Rod Machado's New PPL Manual

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:47:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If GA is to
flourish in the future, it will have to attract more "average" people
into it's ranks.

Isn't that the philosophy of NASA's Free Flight concept?


RELEASE: 99-17

GENERAL AVIATION TO GET A NASA-INDUSTRY 'LIFT'

In the not-too-distant future, there may be a virtual
"highway in the sky," as the average person could take to the sky
in small, safe and affordable, easy-to-fly personal aircraft,
traveling four times the speed of today's cars.

NASA has selected a team of industry partners to help develop
the highway in the sky system, a key element of the government-
industry effort to revitalize general aviation in the United
States.

Development costs will be shared equally between NASA and
the seven-member industry team, with both contributing
approximately $3 million. Team members are Avidyne Corp.,
Lexington, MA; AvroTec Inc., Portland, OR; Lancair, Redmond, OR;
Raytheon Aircraft, Wichita, KS; Rockwell Collins, Cedar Rapids,
IA; Seagull Technologies, Los Gatos, CA; and AlliedSignal,
Olathe, KS.

The team, with AvroTec as team lead and Avidyne as technical
project manager, has 2 1/2 years to complete hardware and
software development of a totally new concept for presenting
critical, flight-path guidance information to the pilot.

Dubbed "highway in the sky," the cockpit display system
includes a computer-drawn highway that the pilot follows to a
preprogrammed destination. The highway is drawn on a highly
intuitive, low-cost flat panel display -- the primary flight
display of the future -- that will displace decades-old "steam
gauge" instrumentation.

The system also includes a multi-function display of
position navigation, terrain map, weather and air traffic
information. In addition, digital (datalink) radios will send
and receive flight data, and a solid-state attitude and heading
reference system will replace gyroscopes.

Together, the displays and other equipment will provide
intuitive situational awareness and enough information for a
pilot to perform safely, with reduced workload, in nearly all
weather conditions.

In addition to transforming cockpits, the technology
developed by the team will redefine the relationship between
pilots and air traffic control and fundamentally change the way
future general aviation pilots fly. This technology is expected
to significantly increase freedom, safety and ease-of-flying by
providing pilots with affordable, direct access to information
needed for future "free-flight" air traffic control systems.
Pilots will have the ability to safely determine their routes,
speeds and proximity to dangerous weather, terrain and other
airplanes.

The team will work toward flight certification of the
highway in the sky system around the year 2001. This will be the
first attempt to certify such a system using affordable
commercial "off-the-shelf" computer technology in aircraft.

Development of the highway in the sky system has been
fostered by the Advanced General Aviation Transports Experiment
(AGATE) -- a consortium of more than 70 members from industry,
universities, the Federal Aviation Administration and other
government agencies. All seven highway in the sky team members
are AGATE members.

AGATE was created by NASA in 1994 to develop affordable new
technology -- as well as industry standards and certification
methods -- for airframe, cockpit, flight training systems and
airspace infrastructure for next-generation single pilot, four-
to-six seat, near all-weather light airplanes.

Along with a parallel program -- the General Aviation
Propulsion program for development of revolutionary engines --
AGATE is providing industry partners with technologies leading to
a small aircraft transportation system in the early 21st century.
These investments support the national general aviation "roadmap"
goal to "enable doorstep-to-destination travel at four times
highway speeds to virtually all of the nation's suburban, rural
and remote communities."

- end -

H. Keith Henry
Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
(Phone: 757/864-6120/24)


Mary Nolan
AvroTec, Inc., Portland, OR
(Phone: 503/221-1220)

On Mar 24, 7:01 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:47:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques

wrote:
GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If GA is to
flourish in the future, it will have to attract more "average" people
into it's ranks.

Isn't that the philosophy of NASA's Free Flight concept?

Most people are only comfortable flying along with a herd. Try
diverting the typical 737 load into the requisite 30 Bonanzas and hear
the howls on the tarmac --" I have to fly in THAT!?"

It sounds good, but I think it's an unrealistic expectation.

Dan Mc

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:47:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If GA is to
flourish in the future, it will have to attract more "average" people
into it's ranks.

Isn't that the philosophy of NASA's Free Flight concept?

Sounds more to me like NASA coming up with another excuse for spending a
ton of our tax dollars :-)

What I have in mind is a bit more achievable; manuals written so that
they don't intimidate the section of the market that doesn't respond
positively to an " engineering approach" to ground school, and CFI's who
come to realize the value of learning how to project complicated
subjects in a manner that makes a housewife as comfortable in the
learning process as an engineer.



