ct-8003-ms

I agree completely - I wasn't trying to say one method was better than the other. What I believe though, is that the theoretical process is more readily absorbed along with the experiential. My problem with my own training the quagmire of jargon and acronyms that got in the way of learning. What I remember most clearly was realising what a lot of the information about during circuit training. For instance, it's probably a lot easier for a novice to understand the prop reaction on take-off through the use of stick and rudder. There's a reaction to be countered ... the explanation then seems to me to be a relatively simple matter.

There was research done some years ago with driver training. They took two groups of novices. One was put into a classroom environment while the other was put directly into vehicles in a flat paddock and told to drive. The first group took an average (if I remember correctly) of about 12 hours to learn to drive while the second took two. In other words, practical experience is absolutely critical to learning. It makes sense of the theory which is cumbersome and convoluted in aviation. Interesting that some medical schools also inverted their courses so that the early years were more focussed on clinical work with more of the theoretical occurring in later years.

I agree completely. I've always used Lexan visors. Apart from the strength and resilience of the material, it's also a lot more scratch resistant. It's a great polycarbonate material.

I had a close encounter with a wedgie at 4500 over the midwest of WA. It was a pleasant, cruisie sort of day when I noticed an annoying spot on my clean windscreen. Suddenly it became very large. It realised what I was about the same time I recognised what he/she was. We both screamed. Wings and feathers went everywhere. We missed.