Are you really training for self defense?

[Dirty Dog]

I think there is more a lot than memorizing a stunt. While in a class, you really need to learn everything from basics to the advance but in the real-life situation, you can't even think what will you do or how can you tell what the attacker will do

I would disagree. If you're not thinking, then I'd say your training has not prepared you very well at all.

 

[Juany118]

Nobody knows how they would react in such an (unfamiliar) situation though, not even themselves.

Ever met a guy that "would do this that and that"(usually ending up with a flattened opponent), but then such a situation arises and they instead freeze or run? I sure have.

Fear and anger don't care about the realm of logic. It's two different worlds.

That's my point though. Sparring and shoot house do the same thing. You learn how to react under pressure. If you set up de-escalation training correctly you get a similar degree of pressure. Trying to read cues from the opponent, just like in sparring. Trying to react to those cues appropriately, just like in sparring. If you misread or react improperly now you are quick sparring or taking a painful sim round.

I have been IRL attacks more times than I care to count. I get that NO training 100% prepares you for it. However we accept that sparring, shoot houses, "war games" in the military, create adequate pressure to prepare someone as best we can in a controlled environment. How is it that suddenly this well accepted process ceases to function in this circumstance?

 

[Martial D]

That's my point though. Sparring and shoot house do the same thing. You learn how to react under pressure. If you set up de-escalation training correctly you get a similar degree of pressure. Trying to read cues from the opponent, just like in sparring. Trying to react to those cues appropriately, just like in sparring. If you misread or react improperly now you are quick sparring or taking a painful sim round.

I have been IRL attacks more times than I care to count. I get that NO training 100% prepares you for it. However we accept that sparring, shoot houses, "war games" in the military, create adequate pressure to prepare someone as best we can in a controlled environment. How is it that suddenly this well accepted process ceases to function in this circumstance?

Well sir, there is a big difference between these two things.

Sparring is a pressure test because those are actual kicks and punches flying at you. Sparring is pressure testing dealing with incoming blows and returning your own.

With ''de-escalation" you are dealing with raw human emotions, which you just can't simulate. Sure, you can get an actor to act mad and then act less mad after you say the sort of things the instructor tells you to say, but it's just acting. There is nothing concrete to deal with(like punches and kicks)

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That's my point though. Sparring and shoot house do the same thing. You learn how to react under pressure. If you set up de-escalation training correctly you get a similar degree of pressure. Trying to read cues from the opponent, just like in sparring. Trying to react to those cues appropriately, just like in sparring. If you misread or react improperly now you are quick sparring or taking a painful sim round.

I have been IRL attacks more times than I care to count. I get that NO training 100% prepares you for it. However we accept that sparring, shoot houses, "war games" in the military, create adequate pressure to prepare someone as best we can in a controlled environment. How is it that suddenly this well accepted process ceases to function in this circumstance?

There's not the same kind of feedback in role playing. A sim round hurts. Punches are at least uncomfortable, and your partner can put real pressure on you that activates stress chemical releases. Most folks won't have a real stress reaction in a role play for de-escalation. It's useful, but many folks - if they feel safe in the training space - won't feel pressure. And the feedback is artificial - it depends whether their partner thinks what was done would be effective or not. A sim round doesn't care, and a sparring partner knows if you were effective, because they either could hit you or couldn't.

Role play for de-escalation (and other "soft" skills) is useful, and one of the best tools we have. With the right partner, it can be a good simulation. With a really good partner, you might even be able to bring out some of the stress hormones for new folks.

 

[Juany118]

Well sir, there is a big difference between these two things.

Sparring is a pressure test because those are actual kicks and punches flying at you. Sparring is pressure testing dealing with incoming blows and returning your own.

