Are we being too "friendly" with students?

[Colonel Sanders]

I don't think he should punch me in the stomach

Really? Has any flight instructor ever punched you
in the stomach? Perhaps it might drastically improve
your flying. You won't know unless you try it

In the context of the above, I have a hilarious off-colour
joke that was told to me in a bar in Key West, but I
dare not tell it here, because of delicate feelings which
are always getting hurt.

[Pop n Fresh]

That sounds like an idea my dad would come up with. Funny, he never really hit me. I was always good at dodging for a fat kid. Just suggested it might do me some good if someone did.

[Colonel Sanders]

You like the PM'd joke?

It can withstand a buildup, which is impressive.

[Pop n Fresh]

You should fly to Cut Bank Montana Thursday.

http://www.cutbankairport.org/montana-fun-weekend/

[Cat Driver]

Competence is viewed with suspicion, as another guise
of arrogance, which is the worst crime anyone can
commit - not crashing - in our politically correct world
of soccer games without scores, where everyone is
"special".

In another thread I started a discussion on high risk flying and used air show flying and ag flying as examples of two types of flying where competence counts.

Guess what, it was not long before the flying under wires when applying chemicals came up.

My position was clear, I was taught to pull up early and fly over the wires then to assure proper coverage of the crop we do a headland pass to cover the portion before the wires.

Another poster feels that flying under them is the best way.....

.....and in another post he said this.

One guy I was flying with had 7000 hours of spraying. 3 crashes. Walked away fine.
One because he inhaled his phitocyde trail on an oversteep turn, and the two others were wires I think.

My position is flying over the wires using a safe pull up margin means if you fly over them you can not hit them and crash.

From the above example ag flying has to be dangerous because in that example the airplane is crashed about every two thousand hours.

So maybe my method appears to be to cautious but I don't have to get a new airplane every two thousand hours and I could go through the whole season without interuption while waiting for a new airplane to replace the one I crashed.

But it gets better...

Another poster jumps in and makes this brilliant observation.

I think the level of danger of any flight is completely in the control of the pilot. You can make "safe" flying very dangerous and you can make "dangerous" flying pretty safe.

Exactly what I have been trying to point out in the discussion.


But then he makes this comment.

Personally I think talking about the "dangerousness" of any particular type of flying is mostly an exercise in dick measuring.......

So tell me Colonel, just because I believe in accurate flying and not getting outside the envelope which kept me from crashing...why is that dick measuring?

[Colonel Sanders]

It is my observation that people start talking
about their penises, when you start making
them feel bad about theirs, for some bizarre
reason.

It is more a reflection upon their psychology,
than yours, frankly.

I have no apologies for spending decades
developing competence, even if it makes
people feel bad about their penises, because
of the inherent lack of egalitarianism in my
life philosophy of the pursuit of excellence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome

Some sociologists, notably Max Weber, believe that in certain social groups, the acquisition of prestige and power is a zero-sum game, and this situation may provide a rationalization for the dislike of "tall poppies".

In such groups, there is only a limited amount of prestige for its members to share in and only a fixed quantity of attention, authority and material resources that its members can give to each other.

Status is a relative value, so for someone to rise in status, another person must fall. A person who is more prestigious is an obstacle to another person's rise simply by being more prestigious, and a person who suddenly rises is an outright threat to the other's current status.

Humiliating or sabotaging a popular member of the group will lower that person's status and thus make it possible for the aggressor to supplant him in the group hierarchy.

[Cat Driver]

Humiliating or sabotaging a popular member of the group will lower that person's status and thus make it possible for the aggressor to supplant him in the group hierarchy.

Therefore if I decided to bother myself with challenging such individuals to prove how big their dick is by showing me their accomplishments in aviation and how many large organizations hired them based on their having a bigger dick that would be a fair method of measuring?

[Shiny Side Up]

[Pop n Fresh]

Is this allegorical or whatever? Mine's little but I'm very proud of it.

Mike Caine said something at around 5:20 in this video clip made me think of one of the Colonel's catch phrases. "My advice, worth what you paid me for it."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1suYHk4-JmU

I disagree, the problem is that a high volume of advise might fit the category. Unfortunately sometimes that advise is actually charged out for. Sometimes you get free ones that are worth a fee.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Therefore if I decided to bother myself with challenging such individuals to prove how big their dick is by showing me their accomplishments in aviation and how many large organizations hired them based on their having a bigger dick that would be a fair method of measuring?

If that is a challenge to me then I am not interested because as you pointed out quite correctly the main purposed of "showing me their accomplishments" would in fact be more dick measuring.

The collective contribution I have made to Avcanada in my couple of thousand posts is ample to determine whether or not, I can walk the talk and therefore anything I say is worth reading. Constant repetition of my accomplishments should not be necessary to establish the value of anything I write.

I stand by my contention that discussing the relative "dangerousness" of one type of flying over another is a pointless exercise. You, like any other poster on Avcanada are of course free to disagree and/or disregard my comment but I will not retract it or apologize for it because I think it represents fair commentary.

[Pop n Fresh]

I think you underestimate how short the attention span is of Internet people. I noticed the effects on mine.
The constant repetition does not assure people will remember the next day but it probably helps.

[timel]

---------
To answer post on first page


I used to go out for a beer with my students after a late theory ground school class. And we had real fun.
Most private pilots who learn to fly want to have fun too.

Few of them are now commercial pilots, and I work with two of them. One was even my captain at some point.

But when as an instructor it came to kicking some butts, becoming strict in flight, being friendly didn't stop me from making my job, actually if I really appreciated them, than I just wanted more than everything them to be excellent.

Know what, this is real life in a cockpit. Being a friend doesn't mean you have to stop to be a professional.

Bill your time fairly. No shame about that.
Just don't fall in love with your blond student

[Big Pistons Forever]

---------

Just don't fall in love with your blond student

Too Late !

[eh3fifty]

...my
life philosophy of the pursuit of excellence.

What about that one misty August day in 2001?

I stand by my contention that discussing the relative "dangerousness" of one type of flying over another is a pointless exercise.

I agree that it's usually pointless if you are discussing with inexperienced and/or immature people. However, discussing the matter with experienced and mature people generally ends up coming to a positive conclusion without the dick measuring. It's more about who's involved in the discussion than about what topic the discussion is on.

[Colonel Sanders]

one misty August day in 2001?

A fabulous bit of flying, if I do say so myself.

You were there, I presume?

40 years of some pretty interesting flying of
some pretty interesting airplanes in some
pretty interesting places, and not one ding.

The Convergence of the Central Limit Theorem applies.

[eh3fifty]

I wasn't there unfortunately but I heard all about it and read a 28 page report on it!

I'll PM you.

[Colonel Sanders]

28 pages? You didn't scratch the surface. By
the time we were through the Tribunal, Tribunal
Review, Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeals,
there were several linear feet of documents, and
a really bad precedent set by Transport concerning
the applicability of Double Jeopardy to Administrative
Law. Fortunately they were not able to outlaw all
aerobatics below 18,000 feet, as they attempted.

A trip through the Looking Glass, indeed.