Originally Posted by
The name is Porter
One thing, the longer it goes, the more 'big words' you use. Must be running out of/losing the argument.
Brilliant. Its not your dogged and deliberate avoidance of answering the questions posed to you, or remaining on topic. Its my use of words up to and including three entire syllables! You know, the same number as that found within the word "Po-ta-to".
Give yourself a clap.
I'm fairly sure sesame street has a forum you can join, no doubt Elmo would employ prose more appropriate to your level.
Originally Posted by
The name is Porter
What it comes down to; The FAA Handbook does NOT prepare a future instructor for teaching a person to fly.
Well hold on. Does it have some good stuff in it or not?
Originally Posted by The name is Porter
The FAA handbook is handy, it has some great material in it
If its not handy for helping prepare an instructor for teaching, then what did you mean when you said the above?
Originally Posted by
The name is Porter
Placing this obstacle in a Grade 3's path has no worth whatsoever.
Nothing more than an assertion. Whom to believe? The system employed by not just our regulator but dozens around the world, including the place that invented aviation in the first place? Or you, who thinks 'potato' is too complicated?
Originally Posted by
The name is Porter
If you truly want to have 'teachers' teaching people how to fly (and I wouldn't object to this) then set tertiary education as the start and a DipEd as the Grade 1 standard.
Ok. Write your local member.
Originally Posted by
The name is Porter
But no, we'll just do an arse pluck, we won't look at contemporary learning methods, we'll take the lazy way out, we'll use a text that we had no input to (after all, Australian Aviators are the world's greatest) and we'll peddle it as a cure all for declining instructor standards.
If Australian aviators are the best in the world, wouldn't it follow that they would then wish to modify the US text, as we have ICAO standards to the Nth degree x infinity? Regardless, I see no claim by CASA or anyone else that the PIRC exam is intended to serve as a 'cure-all' for anything. Simply a part of the process, a building block no different to any other.
Originally Posted by
The name is Porter
Best of all, we'll have 'flow through' instructors, people who have no intention of making a career out of instruction, running off to the shiny jet, becoming experts in Flight Instruction. Whingers who couldn't give a fat rats clacker about the student, so long as the 500 hours ME Command hits the log book.
Pretty sure we've had those for as long as there has been instructing. Indeed, I put it to you that the vast majority of pilots who become instructors do so as a stepping stone into other operations. Nothing has changed here. If you wished to limit the field to career instructors only, you'd have about 5 people left in the country. Hyperbole (Definition
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...lish/hyperbole here) obviously, but the point stands.
Originally Posted by
The name is Porter
There are instructors making good money in GA now. You must not have met the standard, that doesn't surprise me.
Well you've certainly cut to the heart of the matter. The Airlines are simply awash with GA dropouts who just couldn't cut the mustard. I still have nightmares about effects of controls now, decades later.. The secondary effect of roll?! How will I ever understand?!