
him?

Now, I'm MUCH more concerned that I'll read about the second guy
cashing in his chips in an airplane someday. I don't think he really
will...he 'passed' his BFR, and we did some work on a couple of
things, including multi-tasking. But he IS more likely (IMO) to run
into trouble than the first guy, even tho he's far more 'proficient'
and 'current', simply because of the kind of flying he does.

More demanding flight conditions lead to increased hazard, for sure.

I guess I am saying that I think a professional (or anyone else) who
can only devote an hour a month to flying (or even less) can quite
posibly be a completely safe and proficient pilot, as long as they
understand the limitations imposed on their flying by their
situation.

A lot of things CAN be true, but generally speaking I'd have to
believe that recent experience makes a pilot more competent. If not,
what is the reasoning behind the 90-day currency regulations for
carrying passengers and night flight?

Sorry, Dudley, I got my CFI (airplane) 37 years ago and my CFI (glider) 30
years ago. I have roughly 500 primary students under my belt, so no, I know
for a fact that the classroom on the ground and the classroom in the air are
two totally different things. My point was that I've learned to adapt to
many different learning capabilities in both environments.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...

RST Engineering wrote:
Sorry, Dudley, I got my CFI (airplane) 37 years ago and my CFI (glider) 30
years ago. I have roughly 500 primary students under my belt, so no, I know
for a fact that the classroom on the ground and the classroom in the air are
two totally different things. My point was that I've learned to adapt to
many different learning capabilities in both environments.

Jim


I can see there is absolutely nothing you can learn from me so I'll be
moving along :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Bob Moore wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote
The first thing new instructors have to be taught as they become
instructors is that there are base differences between teaching in a
classroom that isn't moving and teaching in a classroom that is moving
at 100 mph plus.

This is what is wrong with most flight instruction. A professional
Flight Instructor does not teach in a 100 mph classroom. Done properly,
ALL instruction is done in the classroom (briefing room) and then the
student is allowed to practice in the airplane.

My qualifications...first, the US Navy sent me to a two month "How to
Instruct" course. I would then teach that course for two years. Second,
I received my FAA Flight Instructor Certificate in a professional Part
141 Training Center. Third, I completed an FAA approved Part 121 Airline
Flight Instructor Training Program. I would later, as Mgr Flightcrew
Training, be responsible for developing and implementing such programs
at other airlines. Fourth, I did manage a staff of about 8 instructors in
the Jet Training Division of the old Burnside-Ott Flight Training Center
at Opaloca Airport in Miami.

Bob Moore

Is there anything about the following sentence taken from an earlier
post of mine in this thread that you are having trouble understanding?

Dudley Henriques wrote;
"Many instructors in my opinion make a HUGE mistake by trying to teach
everything about everything while the student is flying the airplane. "

Of COURSE a flight instructor teaches in a 100mph plus classroom, and in
even faster classrooms in higher performance aircraft. This in no way
should be construed as you have attempted to do here into meaning that a
flight instructor should use the time in the aircraft to teach what
should have been covered on the ground both during the preflight and
post flight phases of a dual session.
There is a place for detailed instruction and that is NOT while the
student is under the stress of flying the aircraft.
Your premise that ALL instruction is done in the classroom and allowing
the student to "practice" in the aircraft is not exactly correct. It is
more correct that theory and procedure are taught on the ground and
closely monitored and corrected practice with the student is done in the
air. To say that no instruction is performed in the air is incorrect. It
is however correct to say that all instruction in the air be restricted
to it's simplest common denominator, allowing the student to error and
correct with verbal guidance. It is during the post flight debrief that
the more detailed instruction should take place.
To address your basic premise, I believe you might want to re-read what
I have said in this thread about what constitutes proper flight
instruction technique. With a few minor changes, we are not that far
apart, but make no mistake, flight instruction does indeed take place in
a moving classroom. Ground instruction takes place in a classroom.