With ''de-escalation" you are dealing with raw human emotions, which you just can't simulate. Sure, you can get an actor to act mad and then act less mad after you say the sort of things the instructor tells you to say, but it's just acting. There is nothing concrete to deal with(like punches and kicks)

There's not the same kind of feedback in role playing. A sim round hurts. Punches are at least uncomfortable, and your partner can put real pressure on you that activates stress chemical releases. Most folks won't have a real stress reaction in a role play for de-escalation. It's useful, but many folks - if they feel safe in the training space - won't feel pressure. And the feedback is artificial - it depends whether their partner thinks what was done would be effective or not. A sim round doesn't care, and a sparring partner knows if you were effective, because they either could hit you or couldn't.

Role play for de-escalation (and other "soft" skills) is useful, and one of the best tools we have. With the right partner, it can be a good simulation. With a really good partner, you might even be able to bring out some of the stress hormones for new folks.

I may be wrong but are you guys also understanding that there is another part that is important. If they fail and it's "the bar fight scenario" they start getting hit and a short sparring session starts. That why, if this was in a "class" setting I would not have this be part of a "newbie" class, I would at least want then to have some "hands on" experience.

If it's the robbery scenario they catch the SIM round, or hopefully catch the cues they fudged up and try to deal with the gun before they catch the Sim round. So out of the gate you actually have an element of stress from "if I fudge this up I am going to feel it."

Now maybe I am over thinking it, but I am thinking more about shoot house training. Picture the portion where someone is clearing corners and doorways, you never know behind which one, a bad guy MIGHT be. Sometimes they only have a "good guy" to see how you react or no one at all. So just knowing their MIGHT be a simround, around the next bend (no pun intended) does cause stress hormones to be released.

So I am picturing reading the cues similar to clearing a corner, if that makes sense?

Speak of...of @Martial D most of the cues actually aren't "emotional" as we usually would think of them. Emotion in the voice, overall facial expressions etc. Most of them are actually body language that is well researched, and documented, in various journals and publications. There is actually, usually, an almost predictable progression (at various speeds of course).

Yes you will have the "emotional stuff" voice deepening, The more threatened or aggressive an individual becomes, the lower, harsher and louder. The better indicators aren't that though, they are the physical cues. The jaws and lips will tense into a biting position, as well as quiver, and mouth will frown and tighten over the teeth, they will either go full on broad side you or take a boxers stance, even with a gun. Their hands will often clench into a fist to the extent their knuckles will go white right before they act, this is one reason while when still in a "verbal" encounter they teach cops to make sure you are always watching the hands, even with Peripheral vision. Faster eye blinking even.

There are a host of visual cues that are actually far more important than the yelling because that can simply be a symptom of braggadocio that is not indicative of an attack. It's the visual cues that I would personally say are the most important ones.

 

[Steve]

I have been IRL attacks more times than I care to count. I get that NO training 100% prepares you for it. However we accept that sparring, shoot houses, "war games" in the military, create adequate pressure to prepare someone as best we can in a controlled environment. How is it that suddenly this well accepted process ceases to function in this circumstance?

This paragraph is a perfect summary of my concerns about self defense training in general.

I agree with you that training in de-escalation is no different than any other kind of training. I've been saying that for years. People build skill in very predictable ways.

But what do these things create adequate pressure to prepare someone for? Is the training designed to prepare someone for more training? Unless you're using the skills, I think there's a very low ceiling.​

Do these things create adequate pressure to prepare someone to create adequate pressure to prepare someone else to train someone else?

I know it sounds ridiculous, but this circular, incestuous training model is a very​

common martial arts/self defense training model.

Isn't there a functional limit on how well prepared someone who has never actually done something can be to do that thing? Is there a difference between someone who has adequately prepared for, but never done something for 10 years and someone with 3 months of adequate preparation and 9 years and 9 months of practical, on the job application?

In decades of teaching people to do things, the model that works best is a little training, a lot of application, a little more training, a lot more application. Nothing beats doing when you're learning a skill, and training can't replace that.

