Angle of attack in a climbing turn

[dr.aero]

Flying big jets may not be all you think it is.

I have a pretty good idea of what it's like! And of course there are downsides to everything but overall it's exactly what I want.

Anyhow this is only proving my point...the industry will continue to pay less because there is an unending supply of pilots who will work for peanuts...so you better get on those big jets soon because it looks like the airline industry has figured out the same thing the FTU's know.....enough pilots will work for peanuts to fly the supply is endless.

Very true. But who's to blame? The pilot who just got his license and who's passion is flying? If you're passionate about something enough, you'll do it for free - if you have the means to do so.

It's a whole messed up industry that's to blame, IMO. The businessmen that run this industry know that pilots will work for free (or close to it) and they take advantage of that - paying absolutely minimum wage and sometimes even less because of loopholes.

[Class 1 Instructor]

dr aero

My guess is you don't have very much experience and while you are obviously very passionate about flying training it is unfortunate that you seem unwilling to acknowledge that there is more then one "right" way to do most things involving flying aircraft. I have been in the flying training game for along time and I still find that there are many days when somebody pitches up a new tidbit of information or a slightly different way of looking at an issue that gets me thinking.

If you want to get people to listen to you I would suggest that you tone down the lecturing and hectoring as you come across as very self righteous and condescending. Personally I am now not much interested in what you have to say.

I would suggest you go read paragraph F of Big Pistons Forever excellent sticky at the top of this forum.......

[dr.aero]

Class 1...

I do have quite a bit of experience actually. And I do acknowledge that there is more than one right way to skin a cat.

I still find that there are many days when somebody pitches up a new tidbit of information or a slightly different way of looking at an issue that gets me thinking.

I do as well. Contrary to what you might think of me.

I am aware that I have come across in a condescending way a lot in this thread. I have been extremely frustrated at the stupidity in this thread. I can't stand stupid people. Forgive me, I don't handle it as well as you may.

I have no problem explaining something but when someone is telling me that I'm wrong when I know that I'm not, I have very little patience. What if a student in your class was arguing with you and saying that a tailplane actually produces positive lift all the time and was saying that you were wrong - how would that make you feel? Would you be frustrated with the student? Wouldn't it be obvious that the student has no idea what he's talking about and the fact that he's telling you that you're wrong, wouldn't that make you a bit upset? How would you handle that situation?

I'm aware of the advice in paragraph F. If only you could talk to my instructor who did my PPC training on the aircraft I fly now and ask him what he thought of me as a student. I have little patience for stupidity but if you judge me just based on that you'd be incredibly wrong about who I am.

[photofly]

If only you could talk to my instructor who did my PPC training on the aircraft I fly now and ask him what he thought of me as a student.

I would *so* enjoy hearing what he had to say. I'd like to talk to your grade 7 maths teacher, too.

[Cat Driver]

And I do acknowledge that there is more than one right way to skin a cat.

That makes me feel uncomfortable.

[dr.aero]

And I do acknowledge that there is more than one right way to skin a cat.

That makes me feel uncomfortable.

Haha sorry. I actually like cats

[dr.aero]

For anyone interested in reading something of value, this is Boeing's take on AoA - of particular note is how they describe/depict changes in stalling AoA with trailing-edge flap deflection.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeroma ... 12/aoa.pdf

[cgzro]

I really wish we had some educated and intelligent people on this board to back me up cause it's incredibly annoying to deal with idiots trying to teach me about this.

Consider yourself backed up on the statement of proportionality. You are correct that it does not have to go through the origin and those implying otherwise are incorrect. However you'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar and implying that pilots with 10's of thousands of hours of flying time are idiots is not a good way to go about things.

There is a difference between book smarts and street smarts and this is true in all disciplines including aviation. You can fly quite safely without book smarts but you sure as hell won't last long without some street smarts. Obviously good to have a bit of both.