--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote in
news
Bob Moore wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote
The first thing new instructors have to be taught as they become
instructors is that there are base differences between teaching in a
classroom that isn't moving and teaching in a classroom that is
moving at 100 mph plus.

This is what is wrong with most flight instruction. A professional
Flight Instructor does not teach in a 100 mph classroom. Done
properly, ALL instruction is done in the classroom (briefing room)
and then the student is allowed to practice in the airplane.

My qualifications...first, the US Navy sent me to a two month "How to
Instruct" course. I would then teach that course for two years.
Second, I received my FAA Flight Instructor Certificate in a
professional Part 141 Training Center. Third, I completed an FAA
approved Part 121 Airline Flight Instructor Training Program. I would
later, as Mgr Flightcrew Training, be responsible for developing and
implementing such programs at other airlines. Fourth, I did manage a
staff of about 8 instructors in the Jet Training Division of the old
Burnside-Ott Flight Training Center at Opaloca Airport in Miami.

Bob Moore

Is there anything about the following sentence taken from an earlier
post of mine in this thread that you are having trouble understanding?

Dudley Henriques wrote;
"Many instructors in my opinion make a HUGE mistake by trying to teach
everything about everything while the student is flying the airplane.
"

Of COURSE a flight instructor teaches in a 100mph plus classroom, and
in even faster classrooms in higher performance aircraft. This in no
way should be construed as you have attempted to do here into meaning
that a flight instructor should use the time in the aircraft to teach
what should have been covered on the ground both during the preflight
and post flight phases of a dual session.
There is a place for detailed instruction and that is NOT while the
student is under the stress of flying the aircraft.
Your premise that ALL instruction is done in the classroom and
allowing the student to "practice" in the aircraft is not exactly
correct. It is more correct that theory and procedure are taught on
the ground and closely monitored and corrected practice with the
student is done in the air. To say that no instruction is performed in
the air is incorrect. It is however correct to say that all
instruction in the air be restricted to it's simplest common
denominator, allowing the student to error and correct with verbal
guidance. It is during the post flight debrief that the more detailed
instruction should take place. To address your basic premise, I
believe you might want to re-read what I have said in this thread
about what constitutes proper flight instruction technique. With a few
minor changes, we are not that far apart, but make no mistake, flight
instruction does indeed take place in a moving classroom. Ground
instruction takes place in a classroom.




Ever heard the one about the three blind men examining an elephant?


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
news
Bob Moore wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote
The first thing new instructors have to be taught as they become
instructors is that there are base differences between teaching in a
classroom that isn't moving and teaching in a classroom that is
moving at 100 mph plus.
This is what is wrong with most flight instruction. A professional
Flight Instructor does not teach in a 100 mph classroom. Done
properly, ALL instruction is done in the classroom (briefing room)
and then the student is allowed to practice in the airplane.

My qualifications...first, the US Navy sent me to a two month "How to
Instruct" course. I would then teach that course for two years.
Second, I received my FAA Flight Instructor Certificate in a
professional Part 141 Training Center. Third, I completed an FAA
approved Part 121 Airline Flight Instructor Training Program. I would
later, as Mgr Flightcrew Training, be responsible for developing and
implementing such programs at other airlines. Fourth, I did manage a
staff of about 8 instructors in the Jet Training Division of the old
Burnside-Ott Flight Training Center at Opaloca Airport in Miami.

Bob Moore
Is there anything about the following sentence taken from an earlier
post of mine in this thread that you are having trouble understanding?

