[WalterBright]

They are never going to let you into a cockpit until you pass ground school, which involves a lot of math.

> A teacher can be brilliant in the classroom yet stumble on a standardized certification exam full of pedagogical jargon.

A teacher that cannot explain how calculus works cannot teach it to anybody.

> a coding interview that relies on whiteboarding algorithms from memory can easily fail an excellent engineer who builds great software every day but doesn't recall the optimal solution to some puzzle on the spot.

I've seen too many coders using bubble sort because they don't know enough to look for a better algorithm.

In any case, the purpose of leet coding tests is to quickly filter out the utter frauds. I have a programmer friend who wanted a job at a major software corp. He knew he'd have to pass the leetcode in an early stage of the interviewing. He figured it would take 6 weeks or so to study that material. I suggested that, since he was applying for a $250K job, that would be the most productive studying he'd ever done. He agreed, did the 6 weeks of studying, aced the leetcode test, and got the $250K.

So ya, there is a point to those tests, in filtering out the frauds and the ones who aren't willing to do what it takes to get those jobs.

[gf000]

So you yourself has just given an example how easy it is to temporarily get good at "test-filling", by simply preparing for that.

The question is whether a given test measures anything relevant - did your friend become a better programmer for doing 6 weeks of leetcodes? E.g. what kind of experience did he gain about large code bases and how to handle those? Continuing your analogy, would you fly with a pilot who drilled on taking off a bunch of time, but never practised flying in a storm?

I'm not saying leetcodes or exams are useless, but Goodhart's Law apply.

[dr_hooo]

Regardless of the content, a test filters for people willing to put in the work to pass. All else being equal, given two candidates, where one has passed a test and another one who didn't bother, the first one sends a stronger signal to the potential employer.

It's still worth discussing if the particular test is ideal, but the answer IMO is not to say let's remove tests in general.

[WalterBright]

Right on. Instead of complaining about the test, he did what was necessary to ace it.

He's the kind of person I'd want to hire.

[Maxatar]

This has to be a joke...

Ground school most certainly does not involve a lot of math, it's not like there's any calculus or algebra involved... it's basic arithmetic. Furthermore it's categorically false that you need to pass ground school before you're allowed to fly.

Are you just making things up?

>A teacher that cannot explain how calculus works cannot teach it to anybody.

This is a strawman argument, I never made anything that could even remotely be interpreted as this.

>I've seen too many coders using bubble sort because they don't know enough to look for a better algorithm.

This is committing a very basic logical fallacy. The fact that someone who is incompetent likely can't pass a test is not the same claim as someone who can't pass a test is likely incompetent.

Hopefully you are able to identify this logical mistake that you're committing and revise your position accordingly.

[WalterBright]

> categorically false

Google sez: "The U.S. Air Force strictly requires you to complete and pass formal academic ground training before you ever touch the controls of an aircraft"

They're not going to risk an aircraft on an incompetent student.

> A teacher can be brilliant in the classroom yet stumble on a standardized certification exam full of pedagogical jargon

I stand by my statement.

> logical fallacy

A implies B meaning B implies A is indeed a logical fallacy. But that does not rule out B implies A. A and B can be strongly related to each other.

[Maxatar]

So you are making things up... thanks for confirming that. While I appreciate that you reviewed what Google "sez"... you have misunderstood the relevant context which is that the U.S. Air Force also requires that you complete Initial Flight Training (IFT) before you start the Air Force's own formal training program (UPT). In IFT you will not be required to pass ground school before you get to fly.

Furthermore, even if the Air Force did not require IFT before UPT (the Air Force's own training program), you've completely changed the nature of your argument. I have no dispute about whether the Air Force may or may not have stricter requirements for their pilots, but that wasn't your argument.

>I stand by my statement.

You've proudly planted your flag on a point nobody was contesting, which is a strange hill to celebrate on but you do you.

>But that does not rule out B implies A. A and B can be strongly related to each other.