All that to say, in reading through all of your posts, I agree with much of what you say, Juany118, but just think you both acknowledge and also discount the value your experience brings to your training. You acknowledge that it makes you a better training partner/trainer. But you seem to then discount how important your experience is to your own development. It doesn't just make you a better training partner. It's integral to your own skill development. And further, no matter how good of a training partner you are, that other guy won't ever become proficient unless he or she applies the skill. You can't gain experience through osmosis.

 

[drop bear]

Well sir, there is a big difference between these two things.

Sparring is a pressure test because those are actual kicks and punches flying at you. Sparring is pressure testing dealing with incoming blows and returning your own.

With ''de-escalation" you are dealing with raw human emotions, which you just can't simulate. Sure, you can get an actor to act mad and then act less mad after you say the sort of things the instructor tells you to say, but it's just acting. There is nothing concrete to deal with(like punches and kicks)

Spring em.

Find yourself a pro MMA fighter. Get you guy to spar him. After he beats the guy up for five minutes get him to front the guy after class.

Dude will wet himself.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Three areas of self-defense.

1. Avoidance
   
2. Pre-Physical Conflict
   
3. Physical Conflict.

The better you are at the first two the less you'll have to do the 3rd. Unless you are a bouncer or a law enforcement professional. Then all of your efforts should be focused on 1 and 2. Training for 3 is backup for when everything else fails. When it fails then all of your efforts should be focused on the last Physical Contact until an opportunity to return to 1 or 2 presents itself.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I may be wrong but are you guys also understanding that there is another part that is important. If they fail and it's "the bar fight scenario" they start getting hit and a short sparring session starts. That why, if this was in a "class" setting I would not have this be part of a "newbie" class, I would at least want then to have some "hands on" experience.

If it's the robbery scenario they catch the SIM round, or hopefully catch the cues they fudged up and try to deal with the gun before they catch the Sim round. So out of the gate you actually have an element of stress from "if I fudge this up I am going to feel it."

Now maybe I am over thinking it, but I am thinking more about shoot house training. Picture the portion where someone is clearing corners and doorways, you never know behind which one, a bad guy MIGHT be. Sometimes they only have a "good guy" to see how you react or no one at all. So just knowing their MIGHT be a simround, around the next bend (no pun intended) does cause stress hormones to be released.

So I am picturing reading the cues similar to clearing a corner, if that makes sense?

Speak of...of @Martial D most of the cues actually aren't "emotional" as we usually would think of them. Emotion in the voice, overall facial expressions etc. Most of them are actually body language that is well researched, and documented, in various journals and publications. There is actually, usually, an almost predictable progression (at various speeds of course).

Yes you will have the "emotional stuff" voice deepening, The more threatened or aggressive an individual becomes, the lower, harsher and louder. The better indicators aren't that though, they are the physical cues. The jaws and lips will tense into a biting position, as well as quiver, and mouth will frown and tighten over the teeth, they will either go full on broad side you or take a boxers stance, even with a gun. Their hands will often clench into a fist to the extent their knuckles will go white right before they act, this is one reason while when still in a "verbal" encounter they teach cops to make sure you are always watching the hands, even with Peripheral vision. Faster eye blinking even.

There are a host of visual cues that are actually far more important than the yelling because that can simply be a symptom of braggadocio that is not indicative of an attack. It's the visual cues that I would personally say are the most important ones.

Ah, I see what you mean. If they fail to de-escalate, they're now sparring. That's a nice way to add some stress to it, especially if the sparring will start with a sudden attack. There's still the question of whether the "resistance" is accurate, but it does bring the stress level up.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This paragraph is a perfect summary of my concerns about self defense training in general.

I agree with you that training in de-escalation is no different than any other kind of training. I've been saying that for years. People build skill in very predictable ways.

But what do these things create adequate pressure to prepare someone for? Is the training designed to prepare someone for more training? Unless you're using the skills, I think there's a very low ceiling.​

Do these things create adequate pressure to prepare someone to create adequate pressure to prepare someone else to train someone else?

I know it sounds ridiculous, but this circular, incestuous training model is a very​

common martial arts/self defense training model.