Dudley Henriques wrote;
"Many instructors in my opinion make a HUGE mistake by trying to teach
everything about everything while the student is flying the airplane.
"

Of COURSE a flight instructor teaches in a 100mph plus classroom, and
in even faster classrooms in higher performance aircraft. This in no
way should be construed as you have attempted to do here into meaning
that a flight instructor should use the time in the aircraft to teach
what should have been covered on the ground both during the preflight
and post flight phases of a dual session.
There is a place for detailed instruction and that is NOT while the
student is under the stress of flying the aircraft.
Your premise that ALL instruction is done in the classroom and
allowing the student to "practice" in the aircraft is not exactly
correct. It is more correct that theory and procedure are taught on
the ground and closely monitored and corrected practice with the
student is done in the air. To say that no instruction is performed in
the air is incorrect. It is however correct to say that all
instruction in the air be restricted to it's simplest common
denominator, allowing the student to error and correct with verbal
guidance. It is during the post flight debrief that the more detailed
instruction should take place. To address your basic premise, I
believe you might want to re-read what I have said in this thread
about what constitutes proper flight instruction technique. With a few
minor changes, we are not that far apart, but make no mistake, flight
instruction does indeed take place in a moving classroom. Ground
instruction takes place in a classroom.




Ever heard the one about the three blind men examining an elephant?


Bertie
Hi Bertie; howgozit? Hope you're well these days.

I agree. Much of it is in perspective. I think all of us are approaching
the basic premise from different directions. The macro is intact but the
micros are in flux :-)


--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
news
Bob Moore wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote
The first thing new instructors have to be taught as they become
instructors is that there are base differences between teaching in
a
classroom that isn't moving and teaching in a classroom that is
moving at 100 mph plus.
This is what is wrong with most flight instruction. A professional
Flight Instructor does not teach in a 100 mph classroom. Done
properly, ALL instruction is done in the classroom (briefing room)
and then the student is allowed to practice in the airplane.

My qualifications...first, the US Navy sent me to a two month "How
to
Instruct" course. I would then teach that course for two years.
Second, I received my FAA Flight Instructor Certificate in a
professional Part 141 Training Center. Third, I completed an FAA
approved Part 121 Airline Flight Instructor Training Program. I
would
later, as Mgr Flightcrew Training, be responsible for developing
and
implementing such programs at other airlines. Fourth, I did manage
a
staff of about 8 instructors in the Jet Training Division of the
old
Burnside-Ott Flight Training Center at Opaloca Airport in Miami.

Bob Moore
Is there anything about the following sentence taken from an earlier
post of mine in this thread that you are having trouble
understanding?

Dudley Henriques wrote;
"Many instructors in my opinion make a HUGE mistake by trying to
teach
everything about everything while the student is flying the
airplane.
"

Of COURSE a flight instructor teaches in a 100mph plus classroom,
and
in even faster classrooms in higher performance aircraft. This in no
way should be construed as you have attempted to do here into
meaning
that a flight instructor should use the time in the aircraft to
teach
what should have been covered on the ground both during the
preflight
and post flight phases of a dual session.
There is a place for detailed instruction and that is NOT while the
student is under the stress of flying the aircraft.
Your premise that ALL instruction is done in the classroom and
allowing the student to "practice" in the aircraft is not exactly
correct. It is more correct that theory and procedure are taught on
the ground and closely monitored and corrected practice with the
student is done in the air. To say that no instruction is performed
in
the air is incorrect. It is however correct to say that all
instruction in the air be restricted to it's simplest common
denominator, allowing the student to error and correct with verbal
guidance. It is during the post flight debrief that the more
detailed
instruction should take place. To address your basic premise, I
believe you might want to re-read what I have said in this thread
about what constitutes proper flight instruction technique. With a
few
minor changes, we are not that far apart, but make no mistake,
flight
instruction does indeed take place in a moving classroom. Ground
instruction takes place in a classroom.




Ever heard the one about the three blind men examining an elephant?


Bertie
Hi Bertie; howgozit? Hope you're well these days.

not too bad, thanks.

