Does Flight Training have a Psychological Aspect to it?

[N918KT]

Is it true that when learning to fly, there is a psychological aspect or component to it? I think I heard Rod Machado mentioned one time that he learned a couple years worth of psychology or something like that when he is a CFI.

 

[furiousphoen1x]

More than you can know. all CFi applicants have to cover the fundamentals of instruction. Basically, how do students learn, why do they learn, and what separates good teachers from terrible ones.

A specific example of what you learn by teaching students is all rooted in Defense Mechanisms.


Now when my wife throws a fit about something around the house, I just point out she's exhibiting some defense mechanisms to protect her ego and that displacement isn't heathy for her.


The other bed sure is comfy!!!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[AggieMike88]

Not sure what you're aiming for with your quesstion.

Does it provide a mental challenge and a reward for a good job well done? Very much yes.

Does it help provide confidence in what one can do and one's abilities? Again, Very much yes.

Does it humble you to learn how much you don't know and what needs to be learned to improve your knowledge, skills, and confidence? Very Very VERY much yes.

 

[AggieMike88]

Careful FP, you might need to go shopping for that cot to put into the hangar.

 

[bobmrg]

Is it true that when learning to fly, there is a psychological aspect or component to it? I think I heard Rod Machado mentioned one time that he learned a couple years worth of psychology or something like that when he is a CFI.

Rod Machado is a psychologist by training...that is what makes him such a great communicator. I don't know that he ever went into practice as a psychologist because his CFI shtick has made him a wealthy man whom I respect.

Bob Gardner

 

[JimNtexas]

The FAA seems to think so. I'm studying for the #$!@###! fundamentals of instruction test right now. I'm not having fun.

The concepts the test covers are very sound and useful, but I just wish I was better at memorizing arbitrary string of words.

 

[poadeleted20]

The FAA seems to think so. I'm studying for the #$!@###! fundamentals of instruction test right now. I'm not having fun.

The concepts the test covers are very sound and useful, but I just wish I was better at memorizing arbitrary string of words.

I felt the same way 41 years ago when I was studying for my initial CFI, and yes, it is a lot easier to memorize stuff when your brain is only 21 years old. But since then, I've learned that all those seemingly arbitrary phrases have real application to flight instructing. The problem is that the FoI book is really a reference manual, not a teaching device, and to take full advantage of it, you need to find someone to teach you how to teach. That's why I suggest that prospective CFI's go down to the local college and take a Teaching 101 course in the Education Department -- that's where you'll learn what all that seeming gibberish in the FoI book really means and how to put it to use.

 

[rottydaddy]

The FAA seems to think so. I'm studying for the #$!@###! fundamentals of instruction test right now. I'm not having fun.

The concepts the test covers are very sound and useful, but I just wish I was better at memorizing arbitrary string of words.

I hear you... currently studying for the CFI-Glider, and the fundamentals part is the same.
I think I already get this stuff; the challenge is remembering it the way the FAA wants me to.
But back to the topic: there is definitely a psych aspect... no matter how good a stick you are or how much you know about all things aviation, you have to be able to communicate it all, and determine, by observing the student's responses and actions whether or not that exchange is complete and lasting. You also have to gauge the student's mental and emotional state whenever a ground or flight lesson is in progress, and adjust your approach accordingly.
It's definitely more a coaching sort of thing than a rote training exercise... I've been "playing instructor" with some of our club's students this season (with their CFIs' blessing and briefings with them), and I'm really starting to appreciate how much more there is to it than spouting encyclopedic knowledge, or expecting students to keep moving forward with maneuvers and procedures just because they're repeating them and you're repeating your demonstrations and explanations.
The "a ha!" moments come from a synergy between student, instructor, and the lesson plan- there's no "cookie cutter" approach that will be effective with every student and every lesson.
There may be all kinds of reliable diagnostic "tricks" an instructor can use, but the "headshrinking" aspect, at its core, is a matter of sort of putting your mind somewhere between you and the student, as far as I can tell. It's harder, and more complex, than it sounds...

 

[BillTIZ]

Maslow's hierarchy of needs, google it.

Students need to have basic needs met, feel safe, in order to learn.
Yes, they other part is how we communicate. We hear what we want to hear, not what was said.

If you are already a teacher or college prof, you've had all of that and need not take the FOI.

 

[JimNtexas]

... to teach you how to teach. That's why I suggest that prospective CFI's go down to the local college and take a Teaching 101 course in the Education Department -- that's where you'll learn what all that seeming gibberish in the FoI book really means and how to put it to use.

The Air Force did that for me, I was an instructor in both F-4 and EF-111. I went through the formal USAF ground instructor course taught at Nellis, as well as qualifying as an operational IEWO. I've taught college credit courses in computer programming. (And Yes, i'm kicking myself for not getting the FAA ground instructor rating back then.)

The concepts in the FOI book are completely consistent with what the Air Force taught me and my own experience as a community college teacher.

I just find questions like this somewhat irritating:

The most complex outcome in the affective domain is
A. valuing.
B. characterization.
C. organization.

Answer B is correct.
A taxonomy of educational objectives is a systematic classification scheme for sorting learning outcomes into the three domains of learning (cognitive, affective, and psychomotor) and ranking the desired outcomes in a developmental hierarchy from least complex to most complex. The most complex learning outcome in the affective domain is characterization in which the learner incorporates a value or attitude into his/her life.

This concept could be explained without quite so much gibberish. I'll be glad when I've worked through this and get back to airplanes.

Back to topic: However much I ***** about the test, there is a huge psychological aspect to all training, especially something as complex as training someone to fly an airplane.

 

[bbchien]

Jim, my younger daughter abandoned the education minor in college as she was just up to there memorizing Harold Bloom. But guess what, she's doing an education M.A. Can't teach music, in a university setting, without one.

Thank heavens you only have to regurgitate it once....though there is some powerful stuff in there.....

 

[nosehair]

"Ya can't have any pudding if ya don't eat your meat ! "

 

[rottydaddy]

I just find questions like this somewhat irritating:


Quote:
The most complex outcome in the affective domain is
A. valuing.
B. characterization.
C. organization.

Answer B is correct.
A taxonomy of educational objectives is a systematic classification scheme for sorting learning outcomes into the three domains of learning (cognitive, affective, and psychomotor) and ranking the desired outcomes in a developmental hierarchy from least complex to most complex. The most complex learning outcome in the affective domain is characterization in which the learner incorporates a value or attitude into his/her life.

This concept could be explained without quite so much gibberish.

I agree. How about "The student needs to understand what the thing is and accept why it is important" ?
What's really batty about the answer shown is that it defines "characterization" as "incorporating" [C] a "value" [A].



Oh well... it shouldn't be any worse than having to deal with questions about multi-engine ops and IFR procedures for the glider written tests... good ol' FAA.
I guess they just want to see how bad you want the rating... but it might be nice if you could opt for a kick in the nuts instead.