Isn't there a functional limit on how well prepared someone who has never actually done something can be to do that thing? Is there a difference between someone who has adequately prepared for, but never done something for 10 years and someone with 3 months of adequate preparation and 9 years and 9 months of practical, on the job application?

In decades of teaching people to do things, the model that works best is a little training, a lot of application, a little more training, a lot more application. Nothing beats doing when you're learning a skill, and training can't replace that.

All that to say, in reading through all of your posts, I agree with much of what you say, Juany118, but just think you both acknowledge and also discount the value your experience brings to your training. You acknowledge that it makes you a better training partner/trainer. But you seem to then discount how important your experience is to your own development. It doesn't just make you a better training partner. It's integral to your own skill development. And further, no matter how good of a training partner you are, that other guy won't ever become proficient unless he or she applies the skill. You can't gain experience through osmosis.

By that logic, we should never train anyone before they do something. We know - from experience and outcomes - that reasonable training improves the odds when someone needs the skills. Getting to practice the skill under the pressure of reality improves them even more, but that doesn't eliminate the benefit gained from training.

 

[Juany118]

This paragraph is a perfect summary of my concerns about self defense training in general.

I agree with you that training in de-escalation is no different than any other kind of training. I've been saying that for years. People build skill in very predictable ways.

But what do these things create adequate pressure to prepare someone for? Is the training designed to prepare someone for more training? Unless you're using the skills, I think there's a very low ceiling.​

Do these things create adequate pressure to prepare someone to create adequate pressure to prepare someone else to train someone else?

I know it sounds ridiculous, but this circular, incestuous training model is a very​

common martial arts/self defense training model.

Isn't there a functional limit on how well prepared someone who has never actually done something can be to do that thing? Is there a difference between someone who has adequately prepared for, but never done something for 10 years and someone with 3 months of adequate preparation and 9 years and 9 months of practical, on the job application?

In decades of teaching people to do things, the model that works best is a little training, a lot of application, a little more training, a lot more application. Nothing beats doing when you're learning a skill, and training can't replace that.

All that to say, in reading through all of your posts, I agree with much of what you say, Juany118, but just think you both acknowledge and also discount the value your experience brings to your training. You acknowledge that it makes you a better training partner/trainer. But you seem to then discount how important your experience is to your own development. It doesn't just make you a better training partner. It's integral to your own skill development. And further, no matter how good of a training partner you are, that other guy won't ever become proficient unless he or she applies the skill. You can't gain experience through osmosis.

I think you underestimate the value of the training to be honest. Look at it like a volume dial. A real life violent encounter is at Spinal Tap's 11 on a scale of 1-10. The existence of the fear of pain/potential injury in sparring, or shoot house training, is (if done properly) can be realistically at around a 7-8 at the beginning That is a hell of a lot better nothing on such a scale.

Why is this? Biology. The human body is wonderous at adapting to stress and the body is actually the biggest component belief it or not. Fear and stress dump a butt ton of hormones and endorphins into our bodies, fight or flight. It's not really like a gas pedal though where you can control from 0 to 100 mph in 1 mph increments. It's more like an old battle ship all WWI/II. "Stop" (asleep), "Slow" (normal crap), "Half" (fear not fully substantiated), "Full" (pressure testing, fear because you know you are at risk but also know there are some controls to minimize it), Flank (fear because you are at risk without controls).

Military and good LEO training are pretty much proof that training at "full" is adequate to be "combat effective" at "flank." Basically think of the following... (Projecting the art project I just did with my girlfriend's daughter with craft foam).

"Stop" is you can't cut crap.
"Half" is you are using a pair of big scissors. You can cut the foam but it is FAR from a pretty shape. Basically squares things with straight edges look nice.
"Full" is a razorblade box cutter. You can make pretty shapes. Hearts, circles, ovals you can cut curves decently as well as straight edges, even blend them together. Something that looks like a horse from a single sheet.
"Flank" Exacto knife. You can cut TIGHT curves, and blend them into straight edges so you can use more of the foam to make what you want, be more efficient. Say a bunch of horses, or ponies from "My Little Pony"(don't judge!!!!!! She's only 4. )

In short you are a hell of lot better of having the box cutter than just the scissors or nothing it you want to make a pony from craft foam. You can get the job done, just not as efficiently. The efficiency comes with the experience.