[dr.aero]

Consider yourself backed up on the statement of proportionality. You are correct that it does not have to go through the origin and those implying otherwise are incorrect.

Thanks!

However you'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar and implying that pilots with 10's of thousands of hours of flying time are idiots is not a good way to go about things.

I agree with that. I was getting frustrated in this case.

There is a difference between book smarts and street smarts and this is true in all disciplines including aviation. You can fly quite safely without book smarts but you sure as hell won't last long without some street smarts. Obviously good to have a bit of both.

Definitely agree. From my experience so far it seems more and more that the book smarts required are being watered down or discredited. The flight training academies these days are not unlike a wall street corporation where money coming in is the prime concern. Advertising that anyone can learn to fly and instructing students who shouldn't be pilots to finally pass their flight test or written exam on the third try. A lack of aptitude is really what I think it comes down to. It's frustrating to see that and then to see pilots with thousands of hours advocate that flight training should essentially be tailored to the lowest common denominator. Start looking around you for real examples of how this type of training is affecting the industry. Start with this article: http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/08/24/cockpit-crisis/

The problem isn't just hands and feet, it's a lack of awareness of how an airplane is affected by control inputs during different stages of flight - that is a books smart problem. As I mentioned, it's related to aptitude.

Everyone has their things that bug them, and for a number of reasons, training towards the lowest common denominator is one of mine.

[Colonel Sanders]

This is why only people with PhD's in Aeronautical Engineering
are permitted to undertake flight training in Canada.

[trey kule]

Well, speaking of street smarts:

I do have quite a bit of experience actually. And I do acknowledge that there is more than one right way to skin a cat.

You dont actually have to skin them at all. Done right the skin is nice and crispy.

I see this thread is deteriorating into a cyber world bitch slap fest., but I did think the Col's comments were quite amusing. I do not know what it is lately, but these type of threads seem to be proliferating.
It takes about two minutes to get an understanding of the AofA in a CORORDINATED climbing turn, and an understanding does not require an indepth discussion of fluid dynamics or full spectrum particle physics or chaos theory. You guys are really overthinking these things..

As far as steet smarts goes, every year , without fail, some pilots will stall and auger it in making low level turns because despite their in depth theoretical knowledge they have not understood the simple premise that when you bank a plane the stall speed increases, and if you pull back on the control column the plane will stall.

But please dont stop the discussion. The col is in prime tonight...I even plan to steal a couple of his quotes....

[Beefitarian]

I think I'd rather eat rat Trey. One step closer to the part of the food chain that interests me.

This is why only people with PhD's in Aeronautical Engineering
are permitted to undertake flight training in Canada.

You so silly. That was absolutely 10/10.

Thanks for a much needed laugh.

[Colonel Sanders]

You're welcome. It has been a crappy month so far.

[Beefitarian]

It's only been this week for me but agreed!

[Beefitarian]

Cruelty to animals is a very very serious offense on the Internet. People? Much less so.

[DanWEC]

To the Dr...
I've held my toungue since my contribution in the beginning of this thread, since given the first reply I saw the direction that it was going to go in.
Incidentally, my description was only slighty incorrect purely because of ommission. Just like only mentioning one reason for yaw. I'll admit that.
To the point- as someone who has been in the business of people for the last 15 years, I would like to kindly suggest to you that you heed the advice of others thus far. There has been some astute mentions of honey to vinegar, and street smarts, etc. I'd wager it isn't the first encounter with these terms.
To put it simply, a great "Dr" who has a horrible bedside manner is, ultimately, a horrible Dr.. Don't bottleneck yourself. You generally sound like a smart guy, and I don't mean to jump on you when others are as well, but you don't want to get the nickname "Dr. Semantics".
I've done just fine reaching a pro level of a sport without knowing the math behind it, it's possible!

(BTW, if you take the Colonel up on his offer I'll bring the popcorn and lawn chairs... and bandaids. You'll need em.)

