CDNPilotDave
Well-Known Member
First off, great topic. If I interpret your question correctly, I think that you are asking whether old school, low tech flying is a better route to take. Succeeding at the most challenging task using the most primitive of tools likely means one has mastered the task. Being a pilot is so much more than that. Don't get me wrong, if I was choosing teammates for the schoolyard pickup team, Mr. Stick/Rudder/Shortfield would be snapped up early. I think that what comprises quality training is substantially more than stick, rudder and short fields. My view of training is that the quality of a pilot is directly proportional to that pilot's undersanding and mastery of a combination of 1) Rules, Regs and Procedures (FAR/AIM) 2) Weather 3) Human Phsyiology 4) Communications 5) Aerodynamics 6) Aircraft Systems. To a greater or lesser extent each aspect will play a role at any one point in a flight. My goal when training students is to get them to appreciate all areas and be able to problem solve.
Back in the day when I attended public school, there were no calculators. I wore out many a pencil making calculations but learned arithmetic very well, probably better than most. To this day I do a lot of calculations in my head. When I was studying for my degree, most of my peers were younger than I, and well versed with technology. They had grown up in an era with computers. They had no need for times tables and derivations from basic principles. They got the job done without the stick and rudder skills. Probably better than did I. Who was better? In many was, the younger, technically exposed were. However, I would rather be the more well rounded. Being really good at only one thing pretty much limits you to that one thing. I prefer the broader knowledge base.
If there is one and only one thing, when it comes to landing, IMO (and subsequently the way I teach) is that airspeed is king. The less floating you do, waiting to bleed off airspeed, the less runway you waste time floating above.
Back in the day when I attended public school, there were no calculators. I wore out many a pencil making calculations but learned arithmetic very well, probably better than most. To this day I do a lot of calculations in my head. When I was studying for my degree, most of my peers were younger than I, and well versed with technology. They had grown up in an era with computers. They had no need for times tables and derivations from basic principles. They got the job done without the stick and rudder skills. Probably better than did I. Who was better? In many was, the younger, technically exposed were. However, I would rather be the more well rounded. Being really good at only one thing pretty much limits you to that one thing. I prefer the broader knowledge base.
If there is one and only one thing, when it comes to landing, IMO (and subsequently the way I teach) is that airspeed is king. The less floating you do, waiting to bleed off airspeed, the less runway you waste time floating above.