 

[Steve]

I think you underestimate the value of the training to be honest. Look at it like a volume dial. A real life violent encounter is at Spinal Tap's 11 on a scale of 1-10. The existence of the fear of pain/potential injury in sparring, or shoot house training, is (if done properly) can be realistically at around a 7-8 at the beginning That is a hell of a lot better nothing on such a scale.

Why is this? Biology. The human body is wonderous at adapting to stress and the body is actually the biggest component belief it or not. Fear and stress dump a butt ton of hormones and endorphins into our bodies, fight or flight. It's not really like a gas pedal though where you can control from 0 to 100 mph in 1 mph increments. It's more like an old battle ship all WWI/II. "Stop" (asleep), "Slow" (normal crap), "Half" (fear not fully substantiated), "Full" (pressure testing, fear because you know you are at risk but also know there are some controls to minimize it), Flank (fear because you are at risk without controls).

Military and good LEO training are pretty much proof that training at "full" is adequate to be "combat effective" at "flank." Basically think of the following... (Projecting the art project I just did with my girlfriend's daughter with craft foam).

"Stop" is you can't cut crap.
"Half" is you are using a pair of big scissors. You can cut the foam but it is FAR from a pretty shape. Basically squares things with straight edges look nice.
"Full" is a razorblade box cutter. You can make pretty shapes. Hearts, circles, ovals you can cut curves decently as well as straight edges, even blend them together. Something that looks like a horse from a single sheet.
"Flank" Exacto knife. You can cut TIGHT curves, and blend them into straight edges so you can use more of the foam to make what you want, be more efficient. Say a bunch of horses, or ponies from "My Little Pony"(don't judge!!!!!! She's only 4. )

In short you are a hell of lot better of having the box cutter than just the scissors or nothing it you want to make a pony from craft foam. You can get the job done, just not as efficiently. The efficiency comes with the experience.

i don’t know, man. your entire post is through the lens of someone who uses the skills and works with people who use the skills. I have no doubt that your training prepares cops to be more effective cops. I don’t think it’s all that useful or practical to prepare office workers, school teachers or college coeds to be cops.

 

[Steve]

By that logic, we should never train anyone before they do something. We know - from experience and outcomes - that reasonable training improves the odds when someone needs the skills. Getting to practice the skill under the pressure of reality improves them even more, but that doesn't eliminate the benefit gained from training.

I’m disappointed in you, man. training is part of a natural cycle that includes doing what you train for. Training is not doing. That isn’t a controversial statement, and in any other context, it would be considered common sense. Here, though....

And, we don’t know at all that reasonable training improves odds, in this context. You believe it does. You hope it does. But statistics don’t exist. It’s a lot of anecdotal confirmation on both sides. But we see in every other human activity that training leads to performance. I can’t think of another example Besides self defense training where training leads to more training in an endless loop. Can you?

To be clear, I’m not saying there is no benefit to training. I am saying that training alone, in a vacuum, is going to be of very limited benefit. You might get to “big scissors” level (using juany’s analogy). Don’t get me wrong. If I collapse and someone with no experience who has taken a CPR class is around, I’ll take it. Better than nothing. But we have Good Samaritan laws for a reason. If there’s an ER nurse around, I’ll take him or her over the CPR certified school teacher any time.

 

[drop bear]

Does your experience suggest otherwise?

Go in agressive and then deescalate from a position of strength. So as an example (and this happened a bit.) People could get dragged out by some agro monster and then try to befrend him and pick a fight with me. At the same time.

It was kind of weird.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I’m disappointed in you, man. training is part of a natural cycle that includes doing what you train for. Training is not doing. That isn’t a controversial statement, and in any other context, it would be considered common sense. Here, though....