I agree. Much of it is in perspective. I think all of us are
approaching
the basic premise from different directions. The macro is intact but
the
micros are in flux :-)


Well, exactly. I agree with your stance though. The airplane is a
classroom in itself. A good airplane is a better instructor than the
instructor is. but the point i think you are trying to make is that
while the student is practicing whatever, you gotta shout some
additional instruction his way. Otherwise dual would be pointless.
after all, if he goes out and practices it all wrong after his thorough
classroom briefing what's he learned?


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
news
Bob Moore wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote
The first thing new instructors have to be taught as they become
instructors is that there are base differences between teaching in
a
classroom that isn't moving and teaching in a classroom that is
moving at 100 mph plus.
This is what is wrong with most flight instruction. A professional
Flight Instructor does not teach in a 100 mph classroom. Done
properly, ALL instruction is done in the classroom (briefing room)
and then the student is allowed to practice in the airplane.

My qualifications...first, the US Navy sent me to a two month "How
to
Instruct" course. I would then teach that course for two years.
Second, I received my FAA Flight Instructor Certificate in a
professional Part 141 Training Center. Third, I completed an FAA
approved Part 121 Airline Flight Instructor Training Program. I
would
later, as Mgr Flightcrew Training, be responsible for developing
and
implementing such programs at other airlines. Fourth, I did manage
a
staff of about 8 instructors in the Jet Training Division of the
old
Burnside-Ott Flight Training Center at Opaloca Airport in Miami.

Bob Moore
Is there anything about the following sentence taken from an earlier
post of mine in this thread that you are having trouble
understanding?
Dudley Henriques wrote;
"Many instructors in my opinion make a HUGE mistake by trying to
teach
everything about everything while the student is flying the
airplane.
"

Of COURSE a flight instructor teaches in a 100mph plus classroom,
and
in even faster classrooms in higher performance aircraft. This in no
way should be construed as you have attempted to do here into
meaning
that a flight instructor should use the time in the aircraft to
teach
what should have been covered on the ground both during the
preflight
and post flight phases of a dual session.
There is a place for detailed instruction and that is NOT while the
student is under the stress of flying the aircraft.
Your premise that ALL instruction is done in the classroom and
allowing the student to "practice" in the aircraft is not exactly
correct. It is more correct that theory and procedure are taught on
the ground and closely monitored and corrected practice with the
student is done in the air. To say that no instruction is performed
in
the air is incorrect. It is however correct to say that all
instruction in the air be restricted to it's simplest common
denominator, allowing the student to error and correct with verbal
guidance. It is during the post flight debrief that the more
detailed
instruction should take place. To address your basic premise, I
believe you might want to re-read what I have said in this thread
about what constitutes proper flight instruction technique. With a
few
minor changes, we are not that far apart, but make no mistake,
flight
instruction does indeed take place in a moving classroom. Ground
instruction takes place in a classroom.



Ever heard the one about the three blind men examining an elephant?


Bertie
Hi Bertie; howgozit? Hope you're well these days.

not too bad, thanks.
I agree. Much of it is in perspective. I think all of us are
approaching
the basic premise from different directions. The macro is intact but
the
micros are in flux :-)


Well, exactly. I agree with your stance though. The airplane is a
classroom in itself. A good airplane is a better instructor than the
instructor is. but the point i think you are trying to make is that
while the student is practicing whatever, you gotta shout some
additional instruction his way. Otherwise dual would be pointless.
after all, if he goes out and practices it all wrong after his thorough
classroom briefing what's he learned?


Bertie



Exactly! I think the main point if you were to reduce everything down to
it's lowest common denominator would be that there are actually two
teaching personas that the CFI has to master; the first is the teacher
who covers what needs to be covered on the ground in the manner best
suited for that scenario (this would be the classroom approach).
The second is a teaching personna that knows how to simplify, observe
,direct and correct with minimal interference while the airplane is in
motion. This second teaching personna is what we usually have to "teach"
people coming into the flight instruction business from a formal
professional teaching background. It's usually a quick transition if the
"teacher" is amenable and able to adjust to this added dimension
required of a good flight instructor.
I totally agree with you that the airplane itself is the best flight
instructor a pilot will ever have.

