Dear Burt

That said, examiners who do their own thing can make it very hard on
instructors.
Thanks for sharing your perspective.
UH
================================================== ====================
I hope I did not give the impression that I am making up my own
checkride for I am not. If an applicant meets the PTS during my time
with him, then he passes. As it should be. Any examiner that is
running his own checkride does not deserve nor should he continue to
hold his status.

By raising the bar, I meant as an iINSTRUCTOR/i, I should always be
looking to higher standards from my students. After all getting the
student there is what instruction is all about.

Terry Claussen

This is possibly the most interesting and useful thread I've seen on
RAS in some time. Thanks to Fiveniner2 and Burt for inspiring it.

My view, as an instructor of 10 years at various operations, is that
the PTS is as adaquate as can be expected from a large beurocrocy and
that examiners are reasonably consistant in their duties.

The PTS does not really require one to be able to demonstrate the
ability to: plan, execute, and conclude a soaring ADVENTURE in a broad
spectrum of conditions, environments, and aircraft types; to share,
initiate, and promote soaring adventure; to recognize, refresh, and
maintain pilot skills.

Human beings are variable in their dedication, attention, coordination,
commitment, resources, etc. So, we have what we have in terms of
pilots, and in terms of a sport.

It's pretty clear where we need to be directing our best attention to
achieve growth in participation and improvement in safety statistics.

And, it takes a priceless contribution to dedication beyond what most
are capable of to make happen.

My hat's off to those who rise to the challenge. They are the great
mentors who work to honor the contributions of great mentors before
them. They keep this sport alive. They deserve every bit of support
the rest of us manage to direct their way.

Find a mentor, become a mentor.

Matt Michael CFIG
Ames, Iowa USA

Terry wrote:
That said, examiners who do their own thing can make it very hard
on
instructors.
Thanks for sharing your perspective.
UH

================================================== ====================
I hope I did not give the impression that I am making up my own
checkride for I am not. If an applicant meets the PTS during my time
with him, then he passes. As it should be. Any examiner that is
running his own checkride does not deserve nor should he continue to
hold his status.

By raising the bar, I meant as an iINSTRUCTOR/i, I should always
be
looking to higher standards from my students. After all getting the
student there is what instruction is all about.

Terry Claussen
]
Thanks Terry: Agree we should all be expecting more than barely good
enough. I have seen some examples of examiners making up their own
stuff and it can make you crazy. The standards are a bit mushy, which
makes it more complicated, especially for someone who is new. I'm sure
all of us that have been doing this for awhile has our own "hot spots",
that is things I commonly see a weak points in the pilot population.
I'll share a few of mine and maybe some other folks can add to the
list.

#1 Poor energy management in the landing pattern- an over application
of "speed is your friend". I'd estimate that 2 out of 3 pilots I check
for the first time would hit the fence at the far end of a small field.
#2 Failure to create a plan for developing events. The simple lack of
recognition of a need for this is far too common.
#3 Poor general airmanship- especially is slow flight. Most pilots do
not know how to fly in the stall range. I include in this flying the
glider in a stalled or partially stalled condition.

Anybody else want to jump in here?
UH

#1 Poor energy management in the landing pattern- an over application
of "speed is your friend". I'd estimate that 2 out of 3 pilots I check
for the first time would hit the fence at the far end of a small field.
#2 Failure to create a plan for developing events. The simple lack of
recognition of a need for this is far too common.
#3 Poor general airmanship- especially is slow flight. Most pilots do
not know how to fly in the stall range. I include in this flying the
glider in a stalled or partially stalled condition.

Anybody else want to jump in here?
UH


OK, I'll jump in and agree completely with Hank. Energy management and
particularly low energy landings (i.e. touchdowns) are a really big problem.
Too may people (me included) have been taught to "fly it onto the ground."

