Rod Machado's New PPL Manual

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:52:16 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

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.


No need to take offence; I didn't mean that the way it may have
sounded.

Dan was telling me why he didn't think NASA's Free Flight concept was
viable, although I didn't say I believed it to be. As it was you who
apparently believed in the desirability to attract more student pilots
to GA who are uncomfortable with the systems engineering approach
required to effectively navigate within the NAS, so he should have
addressed his comment to you who may or may not believe NASA's Free
Flight concept to be capable of causing GA to "flourish in the
future."

I should have been clearer.

Personally, I can see that if GA is to continue to exist in the face
of the current opposing head wind posed by the airlines, DHS, and
those who would privatize ATC, it's imperative that GA's political
clout be strong. Despite that necessity, I seriously doubt that
"Soccer Mom's" and their ilk would be welcomed with open arms by the
current users of the NAS. It seems to me, that given the specific and
immediate demands involved in flying, an individual uncomfortable with
the absolutes involved in engineering would not do very well despite
successfully earning an airmans certificate due to a "dummed down"
training syllabus unless technological aids (al la Free Flight, etc.)
are provided. That's my opinion; of course you are free to disagree.

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:57:50 -0700 (PDT), Dan
wrote:

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.

I don't see the down turn in new students as a result of the failure
of flight schools to attract unsuitable students. I believe it's the
result of the high cost of training and operating, the continual
necessity for ongoing currency flights, the less than perfect utility
offered by GA, and the enormous time commitment demanded. Time,
money, and price performance ratio are paramount; overwhelming desire
to ply the skies is imperative, IMO.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:57:50 -0700 (PDT), Dan
wrote:

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.

I don't see the down turn in new students as a result of the failure
of flight schools to attract unsuitable students. I believe it's the
result of the high cost of training and operating, the continual
necessity for ongoing currency flights, the less than perfect utility
offered by GA, and the enormous time commitment demanded. Time,
money, and price performance ratio are paramount; overwhelming desire
to ply the skies is imperative, IMO.

All of these points are pertinent. There are as well HUGE issues
concerning the manner in which many flight schools and instructors
integrate with new students. Much could be done to improve the general
business model.

--
Dudley Henriques

On Mar 25, 1:45*pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:


Unfortunately, this seems to imply that it is YOU, who are full of "home
made dog ****" :-))


I don't see anything unfortunate in that...

Cheers

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:52:16 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

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.

No need to take offence; I didn't mean that the way it may have
sounded.

Dan was telling me why he didn't think NASA's Free Flight concept was
viable, although I didn't say I believed it to be. As it was you who
apparently believed in the desirability to attract more student pilots
to GA who are uncomfortable with the systems engineering approach
required to effectively navigate within the NAS, so he should have
addressed his comment to you who may or may not believe NASA's Free
Flight concept to be capable of causing GA to "flourish in the
future."

I should have been clearer.

Personally, I can see that if GA is to continue to exist in the face
of the current opposing head wind posed by the airlines, DHS, and
those who would privatize ATC, it's imperative that GA's political
clout be strong. Despite that necessity, I seriously doubt that
"Soccer Mom's" and their ilk would be welcomed with open arms by the
current users of the NAS. It seems to me, that given the specific and
immediate demands involved in flying, an individual uncomfortable with
the absolutes involved in engineering would not do very well despite
successfully earning an airmans certificate due to a "dummed down"
training syllabus unless technological aids (al la Free Flight, etc.)
are provided. That's my opinion; of course you are free to disagree.


I don't disagree. All these points are pertinent. My concerns are for
the purpose of this discussion not addressing the macro situation which
could fill a book with opinion back and forth. My comments in this
thread only concern training manuals and their interface with new
students. The rest has been thread creep.

--
Dudley Henriques

WingFlaps wrote:
On Mar 25, 1:45 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Unfortunately, this seems to imply that it is YOU, who are full of "home
made dog ****" :-))


I don't see anything unfortunate in that...

Cheers

Existential.

--
Dudley Henriques

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:39:20 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

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 :-)


Given the failure of NASA's Free Flight concept to produce tangible
results, I'd have to agree.

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.

