Learning to fly, or thinking of learning? Post your questions, comments and experiences here

Moderator: AndyR

By Bathman
#1758042
While we are knocking the PPL TK exams which are truly truly awful.

I say cast an eye in the IMC exams they are much better.

Yet the former is supposed to be progress.
User avatar
By seanxair
#1758054
WaxMax45 wrote:
seanxair wrote:I have a copy available to borrow if anyone would like it

ME PLEASE


Well, I've started it again but pm me your details and I will send it on if and when I get to the end of it!
By MarkOlding
#1758471
Interesting - it seems 50/50 if you like the book or don't. I'm on the dislike side and as has been said before it's all down to the way it's written - can't get on with it and ended up skimming the chapters.
I wonder if it's down to the differing ways people learn, some respond to words, others diagrams etc.
Either way, people agree the message is good but it gets lost in translation....
User avatar
By rf3flyer
#1758488
[Speculation]Yes, the writing is unusual now but I read it decades ago before I learned to fly. Many, maybe all of you, are coming to it having learned to fly so perhaps that's the problem. It's telling you things you already know, or think you know, and have no patience for the dated and quirky style.

Prompted by this thread I went back to it and I think I would struggle with it now, but it's still valuable and arguably a 'classic'.
[/speculation]
MarkOlding liked this
By PaulB
#1758495
scd975 wrote:Because the set of questions from which the exams are drawn should be considerably wider than the fixed set that we have had since 2014. That should drive a requirement for a deeper and broader appreciation of the subject being examined.


... but aren't they still going to be MCQ and will therefore become a known set that question banks can add to their files.
T6Harvard liked this
By scd975
#1758605
PaulB wrote:
scd975 wrote:Because the set of questions from which the exams are drawn should be considerably wider than the fixed set that we have had since 2014. That should drive a requirement for a deeper and broader appreciation of the subject being examined.


... but aren't they still going to be MCQ and will therefore become a known set that question banks can add to their files.


Not if they keep on adding to the question bank as they have been (I believe) for ATPLs. That should keep the question bank ahead of the game.
User avatar
By David Wood
#1759032
LD1Racing wrote:
Also worth a look is av8n.com. Like 'Stick and Rudder' a lot of emphasis on AoA (there is no stall speed, just a stall AoA etc.). Some really helpful content there, explained in a slightly unconventional manner.


I hadn't seen that website (shows how much I know, huh?) and it is very interesting. I like it. As you say, it covers much of the same content but in a slightly more digestible manner. Thank you.
T6Harvard liked this
By T6Harvard
#1759214
Thanks LD1Racing, that website is very interesting!

I'm hard at it with Pooleys :D

Did some initial studying last Sept, Air Law and Human Performance, but only picked books up again just before my first lesson in early March, and stuck to Principles of Flight for obvs reasons!

Results today on practice questions indicate that I have embedded a fair amount of Air Law and pretty much all of HP. I did the tests without revising to see what I had retained. I shall now re-read and make revision notes to crystalise.

I know I need to go over some aspects of the principles of flight because although I understand what I read when I read it, I don't feel able to explain it to someone else yet!
By Crash one
#1763700
Another book I found very useful is “The Compleat Taildragger Pilot” by Harvey S Plourde.
Many of the techniques used on taildraggers make nosewheel landings a lot easier!
rf3flyer, JAFO liked this