Malibuflyer wrote:
Met is actually a good example. Yes, with a lot of theoretical knowledge you can undertstand a lot of it. And there are different levels of theoretical understanding that can all help.
It strongly depends what field in meteorology you are looking at. Theoretical meteorology basically is atmospheric physics. Practical meteorology is a part of geography, at least in many study fields. So who ever wants to go into modelling, radar or satellite science, develop tools e.t.c. would normally come from atmospheric physics. Operational forecasters usually come from geography with atmospheric physics on a subject level. Up to a few years ago, when WMO decided that you do need a degree to be a forecaster, quite a lot also came from other branches such as former pilots or similar who gain basics as part of their job and then get trained to be forecasters or, today, observers. When you actually start at a weather service, whatever studies you have will be augmented by internal schooling. DWD runs their own weather school, so does the British and French weather services.
When I entered the service from the aviation side of things, my basics were ATPL level meteorology and flight dispatch experience. With 3 others I got trained a full year on observation and forecasting/briefing before we could work independently. Nowadays, only people with at least a BA in one of the above mentioned fields can even apply or work in a weather service on a forecaster level.
Malibuflyer wrote:
On the other hand: Some of the by far best meteorologists I ever met are old local farmers who hardly passed elementary school but could by just looking at the sky (and observing the weather for the last couple of days exactly tell you how the weather tomorrow is gonna be.
Weather observation is or rather should be a vital part in meteorology training. Generally, the idea is that you start as an observer before moving on to forecasting. The people you mention used to be sought after as observers for weather services. Many who joined would then receive training to cover just the subjects you mention. Today, basic met is also taught at schools already. Understanding very basic weather patterns, fronts and similar will make them really good forecasters too in their own right, only that the WMO’s insistence that you need a BA (in some services even a Masters) to be considered as forecaster prevent them from entering weather services. I recall a guy who is retired now who was originally a farmer before entering meteorology. He was exactly the kind of type you mention, but highly trained and experienced.
As for teaching, this does require a different kind of gift which by far not all instructors and teachers have. It is one thing to know something, it is a totally different thing teaching it. Particularly in Meteorology it is vital to have someone who understands weather not just as a theoretical thing but a very practical and pragmatic thing. You can explain fronts so that people will know it is a red, blue or pink line on a weather map but have no clue what to expect when one rolls in, you can explain it using the hand model or cross sections and you can explain it using examples… just to give some examples. Way too many people can not apply those things practically, hence we keep getting accidents where people fly into the ground after running foul of a warm front or get torn apart in convection in a cold front… Or they “know” in theory but don’t make the right connections when looking out of the window…
For us pilots, the things which make our lifes easier are several. Apart from basic understanding of the atmosphere, for practical application I find it very important to understand cross sections of fronts to know what to expect in what situation. It is also useful to know some of the typical weather situations for your area, here in Switzerland for instance we have a great booklet for this in German which is quite useful as a start. Lots of additonal stuff is much easier to understand once you got those basics nailed and also understand that there are huge geographical differences on what implications of different type of weather is.
Malibuflyer wrote:
Same with almost all part of flying: Yes, there is a theoretic way to learn much of it – and then it comes to coding convention of some information you have to – but for the vast majority of skills there is also an intuitive approach.
I agree. Almost with everything it is like this, not only flying. Get the basics right and you can learn a lot of stuff for your self.
gallois wrote:
I don’t believe flying is a talent. I think it is an aptitude.
What’s the difference between talent and aptitude? To me they mean the same thing.
It used to be, before EASA, that here your medical certificate was signed and stamped with the word " apte "
Using the word apt for an opera diva would be a bit strange .
In other words you have an aptitude for doing something, maybe you doing it well does not mean you are talented at it.
Or just because you can do it does not mean that you are special.
This discussion has delved into various aspects of flying; some of which can be quite technical. But this reflects what various people (pilots) are interested in.
Lets be honest. It doesn’t take much (if any) education to fly an aircraft. They are designed to practically fly themselves. With the right trim setting an absolute beginner can fly a circuit with one power advancement (take off) a continuous turn, and one power reduction, and a slight flare at the end. None of my friends have had the least bit of trouble ‘flying’ an aircraft. They might have been slightly bit intimidated by the initially unfamiliar environment, but quickly catch on. I used to teach sailing to children (as young as 10), flying is certainly no harder than that. Unfortunately an aircraft crash is a bit unforgiving compared to a dingy capsize.