I understand your reasoning for that opinion, but I believe it
overlooks a few salient facts. The NAS is, by design, an engineered
system. Those who are uncomfortable dealing with the specifics and
absolutes of engineering and engineered systems are probably
unqualified to operate in that environment, and shouldn't get involved
with it. The dedication and commitment required to remain current,
and the fundamental change in attitude necessary to responsibly
command a flight demand a certain "fire in the belly" toward being an
airman. The financial, time commitment, and negative marketing
obstacles serve to test that desire, and weed out those would be
flight students who lack the required commitment to succeed at
becoming a competent pilot, not merely a certificate holder.

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:39:20 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

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 :-)


Given the failure of NASA's Free Flight concept to produce tangible
results, I'd have to agree.

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.

I understand your reasoning for that opinion, but I believe it
overlooks a few salient facts. The NAS is, by design, an engineered
system. Those who are uncomfortable dealing with the specifics and
absolutes of engineering and engineered systems are probably
unqualified to operate in that environment, and shouldn't get involved
with it. The dedication and commitment required to remain current,
and the fundamental change in attitude necessary to responsibly
command a flight demand a certain "fire in the belly" toward being an
airman. The financial, time commitment, and negative marketing
obstacles serve to test that desire, and weed out those would be
flight students who lack the required commitment to succeed at
becoming a competent pilot, not merely a certificate holder.

That's pure unadulterated bull hockey. I've spent over 50 years involved
in the flight instruction business and I know it fairly well. Given the
right instructor, there's absolutely no reason in the world that would
preclude anyone with normal intelligence and in average physical
condition from learning to fly and fly well; system or no system.
All this "engineering crap is just that...crap; and the pilots who
spread this crap are in part guilty of discouraging people from entering
aviation.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to fly an airplane. My students
have ranged from airline pilots to a guy who used to own the deli down
the street. All were entirely competent and understood the material
quite well; and all went flawlessly through the "system".


--
Dudley Henriques

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 06:46:11 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:39:20 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

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 :-)


Given the failure of NASA's Free Flight concept to produce tangible
results, I'd have to agree.

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.

I understand your reasoning for that opinion, but I believe it
overlooks a few salient facts. The NAS is, by design, an engineered
system. Those who are uncomfortable dealing with the specifics and
absolutes of engineering and engineered systems are probably
unqualified to operate in that environment, and shouldn't get involved
with it. The dedication and commitment required to remain current,
and the fundamental change in attitude necessary to responsibly
command a flight demand a certain "fire in the belly" toward being an
airman. The financial, time commitment, and negative marketing
obstacles serve to test that desire, and weed out those would be
flight students who lack the required commitment to succeed at
becoming a competent pilot, not merely a certificate holder.

That's pure unadulterated bull hockey. I've spent over 50 years involved
in the flight instruction business and I know it fairly well. Given the
right instructor, there's absolutely no reason in the world that would
preclude anyone with normal intelligence and in average physical
condition from learning to fly and fly well; system or no system.
All this "engineering crap is just that...crap; and the pilots who
spread this crap are in part guilty of discouraging people from entering
aviation.

Granted, I don't have the breadth of knowledge on the subject of
natural aptitude for airmanship and the depth of personal experience
you claim, but in my limited time of 38 years as an airman I've seen
several students fail to complete their flight instruction due to
either what I perceive as (probably well deserved) self-doubt in their
ability perform adequately in the NAS, or the lack of adequate funds
and time. Those students had no difficulty mastering the flight
lessons, they simply weren't able to meet the demands required for
being a pilot. Those whose financial and time circumstances may
pursue flight training at a later date. Those who recognized the
unsuitability of their individual personality mix for commanding a
flight moved on toward other "hobbies" like golf.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to fly an airplane.

All who fly airplanes are not qualified to command a flight.

My students have ranged from airline pilots to a guy who used to
own the deli down the street. All were entirely competent and
understood the material quite well; and all went flawlessly
through the "system".

Although I find it difficult to believe, that in 50 years you have
never encountered a flight student who was unsuitable for the role of
airman, I firmly believe that there are many of our fellow citizens
who are not so suited. I believe the dilatant has no place in the
sky. To attract that sort of person to flight training, without
benefit of some technical enhancement (GPS, Capstone, etc.) does them,
and current airmen, a disservice. The current demands of competent
airmanship must be reduced if the inept and ill suited are to be
accommodated, IMO. It's not just a matter of making it easy for them
to comprehend the syllabus materials if such results in them merely
becoming certificate holders.

On Mar 25, 4:46*am, Dudley Henriques wrote:

I've spent over 50 years involved
in the flight instruction business

No kidding, you only mention this in every other post you make...