And, we don’t know at all that reasonable training improves odds, in this context. You believe it does. You hope it does. But statistics don’t exist. It’s a lot of anecdotal confirmation on both sides. But we see in every other human activity that training leads to performance. I can’t think of another example Besides self defense training where training leads to more training in an endless loop. Can you?

To be clear, I’m not saying there is no benefit to training. I am saying that training alone, in a vacuum, is going to be of very limited benefit. You might get to “big scissors” level (using juany’s analogy). Don’t get me wrong. If I collapse and someone with no experience who has taken a CPR class is around, I’ll take it. Better than nothing. But we have Good Samaritan laws for a reason. If there’s an ER nurse around, I’ll take him or her over the CPR certified school teacher any time.

Your argument is that we aren't "doing" what we train for. You've said before that the only real "doing" is either competition or actual self-defense/live work. But I "do" the techniques all the time. I "do" them against resisting opponents (partners) at times (similar to competition, except for the focus on scoring). Just as sim round training allows gun users to use guns and work with their tactics in a resistive environment, resisting partners allow the same for other training. It's not exactly the same as facing a person actually trying to hurt me, but that doesn't change the physics of a technique. It only changes my reactions. We have evidence from LEO and military that simulation training actually improves outcomes. that evidence is reasonably generalized to other training to prepare for stress situations. The anecdotal evidence doesn't provide much to contradict that generalization (the best use of anecdotal evidence, IMO, is to look for contradictions rather than support).

Are there differences unaccounted for? Of course. But it's not nearly as empty of supportive evidence as your statement suggests.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Go in agressive and then deescalate from a position of strength. So as an example (and this happened a bit.) People could get dragged out by some agro monster and then try to befrend him and pick a fight with me. At the same time.

It was kind of weird.

I see what you mean. I think that depends on the intimidation factor, which (while having a similar effect) isn't really de-escalation as most people use the term.

 

[Steve]

Your argument is that we aren't "doing" what we train for. You've said before that the only real "doing" is either competition or actual self-defense/live work. But I "do" the techniques all the time. I "do" them against resisting opponents (partners) at times (similar to competition, except for the focus on scoring). Just as sim round training allows gun users to use guns and work with their tactics in a resistive environment, resisting partners allow the same for other training. It's not exactly the same as facing a person actually trying to hurt me, but that doesn't change the physics of a technique. It only changes my reactions. We have evidence from LEO and military that simulation training actually improves outcomes. that evidence is reasonably generalized to other training to prepare for stress situations. The anecdotal evidence doesn't provide much to contradict that generalization (the best use of anecdotal evidence, IMO, is to look for contradictions rather than support).

Are there differences unaccounted for? Of course. But it's not nearly as empty of supportive evidence as your statement suggests.

Couple of quick things. First, competition and "actual self defense/live work" aren't the same thing. That's an important distinction. What they have in common, is that they are both examples of application. If you train for competition and then compete, you are applying skills in context, which leads to actual development of expertise. Folks around here say often that applying skills in competition is not the same as applying them in "self defense." And I agree. But where I get really concerned here is that you seem to think that for self defense training, training is application. That's just inherently flawed.

We see in every other human activity that people build skills in a predictable manner. You learn the skills and you apply the skills, and the ratio is really like the 20% rule... some training and a lot of applying.

Training is very important, and good training, such as what Juany describes, is like gold. It accelerates the learning process. But think about it like this. People learn to do things all the time without training. People don't learn to do things without applying them.

And the two aren't the same. I asked a question above, and you didn't answer it. I can’t think of another example besides self defense training where training leads to more training in an endless loop, and people expect results. Can you?