--
Dudley Henriques

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:34:32 -0700 (PDT), Dan
wrote:

On Mar 24, 7:01 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:47:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques

wrote:
GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If GA is to
flourish in the future, it will have to attract more "average" people
into it's ranks.

Isn't that the philosophy of NASA's Free Flight concept?

Most people are only comfortable flying along with a herd. Try
diverting the typical 737 load into the requisite 30 Bonanzas and hear
the howls on the tarmac --" I have to fly in THAT!?"

You'll have to explain that to Dudley.

It sounds good, but I think it's an unrealistic expectation.

Dan Mc


The fact that the 1994 prediction was for Free Flight to be
implemented by 2001 seems to support that opinion.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:34:32 -0700 (PDT), Dan
wrote:

On Mar 24, 7:01 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:47:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques

wrote:
GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If GA is to
flourish in the future, it will have to attract more "average" people
into it's ranks.
Isn't that the philosophy of NASA's Free Flight concept?
Most people are only comfortable flying along with a herd. Try
diverting the typical 737 load into the requisite 30 Bonanzas and hear
the howls on the tarmac --" I have to fly in THAT!?"

You'll have to explain that to Dudley.

Don't be an imbecile.

It sounds good, but I think it's an unrealistic expectation.

Dan Mc


The fact that the 1994 prediction was for Free Flight to be
implemented by 2001 seems to support that opinion.




--
Dudley Henriques

On Mar 24, 6:15 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Ah.motorcycle racing. Tried it once. I used to ride a lot and had quite
That was the end of my bike racing :-))

This is true of nealry every race sport -- You realize quickly that
the potential for harm is quite high, and Monday morning you need
functioning limbs to earn the $ to ride again.

I don't think you mean that we need to add to the ranks of the casual
pilot -- just ease the transition from "jus lookin" to pilot, right?

I little bit of both actually. We need new blood for sure, and the
transition into GA could be made more attractive.

-- Dudley Henriques

I agree that it could be made more attractive, but I think it would be
disingenuous to promise absolute safety, minimal training, and
immediate gratification (such as car driving).

The Cessna ads of the late 60s early 70s were bent this way. Even the
names "Skywagon" were meant to equate the airplane to the car.

We'll need total failsafe automation and complete dependence on it
before Joe Average flies with as little thought as we drive. I think
that's a combination of systems far beyond today's capabilities and
psychological assent far beyond what most will accede to today.

That said, In my very humble opinion -- The biggest problem with
primary flight training is the lack of money and focus -- so many FBOs
are run on a shoestring (or a loss) trying to run charter and a
school. The Big Schools are all focused on airline wannabes and
require moving to their location for an extended period of time.

The Cessna Pilot Center concept was a good one a while back, but in my
region it's gone the way of Sinclair gas. Plus, it was focused on
selling one brand of airplane. Not everyone wants to learn how to
drive at the Plymouth Car Center.

We haven't done a good job at providing an easily understood
transition from "I think I might want to do that" to new Private Pilot
in most FBOs. Caveat -- this is based on anecdotal evidence on a
limited sampling, but based on conversations with others, it's not so
unusual.

Consider what happens to the guy or girl that walks into the local FBO
-- Maybe someone is there, maybe not. If so "How can I help you?" is
offered, but the person doesn't even know how to reply, "Well, I'm
thinking about, maybe..."

"Private Pilot Training? Ok, you'll need to talk to Cal -- I'm a
double I."

"Oh yeah, umm.. ok."

"Come back Saturday -- Cal works all the discoveries and students."

"Discoveries? Students?" Our unlikely candidate thinks, "I'm a
successful XYZ -- here I'm a student?"

He/she then drives home and orders a Jet Ski.

In a car dealership, the guy in charge of trucks will walk you over or
-better yet -- page the guy in charge of cars and make sure you talk
to him/her.

Please -- before you flame .. I'm sure there are plenty of FBOs/Pilot
Schools that do it all perfectly.

But apparently they are the minority or we wouldn't have a shrinking
GA population.


Dan Mc

Dan wrote:
On Mar 24, 6:15 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Ah.motorcycle racing. Tried it once. I used to ride a lot and had quite
That was the end of my bike racing :-))

This is true of nealry every race sport -- You realize quickly that
the potential for harm is quite high, and Monday morning you need
functioning limbs to earn the $ to ride again.

