Message-ID: <3643048F.7307@ibm.net>
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 1998 08:15:43 -0600
From: Snowbird <snbird@ibm.net>
Reply-To: snbird@ibm.net
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: A much better day
References: <3640f32a.0@news.map.com> <3641BED5.67BB@pop.a001.sprintmail.com> <3641dc39.0@news.map.com> <m1n67cterbc.fsf@fardm2.boston.deshaw.com> <364228f3.0@news.map.com> <52CB0CF71611D3CB.FD70354C6A7D6D5E.CDF37F85F60D4482@library-proxy.airnews.net> <36425004.0@news.map.com> <421EA34473EE1BA5.08FF7B9D7E5EC1B5.795B4864CC57FD35@library-proxy.airnews.net> <36427b3a.0@news.map.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.101.53.125
X-Trace: 6 Nov 1998 14:25:23 GMT, 32.101.53.125
Organization: IBM.NET
Lines: 143
X-Notice: Items posted that violate the IBM.NET Acceptable Use Policy
X-Notice: should be reported to postmaster@ibm.net
X-Complaints-To: postmaster@ibm.net
Path: news.jprc.com!newsfeed.sgi.net!feeder.qis.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!165.87.194.242!newsm2.ibm.net!ibm.net!news1.ibm.net!32.101.53.125
Xref: news.jprc.com rec.aviation.student:37864

Mike Regish wrote:

Look, Mike.  You are clearly not the sort of guy who is content
to walk into the flight school and hand over your head to the CFI
saying "do what you will, just make me a pilot at the end".  OK.

That being the case, the bottom line is this.  Wherever you really are
in your skill, your CFI ought to have a coherent plan for your
training, a distinct idea of what level of skill he wants to
see before solo, and he ought to be able to tell *you* precisely
what these are and exactly what changes/improvements he wants
to see before you solo.  He ought to tell you at the end of one
lesson what went good, what needed improvement, and what, wx
permitting, you will work on next time.  He ought to review with
you before the lesson what maneuvers you will be practicing and
what standards he wants to see so that it will be clearer to you
at the end where your performance differed.

I think others have told you before, if this isn't happening
don't blame your CFI, make it clear that you want this and are
willing to pay for it in ground time.  If it doesn't happen *after
you ask*, or if your CFI can not articulate his plan for your 
training and what skill level he wants to see before solo, then
KwitcherBeefing and put that energy into finding another CFI who
will, because while it works for some people having things 
undefined is clearly not working at all *for you*.

> My first lesson that included a series of landings with my 
> current CFI was at 8 hours, yet I did my first landing with another 
> CFI at night at 2.6 hours. I did MCA for the first time that night 
> and flew around in the dark doing turns in both directions with the 
> stall horn steadily buzzing away. I did power on and power off stalls > in the dark with less than 3 hours under my belt in the dark. I 
> thought that was pretty good, but maybe that's just easy for 
> everybody. I don't know. What do you think?

Mike, the problem is it's really not what you did when but how
you did it.  I, too did MCA and power on stalls very early in
my training (I believe my second or third hour), while my CFI
sat there and let me have the plane.  But I was not "master of 
the maneuver" possessing the kind of fine control and instinctive
response to the plane's behavior which my CFI wanted to see, for 
many more hours.  The only person who can assess where you were 
(and thus what it means) is the CFI who was with you.  All the rest
of us can tell is that it didn't scare you and you were happy with
how it went.

> It seems to me from reading this newsgroup that most people are
> starting landings much sooner and spending a lot more time on them. 
> It seems to me that there is no good reason for me not to have been 
> doing that too.

IMO (and I'm not a CFI) there is really not too much point in
working on landings until the student is master of the plane,
with understanding of how power and pitch affect airspeed and
glide path and the ability to change airspeed and control glidepath
readily.  One can work on these things a lot more intensively
outside the pattern.  Once those things are mastered, then it makes
sense to work on landings.

But in addition, depending upon the training environment some
CFIs want their students to be a lot further than "able to land
safely" before solo.  They want them to be able to navigate well
enough to stay out of nearby class B airspace with 100% confidence,
able to talk on the radio well enough to translate and respond
appropriately to ATC instructions with extra capacity left over
to fly the plane, able to fly every pattern entry which ATC is
likely to request to a safe landing.

In which case, it makes just as much sense to work on these 
things as well as working on landings.  I'm not even sure it adds
all that many hours, as all these things must be mastered at some
point.  

Many people who solo in 10 hrs or so seem to do a lot of dual
instruction afterwards to "fill in the gaps" which occurred while
they were focused on learning to land in the minimum time.

Others seem to get their license quickly without knowing a lot
of things I think they should, to keep flying safely without
further instruction.

> My estimation of 50 hours was based strictly on what the national 
> average 

???? AFAIK, the national average is somewhere in the mid-sixties.
It sounds as though you made up your mind you would be able to
get your license in 25% less time than the average and are upset
because your CFI (who flies with you) doesn't see it the same way.
That's not a priori reasonable, and that's what people are trying
to tell you.  I don't think most CFIs have a "program" they expect
their students to fit.

> Every general test I've ever taken I've scored in the high 90's 
> percentile wise so I think the low end of the national average is a 
> fair estimate.

The problem is, Mike, learning to fly is just NOT like taking a test.
I'm a brilliant test-taker; I didn't meet my spouse at the meeting
where Wendy Farlee did, but my work has been exhibited prominently
at the same meeting.  So what.

It doesn't mean squat for learning to fly.  Learning to fly is about
combining mental understanding with physical skill to the level where
the execution becomes what I believe psychologists call "an automatic
process".  The best analogy I know is that flying is like playing the
guitar; it's not enough to be able to read music and know where to put
your fingers, it has to be practiced until the eyes see the notes on 
the page and the fingers go do the right thing without any intervening
conscious thought.  Then real music has the chance to emerge.

I believe everyone can learn to play music, but the amount of time
it takes is not going to be predicted by scores on tests. 

Flying same thing.  Our armed forces carefully screen for people
who can achieve this physical/mental coordination in the minimum time
(and I don't think they're necessarily the whizziest test takers) then
throw out anyone who doesn't make the grade, that's how their training
hours are low.  In war time they were even lower because they viewed
the high rate of training accidents as CODB.

> Have you also considered my hang glider adn ultralight experience? 
> I know a lot of "real" pilots tend to look down at those not counting > for squat.

It's not a matter of "look down" (or shouldn't be) but a matter that
I think many student pilots who have had this experience EXPECT it
to make a huge difference to their power piloting, expect that it
will automatically mean they can learn to fly in less time, and it does
not always do so.  I think sometimes it interferes because the student
isn't listening with a whole heart and full attention to things "I
already know".  When it does help it's great but sometimes it hinders.

Frankly, I'm not entirely sure why I'm writing this.  I think you have
really gotten some excellent advice, including most of what I've said
phrased in other ways, and you're choosing to dismiss it as showing
"complete disregard for significant parts" when the truth is, it's
not disgregard, it's experience that suggests factors you regard as
important may not really matter that much in how flight training
progresses.  You say many students are writing to express their 
similar frustrations in email to you, I guess I hope some of them might 
consider these points.

Snowbird