A kid learns to ride a bike... at some point, they've learned what they need to learn and just need experience. Adults on the job learn a task and then are asked to do that task until they are ready to learn something more.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Couple of quick things. First, competition and "actual self defense/live work" aren't the same thing. That's an important distinction. What they have in common, is that they are both examples of application. If you train for competition and then compete, you are applying skills in context, which leads to actual development of expertise. Folks around here say often that applying skills in competition is not the same as applying them in "self defense." And I agree. But where I get really concerned here is that you seem to think that for self defense training, training is application. That's just inherently flawed.

We see in every other human activity that people build skills in a predictable manner. You learn the skills and you apply the skills, and the ratio is really like the 20% rule... some training and a lot of applying.

Training is very important, and good training, such as what Juany describes, is like gold. It accelerates the learning process. But think about it like this. People learn to do things all the time without training. People don't learn to do things without applying them.

And the two aren't the same. I asked a question above, and you didn't answer it. I can’t think of another example besides self defense training where training leads to more training in an endless loop, and people expect results. Can you?

A kid learns to ride a bike... at some point, they've learned what they need to learn and just need experience. Adults on the job learn a task and then are asked to do that task until they are ready to learn something more.

As you and I have discussed before, there are significant exceptions to that. Flying is the best I know of. Regular flying is like my regular application of techniques against a resisting partner/opponent (or controlled competition). Self-defense application is like emergency maneuvers in flying. Pilots practice those things, but do not get to apply them unless something goes drastically wrong. And they often (not always) do a very good job with them because they trained them, and have applied the related skills over and over in regular flying.

 

[Steve]

As you and I have discussed before, there are significant exceptions to that. Flying is the best I know of. Regular flying is like my regular application of techniques against a resisting partner/opponent (or controlled competition). Self-defense application is like emergency maneuvers in flying. Pilots practice those things, but do not get to apply them unless something goes drastically wrong. And they often (not always) do a very good job with them because they trained them, and have applied the related skills over and over in regular flying.

Pilots fly planes "for real" all the time. What you do in training isn't the same as a pilot flying a plane. what you do in training correlates more to a pilot practicing in a simulator. Simulators are very good now, and experienced pilots use them to help train for all kinds of things. But they also actually fly planes "for real."

Think of it like a ladder. Training gets you with one foot on the bottom rung. in order to get to the next rung up, you have to take the step. So, if the first rung is flying a plane, training can get you to the cusp, and then you have to take the step. The next step might be flying solo (or whatever it might be). Training gets you to the rung, and then you take the step. You can't train something to the top of the ladder. They have to take all of the intervening steps themselves.

A simulator alone is great for preparing a person to fly a plane, and it might also be great for getting an experienced pilot prepared for an emergency. But in both cases, it's getting someone from where they are on the ladder ready to take the next step. You would take a person who has only ever trained in a simulator, but never logged any hours in a plane, and expect that person to perform well in an emergency.

Once again, great training is really valuable, and I'm sure your training is top notch. But it's still training.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Pilots fly planes "for real" all the time. What you do in training isn't the same as a pilot flying a plane. what you do in training correlates more to a pilot practicing in a simulator. Simulators are very good now, and experienced pilots use them to help train for all kinds of things. But they also actually fly planes "for real."

Think of it like a ladder. Training gets you with one foot on the bottom rung. in order to get to the next rung up, you have to take the step. So, if the first rung is flying a plane, training can get you to the cusp, and then you have to take the step. The next step might be flying solo (or whatever it might be). Training gets you to the rung, and then you take the step. You can't train something to the top of the ladder. They have to take all of the intervening steps themselves.

A simulator alone is great for preparing a person to fly a plane, and it might also be great for getting an experienced pilot prepared for an emergency. But in both cases, it's getting someone from where they are on the ladder ready to take the next step. You would take a person who has only ever trained in a simulator, but never logged any hours in a plane, and expect that person to perform well in an emergency.

Once again, great training is really valuable, and I'm sure your training is top notch. But it's still training.

We're just going to disagree over what "application" means, Steve. The person I work with isn't a simulation, though the situation is. I'm applying the actual technique on an actual person, not a simulation. We see it differently, and I suspect we always will.