Discussing a topic with someone who not only uses logically fallacies as justification for their argument but brazenly doubles down on said fallacy is a good sign that this is probably not a good discussion to continue spending time on. Like am I supposed to simply accept your logical fallacy and take on the burden of disproving every claim you can dream up simply because you've asserted it isn't logically impossible? The person making the claim carries the burden of supporting it, and "they're strongly related" is something you have to actually show, not something I'm obligated to refute on your behalf.

[WalterBright]

Ground school comes first at IFT https://www.baseops.net/militarypilot/usaf_ift.html

Note that a tree implies it is made of wood. If you find a stick of wood, odds are it came from a tree.

[Maxatar]

>Ground school comes first at IFT

There is no singular "IFT"... you happened to find one IFT among hundreds across the U.S. that has such a syllabus, great... but it does not come first as requirement mandated either by law/regulation or convention. Here is the syllabus for a different FAA Part 61 and 141 approved IFT program that uses an integrated approach with the following quote:

"Each Module contains both a flight and ground lesson. This presents an integrated flight training process and will promote easier learning and a more efficient flight training program"

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ad1e29b372b96bedc6b1...

>Note that a tree implies it is made of wood. If you find a stick of wood, odds are it came from a tree.

This is false, not all trees are made of wood (palm trees) and there are natural sources of wood that don't come from trees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_plant

But of course... instead of just admitting you were wrong to make that logical fallacy... free to continue doubling down and making things up.

[WalterBright]

> But of course...

You goofed. A palm tree is not pedantically considered a tree. You made that up.

https://texastreesurgeons.com/blog/2025/01/03/palm-trees-are...

> odds are it came from a tree >> there are natural sources of wood that don't come from trees

Confirms I was correct.

> Each Module contains both a flight and ground lesson.

And the ground lesson comes first. I read your link.

[labcomputer]

The USAF is not subject to (most) FAA regulations. As far as I know this also extends to training: the USAF does not follow either of the FAA’s Part 61 or 141 flight training syllabi. So bringing up parts 61 and 141 doesn’t really refute the parent’s point.

Regardless, as a civilian, you do have to pass a written multiple-choice test on flying theory before you can solo. Any time you spend in the cockpit before passing that test will be under the supervision of a Certified Flight Instructor (CFI), in a plane with dual controls, and you are not acting a pilot-in-command.

So, although the parent may be slightly over-focused on the USAF way, I think it is fair to say that for any type of pilot training in the USA, you do have to complete academic ground training (including passing a formal written test) before you are truly “given the controls”.

[jibal]

In addition to affirmation of the consequent he's also employing attacking a strawman, petitio principii, faulty analogy, and goalpost shifting, at least. His followup example "Note that a tree implies it is made of wood. If you find a stick of wood, odds are it came from a tree." is hilarious. No doubt there are numerous other examples completely unrelated to coders and whiteboard tests where A implies B and B is highly correlated to A, but their existence tells us nothing about coders and whiteboard tests and doesn't justify a blatant fallacy of affirmation of the consequent.

Here's something to consider: just because someone is good at writing compilers or designing a language, that doesn't entail anything about the quality of their arguments.

[labcomputer]

I’m very curious where you get the idea that flying does not involve algebra or trigonometry or calculus.

How would you calculate a crosswind component from the runway heading and reported wind speed and direction without trig? How would you think pilots measured their distance to non-directional beacons before GPS and DMEs existed?

How would you solve for fuel remaining without algebra? How would you estimate the best speed to fly with a given headwind to maximize fuel onboard at the intended destination without calculus?

A very basic principle of glider flying involves finding the tangent to a curve. Is calculus not applicable there?

Fuel consumption is often estimated by numerical integration of fuel flow rate. That doesn’t require an analytic solution of the integral, but I think most pilots have at least a passing familiarity with the concept.

> Furthermore it's categorically false that you need to pass ground school before you're allowed to fly.

I interpreted the parent’s statement to mean “before you fly solo.”

[WalterBright]

> it's not like there's any calculus or algebra involved

There certainly is when you're navigating.

Some of the more advanced math is boiled down to specialized slide rules, though these days they'd use a computers.

For example, the fuel consumption rate vs range is not a linear relationship, because burning fuel lightens the airplane and so it can go faster/further.