I'm not sure how you're pulling out of my words the concept that I think an instructor shouldn't try to explain something.
When you said this:
Talking about flying an approach and flying an approach are well, two entirely different things. It becomes such a subconscious exercise that it becomes rather difficult to actually discuss how you do it.
I don't think they are "two different things" to someone that wants to teach someone else how to do it. They can't be.
I'm not saying that one can't explain it Dan. I'm saying that often these things are rather subconscious and a pilot doesn't even REALIZE what they do. The actual learning will be rather subconscious as well. The final segment of an approach is a rather dynamic experience. It's rather hard to think too heavily about the theory. As Mari said, she didn't even realize how she made small corrections until someone else observed it.
I think you hit on the
exact difference between a teacher and an ordinary educator -- a great teacher (in every field, not just flying) can observe subtle things that can be molded/adapted/adjusted/corrected and then can communicate those cues in ways that the trainee can apply.
Notice I didn't say "explain" -- just "communicate."
I taught High School History and coached Varsity Basketball for five years. What I learned from that experience was that every student and athlete had a different set of buttons. My task as teacher and coach was to figure out what those were, and adapt my delivery method to the button set.
On my 23-1, championship team (1987, and I still hear from those guys) my center had to be
shown. My point guard had to be
convinced. My forwards would argue and argue until they finally relented, tried it my way, and it worked. My shooting guard had to think every change was
his idea, and so on.
They
thought they were learning how to be a basketball team. My ulterior motive was to produce mature men (this was a boy's varisty team, after all) -- mature men that knew how to bounce back from disappointment, knew how to get along with others, knew how to put up with pain now for a reward later,
et cetera.
How do you "instruct" those high flautin' ideals?
You observe, you analyze, you dissect, you prod, you poke, you challenge -- all the while you have the bigger picture in mind -- one which the trainee may not share or even understand yet.
How does this apply to flying a localizer?
A good instructor isn't simply preparing an airplane driver . Rather, we should be molding aviators -- people who understand
why something is happening and judge and apply the appropriate response to that condition based on expertise.
Therefore to Tim's point that this is technique vs. art debate -- it's not, really. Only
mastery of technique permits art. Art without technique is impossible-- that's mere chance.
The instructor's guidance can help -- but in the end -- the student will develop their own technique that may or may not resemble the instructor's words.
Of course --
If the student can apply a technique and knows why and when, then the instructor should be able to say , "Hey, that's great!" and add it to his/her storehouse of knowledge.
