>> >> >With your analytical ability, you have every right to lack confidence. >> >
>> >Games of "what if" and "stump the chump" are valuable learning tools, though
>> >most of the learning is in what _not_ to do.
>>
>> Those are often the most valuable lessons. And the hardest.
>
>.... and it is much better to make those mistakes on a simulator. That
>way you get to play another day, make the mistake in real life and you
>may no longer have the opportunity to use any of the lessons you've
>learned -- dead people don't get to play again.
>
Some time in the late 80s or early 90s, Scientific American had a fascinating article about aircraft simulators, and how advancements in computer technology had already greatly improved their quality. One thing really struck me: a military flight trainer was quoted saying that pilots who survive their first five combat missions have a better than 95% probability of surviving *all* subsequent missions, regardless of the number -- and that the simulators available *then* (ten+ years ago) could give training equivalent to (IIRC) seven or eight combat missions.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)