Cheers
DWEC

[cgzro]

The problem isn't just hands and feet, it's a lack of awareness of how an airplane is affected by control inputs during different stages of flight - that is a books smart problem.

You don't have time while flying to think of the physics of whats involved. People need a model of whats going on, not the details. The details are important for slower events, such as time/distance/fuel calcuations, drift, density altitude, time to climb, w&b etc. where you have a bit of time to do some simple math to figure it out, but basic up/down/right/left, yaw etc. that has to come from repeated practice and building up an internal model of what the action/reactions will be.

I would argue that most of the PPL type accidents, especially stall spin, are not from a lack of understanding but a lack of practice. For example, a lot of pilots will pull back on the stick when a plane goes upside down. I think its fairly clear that all of them know that it is the wrong thing to do .. so they have no problem understanding the physics of what will happen .. but they do it anyway. Its not lack of understanding .. its lack of practice in which case your emotions overcome your brain. Practice allows you to overcome the emotion and replace it with careful thought.

[Colonel Sanders]

I think its fairly clear that all of them know that it is the wrong thing to do .. so they have no problem understanding the physics of what will happen .. but they do it anyway

Yup. Their instincts are wrong. This is true
of so many technique-intensive tasks in aviation.

Tailwheel is a good example. People learn to fly
on nosewheel, and they learn that they don't need
to use the rudder pedals. When they jump in a
taildragger, bad things happen on a dry paved
runway during the landing. And it's not that they're
stupid - they just have the wrong instincts.

Another example of this in spades is inverted
(really negative G) formation flying. Although
all the controls still work as per upright, the
effect of bank is reversed due to the high and
low pressure areas being switched on the wing.
This results in very bad things when someone
gets too close to the lead, and decides to bank
a little away from him, as per their instincts.
The horizontal portion of the downward doing
lift vector pushes him into the lead. So
he banks away some more, and he hits the lead.

Just because someone struggles with tailwheel
or inverted formation doesn't meant that they
are stupid, or don't understand the underlying
theory.

Just because someone can't drive manual
transmission doesn't mean that they don't
deserve to drive a car. Heck, they might be
able to design a transmission.

I'm just not sure that every pilot is going to
be able to become a combination of all of
the best qualities of . Yeager, Jack Ridley
and Bob Hoover. It's a nice (theoretical) idea,
I suppose.

In the spring of 1947, Boyd appraised his roster of 125 test pilots and finally selected three volunteers who were considered very junior in terms of their flight test experience: Captain Charles E. "." Yeager, 1st Lieutenant Robert A. "Bob" Hoover, and Ridley. He named Yeager and Hoover as primary and backup pilot respectively, and Ridley as project engineer. Boyd recognized Ridley's highly disciplined, razor sharp mind and he believed that, with his test piloting experience and his unique ability to translate esoteric concepts into everyday terms, he would be able to provide Yeager and Hoover with all of the engineering expertise they would need.

I have dark suspicions that the under-educated . Yeager
would not meet the elitist qualifications of AvCan Flight Training.

However, he had a fantastic teacher - Jack Ridley above. Note
what he was able to do (underlined).

Were . Yeager and Bob Hoover "under-educated,
lowest-common-denominator" pilots according to elitist
AvCan Flight Training ex-instructors? Absolutely. Were they
incredible pilots? Oh, yeah. Is anyone going to learn
anything from that? Highly dubious at best.

[CFR]

I think its fairly clear that all of them know that it is the wrong thing to do .. so they have no problem understanding the physics of what will happen .. but they do it anyway

Yup. Their instincts are wrong. This is true
of so many technique-intensive tasks in aviation.

Tailwheel is a good example. People learn to fly
on nosewheel, and they learn that they don't need
to use the rudder pedals. When they jump in a
taildragger, bad things happen on a dry paved
runway during the landing. And it's not that they're
stupid - they just have the wrong instincts.

