terry
May 24th 08, 02:08 PM
On May 23, 2:32*pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On May 22, 9:26*pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>
> > "Tina" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > >I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
> > > candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. *But it does
> > > take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?
>
> > Maybe it's just me, but this seems like an interesting question. Anyone
> > would have to admit the written and practical exams for and ATP, are
> > certainly know match when compared to a doctorate. But how can you weight
> > the knowledge gained from 2000 or 3000 flight hours, especially in the
> > variety of aircraft and flight conditions required for and ATP, with 200 or
> > 300 college hours?
>
> I think that, all things being equal, the academic will have an
> advantage in the cockpit, because s/he will not only have a set of
> rules to follow, but have fundamental understanding of why those rules
> are applicable.
>
> During my own ground school, there were several places during
> instruction where knowledge of math and science was clearly
> advantageous:
>
> 1. magnetos (induction)
> 2. carb ice (adiabatic cooling of condensate)
> 3. density/pressure altitude (ideal gas law)
> 4. course tracking in high crosswind (vectors)
> 5. balance and center of gravity (arms and moments)
> 6. compass error due to EMI (basic electrodynamics)
> 7. mixture enrichment and leaning (density of gases vs altitude)
> 8. VOR (electromagnetic radiation)
> 9. load factor (basic trigonometry, Newton's law for circular motion)
> 10. vestibular disorientation (physiology of inner ear)
> 11. gyroscopic precession (torque, Newton's Law)
>
> An electrical engineer will, I think, have an easier time remembering
> basic radio frequencies by virtue of the fact that s/he knows what a
> frequency really is. Inn ground school, I tested hypothesis *by asking
> the class (and the instructor), if the frequency was in megahertz or
> kilohertz. *There was silence, as no one knew. This difference might
> seem inconsequential and irrelevant until a pilot is asked to recite
> all the standard frequencies. The EE, I think, might have an easier
> time. The reason is context. When someone utters an RNAV frequency as
> a number, the EE might think of many things, but often there is a
> visualization. Maybe he thinks about the humps of sine waves. Maybe he
> thinks about where it lies in spectrum, a few MHz beyond the FCC limit
> on FM in the USA. Whatever he thinks, he will have something to think
> about. *To some others, the number is just a number, surround by a
> black void that provides no crutch for recollection.
>
> Then there is the E6-B. It makes a lot more sense to someone who
> understands the fundamentals of what they are doing than following a
> learned procedure, which is why I stopped following the "do this, then
> do that" instructions, and examine the thing and thought about why it
> works, what relationships exist between the scales etc.
>
> So I regard my flight training as mostly a cerebral experience, with
> the instructor filling in the parts that are not found in books.
Thats what you think, well here is some reality.
I was dux of my high school, I did a double double major BSc in
chemisty and physics with 1st class honours. I then earned a PhD in
chemisty . I never failed an exam in all of my 8 years of University.
I creamed all my flying writtens. Now the other side, I took 120
hours and 3 attempts at the flight test before I got my PPL.
( average is probably 70 hours) The moral is there is absolutely
nothing in common with academic ability and the ability to learn to
fly a plane. A scientist is trained to think carefully and thoroughly
to come up with the best answer how ever long it takes. A pilot has
to make good decisions in a split second. Overthinking can get you
killed. Totally different use of the brain. Mind you there are some
extremely bright people who have excelled at both, some of the
astronauts like Dr. Buzz Aldrin come to mind.
Terry
PPL Downunder
> On May 22, 9:26*pm, "Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote:
>
> > "Tina" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > >I doubt many ATPs toiled as long for their rating as long as
> > > candidates for doctorates have in the halls of academia. *But it does
> > > take different skill sets in most cases, doesn't it?
>
> > Maybe it's just me, but this seems like an interesting question. Anyone
> > would have to admit the written and practical exams for and ATP, are
> > certainly know match when compared to a doctorate. But how can you weight
> > the knowledge gained from 2000 or 3000 flight hours, especially in the
> > variety of aircraft and flight conditions required for and ATP, with 200 or
> > 300 college hours?
>
> I think that, all things being equal, the academic will have an
> advantage in the cockpit, because s/he will not only have a set of
> rules to follow, but have fundamental understanding of why those rules
> are applicable.
>
> During my own ground school, there were several places during
> instruction where knowledge of math and science was clearly
> advantageous:
>
> 1. magnetos (induction)
> 2. carb ice (adiabatic cooling of condensate)
> 3. density/pressure altitude (ideal gas law)
> 4. course tracking in high crosswind (vectors)
> 5. balance and center of gravity (arms and moments)
> 6. compass error due to EMI (basic electrodynamics)
> 7. mixture enrichment and leaning (density of gases vs altitude)
> 8. VOR (electromagnetic radiation)
> 9. load factor (basic trigonometry, Newton's law for circular motion)
> 10. vestibular disorientation (physiology of inner ear)
> 11. gyroscopic precession (torque, Newton's Law)
>
> An electrical engineer will, I think, have an easier time remembering
> basic radio frequencies by virtue of the fact that s/he knows what a
> frequency really is. Inn ground school, I tested hypothesis *by asking
> the class (and the instructor), if the frequency was in megahertz or
> kilohertz. *There was silence, as no one knew. This difference might
> seem inconsequential and irrelevant until a pilot is asked to recite
> all the standard frequencies. The EE, I think, might have an easier
> time. The reason is context. When someone utters an RNAV frequency as
> a number, the EE might think of many things, but often there is a
> visualization. Maybe he thinks about the humps of sine waves. Maybe he
> thinks about where it lies in spectrum, a few MHz beyond the FCC limit
> on FM in the USA. Whatever he thinks, he will have something to think
> about. *To some others, the number is just a number, surround by a
> black void that provides no crutch for recollection.
>
> Then there is the E6-B. It makes a lot more sense to someone who
> understands the fundamentals of what they are doing than following a
> learned procedure, which is why I stopped following the "do this, then
> do that" instructions, and examine the thing and thought about why it
> works, what relationships exist between the scales etc.
>
> So I regard my flight training as mostly a cerebral experience, with
> the instructor filling in the parts that are not found in books.
Thats what you think, well here is some reality.
I was dux of my high school, I did a double double major BSc in
chemisty and physics with 1st class honours. I then earned a PhD in
chemisty . I never failed an exam in all of my 8 years of University.
I creamed all my flying writtens. Now the other side, I took 120
hours and 3 attempts at the flight test before I got my PPL.
( average is probably 70 hours) The moral is there is absolutely
nothing in common with academic ability and the ability to learn to
fly a plane. A scientist is trained to think carefully and thoroughly
to come up with the best answer how ever long it takes. A pilot has
to make good decisions in a split second. Overthinking can get you
killed. Totally different use of the brain. Mind you there are some
extremely bright people who have excelled at both, some of the
astronauts like Dr. Buzz Aldrin come to mind.
Terry
PPL Downunder