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
news
Bob Moore wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote
The first thing new instructors have to be taught as they become
instructors is that there are base differences between teaching
in
a
classroom that isn't moving and teaching in a classroom that is
moving at 100 mph plus.
This is what is wrong with most flight instruction. A
professional
Flight Instructor does not teach in a 100 mph classroom. Done
properly, ALL instruction is done in the classroom (briefing
room)
and then the student is allowed to practice in the airplane.

My qualifications...first, the US Navy sent me to a two month
"How
to
Instruct" course. I would then teach that course for two years.
Second, I received my FAA Flight Instructor Certificate in a
professional Part 141 Training Center. Third, I completed an FAA
approved Part 121 Airline Flight Instructor Training Program. I
would
later, as Mgr Flightcrew Training, be responsible for developing
and
implementing such programs at other airlines. Fourth, I did
manage
a
staff of about 8 instructors in the Jet Training Division of the
old
Burnside-Ott Flight Training Center at Opaloca Airport in Miami.

Bob Moore
Is there anything about the following sentence taken from an
earlier
post of mine in this thread that you are having trouble
understanding?
Dudley Henriques wrote;
"Many instructors in my opinion make a HUGE mistake by trying to
teach
everything about everything while the student is flying the
airplane.
"

Of COURSE a flight instructor teaches in a 100mph plus classroom,
and
in even faster classrooms in higher performance aircraft. This in
no
way should be construed as you have attempted to do here into
meaning
that a flight instructor should use the time in the aircraft to
teach
what should have been covered on the ground both during the
preflight
and post flight phases of a dual session.
There is a place for detailed instruction and that is NOT while
the
student is under the stress of flying the aircraft.
Your premise that ALL instruction is done in the classroom and
allowing the student to "practice" in the aircraft is not exactly
correct. It is more correct that theory and procedure are taught
on
the ground and closely monitored and corrected practice with the
student is done in the air. To say that no instruction is
performed
in
the air is incorrect. It is however correct to say that all
instruction in the air be restricted to it's simplest common
denominator, allowing the student to error and correct with verbal
guidance. It is during the post flight debrief that the more
detailed
instruction should take place. To address your basic premise, I
believe you might want to re-read what I have said in this thread
about what constitutes proper flight instruction technique. With a
few
minor changes, we are not that far apart, but make no mistake,
flight
instruction does indeed take place in a moving classroom. Ground
instruction takes place in a classroom.



Ever heard the one about the three blind men examining an elephant?


Bertie
Hi Bertie; howgozit? Hope you're well these days.

not too bad, thanks.
I agree. Much of it is in perspective. I think all of us are
approaching
the basic premise from different directions. The macro is intact but
the
micros are in flux :-)


Well, exactly. I agree with your stance though. The airplane is a
classroom in itself. A good airplane is a better instructor than the
instructor is. but the point i think you are trying to make is that
while the student is practicing whatever, you gotta shout some
additional instruction his way. Otherwise dual would be pointless.
after all, if he goes out and practices it all wrong after his
thorough
classroom briefing what's he learned?


Bertie



Exactly! I think the main point if you were to reduce everything down
to
it's lowest common denominator would be that there are actually two
teaching personas that the CFI has to master; the first is the teacher
who covers what needs to be covered on the ground in the manner best
suited for that scenario (this would be the classroom approach).
The second is a teaching personna that knows how to simplify, observe
,direct and correct with minimal interference while the airplane is in
motion. This second teaching personna is what we usually have to
"teach"
people coming into the flight instruction business from a formal
professional teaching background. It's usually a quick transition if
the
"teacher" is amenable and able to adjust to this added dimension
required of a good flight instructor.
I totally agree with you that the airplane itself is the best flight
instructor a pilot will ever have.


Well, unless t's a cherokee!