I don't think you mean that we need to add to the ranks of the casual
pilot -- just ease the transition from "jus lookin" to pilot, right?

I little bit of both actually. We need new blood for sure, and the
transition into GA could be made more attractive.

-- Dudley Henriques

I agree that it could be made more attractive, but I think it would be
disingenuous to promise absolute safety, minimal training, and
immediate gratification (such as car driving).

The Cessna ads of the late 60s early 70s were bent this way. Even the
names "Skywagon" were meant to equate the airplane to the car.

We'll need total failsafe automation and complete dependence on it
before Joe Average flies with as little thought as we drive. I think
that's a combination of systems far beyond today's capabilities and
psychological assent far beyond what most will accede to today.

That said, In my very humble opinion -- The biggest problem with
primary flight training is the lack of money and focus -- so many FBOs
are run on a shoestring (or a loss) trying to run charter and a
school. The Big Schools are all focused on airline wannabes and
require moving to their location for an extended period of time.

The Cessna Pilot Center concept was a good one a while back, but in my
region it's gone the way of Sinclair gas. Plus, it was focused on
selling one brand of airplane. Not everyone wants to learn how to
drive at the Plymouth Car Center.

We haven't done a good job at providing an easily understood
transition from "I think I might want to do that" to new Private Pilot
in most FBOs. Caveat -- this is based on anecdotal evidence on a
limited sampling, but based on conversations with others, it's not so
unusual.

Consider what happens to the guy or girl that walks into the local FBO
-- Maybe someone is there, maybe not. If so "How can I help you?" is
offered, but the person doesn't even know how to reply, "Well, I'm
thinking about, maybe..."

"Private Pilot Training? Ok, you'll need to talk to Cal -- I'm a
double I."

"Oh yeah, umm.. ok."

"Come back Saturday -- Cal works all the discoveries and students."

"Discoveries? Students?" Our unlikely candidate thinks, "I'm a
successful XYZ -- here I'm a student?"

He/she then drives home and orders a Jet Ski.

In a car dealership, the guy in charge of trucks will walk you over or
-better yet -- page the guy in charge of cars and make sure you talk
to him/her.

Please -- before you flame .. I'm sure there are plenty of FBOs/Pilot
Schools that do it all perfectly.

But apparently they are the minority or we wouldn't have a shrinking
GA population.


Dan Mc
No need to flame. In fact what you are saying here is simply restating
what I've been saying.

I'm in no way even implying anything about "guarantees" in GA. What I
believe is needed is a revamping and cleanup of the way we handle the
part of the potential student market we are missing by the factors I
have mentioned and those you are mentioning as well.
What's needed is an added approach to the manuals issue, which I believe
Machado is addressing (filling a gap) and as you have said, a general
cleanup in the way business is conducted by the industry.





--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote in news:HuydnVcI-
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:34:32 -0700 (PDT), Dan
wrote:

On Mar 24, 7:01 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:47:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques

wrote:
GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If GA is
to
flourish in the future, it will have to attract more "average"
people
into it's ranks.
Isn't that the philosophy of NASA's Free Flight concept?
Most people are only comfortable flying along with a herd. Try
diverting the typical 737 load into the requisite 30 Bonanzas and
hear
the howls on the tarmac --" I have to fly in THAT!?"

You'll have to explain that to Dudley.

Don't be an imbecile.




Would you tell a bird not to fly?


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in news:HuydnVcI-
:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:34:32 -0700 (PDT), Dan
wrote:

On Mar 24, 7:01 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:47:35 -0400, Dudley Henriques

wrote:
GA was never meant for test pilots and engineers alone. If GA is
to
flourish in the future, it will have to attract more "average"
people
into it's ranks.
Isn't that the philosophy of NASA's Free Flight concept?
Most people are only comfortable flying along with a herd. Try
diverting the typical 737 load into the requisite 30 Bonanzas and
hear
the howls on the tarmac --" I have to fly in THAT!?"
You'll have to explain that to Dudley.
Don't be an imbecile.



Would you tell a bird not to fly?


Bertie

Being a stubborn character, I'd probably try, and most likely get the
same result :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...

Google search for (humor in teaching) reveals 2,040,000 hits. I didn't
read them all, but I believe all are positive.
Putting "humor in teaching" in quotes, reveals 11,400 hits, same result I
believe.


So what, a Google search for "home made dog ****" reveals 2,270,000 hits.

Talking bull**** reveals 275,000. Probably more applicable to your
situation.