Another example of this in spades is inverted
(really negative G) formation flying. Although
all the controls still work as per upright, the
effect of bank is reversed due to the high and
low pressure areas being switched on the wing.
This results in very bad things when someone
gets too close to the lead, and decides to bank
a little away from him, as per their instincts.
The horizontal portion of the downward doing
lift vector pushes him into the lead. So
he banks away some more, and he hits the lead.

Just because someone struggles with tailwheel
or inverted formation doesn't meant that they
are stupid, or don't understand the underlying
theory.

Just because someone can't drive manual
transmission doesn't mean that they don't
deserve to drive a car. Heck, they might be
able to design a transmission.

I'm just not sure that every pilot is going to
be able to become a combination of all of
the best qualities of . Yeager, Jack Ridley
and Bob Hoover. It's a nice (theoretical) idea,
I suppose.

In the spring of 1947, Boyd appraised his roster of 125 test pilots and finally selected three volunteers who were considered very junior in terms of their flight test experience: Captain Charles E. "." Yeager, 1st Lieutenant Robert A. "Bob" Hoover, and Ridley. He named Yeager and Hoover as primary and backup pilot respectively, and Ridley as project engineer. Boyd recognized Ridley's highly disciplined, razor sharp mind and he believed that, with his test piloting experience and his unique ability to translate esoteric concepts into everyday terms, he would be able to provide Yeager and Hoover with all of the engineering expertise they would need.

I have dark suspicions that the under-educated . Yeager
would not meet the elitist qualifications of AvCan Flight Training.

However, he had a fantastic teacher - Jack Ridley above. Note
what he was able to do (underlined).

Were . Yeager and Bob Hoover "under-educated,
lowest-common-denominator" pilots according to elitist
AvCan Flight Training ex-instructors? Absolutely. Were they
incredible pilots? Oh, yeah. Is anyone going to learn
anything from that? Highly dubious at best.

Time for my piano analogy ...

Some people who have spent years learning music theory and hours of practice, sit at the piano and play notes;
Others who have spent time at the keyboard and can't read a note, sit at the piano and make music.

[dr.aero]

DanWEC...

Thanks for your thoughts. This discussion wouldn't have gone on here for this long if I was able to teach this in a classroom without a student, who doesn't know what they're talking about, trying to prove that I'm wrong.

cgzro...

You don't have time while flying to think of the physics of whats involved. People need a model of whats going on, not the details.

You don't have a clue what you just said!

Colonel...

his unique ability to translate esoteric concepts into everyday terms

I can do that as well. I'll mention for about the 10th time that not everything I write is written to a PPL student level!! Thanks for caring.

Were . Yeager and Bob Hoover "under-educated,
lowest-common-denominator" pilots according to elitist
AvCan Flight Training ex-instructors? Absolutely.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. . Yeager and Bob Hoover were both perfectionists and both were the type of pilots to study the details and stay after hours with the engineers to work out problems. Other test pilots would just land and hit the bar for beers. These two pilots were very intelligent and very skilled. They aren't even close to being lowest common denominator pilots! I'm not sure if you're trolling here or completely ignorant about these two men.

[bandaid]

The two of you want to continue this pettyness do so by pm. This is reminisant of two kids in the school yard arguing over whos dad is bigger. I will be removing the treats as soon as I am done here and make one of my own, you two continue and you'll both be given some time off.

[cgzro]

You don't have a clue what you just said!

Your statement is demonstrably false since most pilots have no knowledge of the detailed physics of how their planes fly but none the less manage to fly safely. If you have a good counter argument apart from the above I'm happy to debate but you don't offer much of substance to debate.

[dr.aero]

cgzro...

Your statement is demonstrably false since most pilots have no knowledge of the detailed physics of how their planes fly but none the less manage to fly safely.

You really don't know much about logic and reasoning. First, your contradictory quote regarding flight instructors, and then this.

It seems pointless for me to go further in detailing what I meant since you demonstrably don't know how to logically present an argument and to reason.

[Sulako]

This thread is not providing value any more. Locked.