Bertie

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
Bob Moore wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote
The first thing new instructors have to be taught as they become
instructors is that there are base differences between teaching
in
a
classroom that isn't moving and teaching in a classroom that is
moving at 100 mph plus.
This is what is wrong with most flight instruction. A
professional
Flight Instructor does not teach in a 100 mph classroom. Done
properly, ALL instruction is done in the classroom (briefing
room)
and then the student is allowed to practice in the airplane.

My qualifications...first, the US Navy sent me to a two month
"How
to
Instruct" course. I would then teach that course for two years.
Second, I received my FAA Flight Instructor Certificate in a
professional Part 141 Training Center. Third, I completed an FAA
approved Part 121 Airline Flight Instructor Training Program. I
would
later, as Mgr Flightcrew Training, be responsible for developing
and
implementing such programs at other airlines. Fourth, I did
manage
a
staff of about 8 instructors in the Jet Training Division of the
old
Burnside-Ott Flight Training Center at Opaloca Airport in Miami.

Bob Moore
Is there anything about the following sentence taken from an
earlier
post of mine in this thread that you are having trouble
understanding?
Dudley Henriques wrote;
"Many instructors in my opinion make a HUGE mistake by trying to
teach
everything about everything while the student is flying the
airplane.
"

Of COURSE a flight instructor teaches in a 100mph plus classroom,
and
in even faster classrooms in higher performance aircraft. This in
no
way should be construed as you have attempted to do here into
meaning
that a flight instructor should use the time in the aircraft to
teach
what should have been covered on the ground both during the
preflight
and post flight phases of a dual session.
There is a place for detailed instruction and that is NOT while
the
student is under the stress of flying the aircraft.
Your premise that ALL instruction is done in the classroom and
allowing the student to "practice" in the aircraft is not exactly
correct. It is more correct that theory and procedure are taught
on
the ground and closely monitored and corrected practice with the
student is done in the air. To say that no instruction is
performed
in
the air is incorrect. It is however correct to say that all
instruction in the air be restricted to it's simplest common
denominator, allowing the student to error and correct with verbal
guidance. It is during the post flight debrief that the more
detailed
instruction should take place. To address your basic premise, I
believe you might want to re-read what I have said in this thread
about what constitutes proper flight instruction technique. With a
few
minor changes, we are not that far apart, but make no mistake,
flight
instruction does indeed take place in a moving classroom. Ground
instruction takes place in a classroom.



Ever heard the one about the three blind men examining an elephant?


Bertie
Hi Bertie; howgozit? Hope you're well these days.
not too bad, thanks.
I agree. Much of it is in perspective. I think all of us are
approaching
the basic premise from different directions. The macro is intact but
the
micros are in flux :-)

Well, exactly. I agree with your stance though. The airplane is a
classroom in itself. A good airplane is a better instructor than the
instructor is. but the point i think you are trying to make is that
while the student is practicing whatever, you gotta shout some
additional instruction his way. Otherwise dual would be pointless.
after all, if he goes out and practices it all wrong after his
thorough
classroom briefing what's he learned?


Bertie



Exactly! I think the main point if you were to reduce everything down
to
it's lowest common denominator would be that there are actually two
teaching personas that the CFI has to master; the first is the teacher
who covers what needs to be covered on the ground in the manner best
suited for that scenario (this would be the classroom approach).
The second is a teaching personna that knows how to simplify, observe
,direct and correct with minimal interference while the airplane is in
motion. This second teaching personna is what we usually have to
"teach"
people coming into the flight instruction business from a formal
professional teaching background. It's usually a quick transition if
the
"teacher" is amenable and able to adjust to this added dimension
required of a good flight instructor.
I totally agree with you that the airplane itself is the best flight
instructor a pilot will ever have.


Well, unless t's a cherokee!

Bertie

Well...there's always room for a "driving instructor". :-))))

--
Dudley Henriques