The system around flying has made itself unnecessarily complicated… blah, blah, you need a perpendicular crosswind turn, hold the right pattern attitude, make the radio calls. None of this is actually necessary, but has been artificially created by the system.
Now if you want to be a competition aerobatics pilot, you are going to have to train yourself to fly aerobatics. The same goes for instrument flying. Or being an airline pilot. Or a test pilot. How technical do you want to get? How deep is the rabbit hole?
If you want to fly in the UK you are going to need another set of skills (getting and keeping a licence 
). I think that people like to ‘big up’ being a pilot because they are a bit machoistic, I suffered through the 14 ATPL exams, so I am ‘hot shit’. But really, most light GA planes are so easy to fly, I usually compare it to keeping a car between the lines on a motorway, easy peasy lemon squeezy!
Interesting discussion. In terms of formal education, all a pilot needs is enough to pass the written and oral. If he/she wants to stay alive for a while, some basic understanding of aerodynamics is a good idea. If all you want to do is bimble around between nearby untowered fields on nice days, you can pretty much forget everything else you had to learn. If you want to be airline captain, it’s harder – my AF captain friend said it was four weeks of intense ground school to get her A340 rating.
I quite like the fact that I understand calculus or chemistry or software engineering, but they sure don’t make me a better pilot. Reading/writing/’rithmetic are you all you really need.
But it does take a reasonable level of common sense and logical thinking, both to pass the exams and to stay alive. In today’s world most people with those will have a pretty decent education, though they may have forgotten most of it. It also takes cash, and unless you inherit, getting it will require similar qualities.
My friend Bill reckons that since the FAA isn’t allowed to give actual IQ tests, things like the three different definitions of night and when they apply are an intentional substitute.
My 2¢…
or software engineering, but they sure don’t make me a better pilot.
I bet they help in understanding the user interface “paradigms”
things like the three different definitions of night and when they apply are an intentional substitute.
That’s hilarious!
How “educated” is a 13 years old boy or girl who learns to fly a glider, and may do so alone aged 14?
What you need is the right correlation in between time and money if you want to do it for fun.
Regarding the commercial pilot exams all sounds like more systems and complexity, but in the end you get a lot of multiple choice exams. You don’t need to understand all that stuff in order to pass the exam. The art of flying is to understand the “standards”, and to do the handling precisely as defined by the contractor…you don’t need a top notch IQ to work on a checklist.Canuck wrote:
The system around flying has made itself unnecessarily complicated… blah, blah, you need a perpendicular crosswind turn, hold the right pattern attitude, make the radio calls. None of this is actually necessary, but has been artificially created by the system.
This is the age old issue for flying in Europe: people believe its for an elite, so the ATC system, airspace and bureaucracy is free to evolve to make it so. A self fulfilling prophesy in an ‘advanced’ state of fulfillment. It’s just layers of pointless nonsense so thick that it seems a lot of people can’t even imagine life without it.
I haven’t personally found avionics programming etc to be particularly difficult, but I think the user interfaces are typically designed by incompetents, and the avionics manufacturers often attempt to manipulate their customers. I find it not so much difficult as annoying, and I don’t spend my free time and money on annoying activities. Happily in the US you can fly almost anywhere without a lot of nonsense in either planning, procedures or equipment. ADS-B OUT was a pain in the behind but once installed requires essentially zero attention. My goal is to minimize the equipment in my plane in every way that it can reasonably be minimized – and to use the plane to go places whenever and wherever I want. The two are not incompatible especially if you select a place to live where weather is not a major issue.
I find aerobatics does take a fair bit of theoretical understanding, there are often a lot of physical effects in play at once in a given maneuver…. not that I’m good enough at any of them to comment with any authority. Descriptions from those who are good enough are really interesting, obviously making the complex look easy involves both understanding and practice.
Let us recall while the old world Europeans were grappling with fluid dynamics, a couple of bicycle mechanics had the practical common sense to spend hours on their home made wind tunnel and came up with the first aeroplane.