And, as Chris pointed out, some basic misconceptions about flight. I found
the following quote in the March 2005 issue of Private Pilot:
³In reality ailerons and the rudder don¹t turn airplanes; they allow the
pilot to bank the airplane, allowing the engine to pull the aircraft around
in a circle. Once the turn is established, controls are returned to almost
neutral and the elevators and engine do the work of turning the airplane.²

Hmmm, I wonder what makes a glider turn. Maybe only motor gliders can turn
and then only after the engine is started.

--
Bob
bobgreenblattATmsnDOTcom --fix this before responding

³In reality ailerons and the rudder don¹t turn airplanes; they allow the
pilot to bank the airplane, allowing the engine to pull the aircraft around
in a circle. Once the turn is established, controls are returned to almost
neutral and the elevators and engine do the work of turning the airplane.²

Hmmm, I wonder what makes a glider turn. Maybe only motor gliders can turn
and then only after the engine is started.

Lift is what causes an airplane or glider to turn. Bank the wings and a
component of lift is then in the horizontal, causing the turn. All the engine
does is control the rate of climb, typically to maintain altitude.

Jim Vincent
N483SZ
illspam

At 17:00 04 February 2005, Jim Vincent wrote:
³In reality ailerons and the rudder don¹t turn airplanes;
they allow the
pilot to bank the airplane, allowing the engine to
pull the aircraft around
in a circle. Once the turn is established, controls
are returned to almost
neutral and the elevators and engine do the work of
turning the airplane.²

Hmmm, I wonder what makes a glider turn. Maybe only
motor gliders can turn
and then only after the engine is started.

Lift is what causes an airplane or glider to turn.
Bank the wings and a
component of lift is then in the horizontal, causing
the turn. All the engine
does is control the rate of climb, typically to maintain
altitude.

Jim Vincent

Seems to me this picture is also inadequate. If the
aircraft is banked and a component of the lift is then
horizontal, why doesn't the aircraft just go sideways
over into the next county?

We need a good mental picture of what is happening
to cause the circling flight instead of just being
lifted sideways. We have to bring gravity, centrifugal
force, and the effect of the tail feathers into this
picture.

"Nyal Williams" wrote in message
...
At 17:00 04 February 2005, Jim Vincent wrote:
Seems to me this picture is also inadequate. If the
aircraft is banked and a component of the lift is then
horizontal, why doesn't the aircraft just go sideways
over into the next county?

We need a good mental picture of what is happening
to cause the circling flight instead of just being
lifted sideways. We have to bring gravity, centrifugal
force, and the effect of the tail feathers into this
picture.

You need to remember that this is a 3D vector problem involving both
velocity vectors and acceleration vectors.

The math works out something like this:

Turn Radius = Velocity squared divided by 11.26 time the tangent of the bank
angle.
Velocity is in knots (TAS), bank angle is in degrees and turn radius is in
feet.

The full description of the problem and its' solution can be found on page
178 of the 1965 edition of "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators."

Respectfully,

Wayne
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder

This is exactly my point! Why don't we all already know what makes an
aircraft turn? Many pilots feel they do, but if we sit several
professional pilots down, separately, and ask them how an aircraft
flies from a pilot's perspective, you'll get three substantively
related, though specifically different answers.

I can demonstrate with an equation (F=ma), a rectangular piece of stiff
paper, and a paper clip that an aircraft in a bank will turn (establish
a circular flight path) unless the pilot intentionally prevents it from
turning by applying rudder or reducing AoA. The point, for the sake of
this thread, isn't to define a theory of flight suitable for aviators.
Rather, it is to recognize how informal and untested many of our
theories really are. A theory that demands tail feathers to initiate
turns (as opposed to the wing just dragging the aircraft sideways
through the air) doesn't sufficiently explain the flight of hang
gliders, boomerangs, frisbees, or my paper clip ballasted flying wing.

Some might say, well, the model serves well enough.... but does it
really? How many accidents do we have each year that are preventable?
Why do competent pilots spin in? Why do well-trained pilots demonstrate
a lack of competency in basic flight skills like slipping and stall
recognition?

I'll return to slips: it's my favorite example becasue so few people
can do them well or describe them accurately. What factors need to be
considered during a slip? Are you aware that the ailorons contribute a
nose down pitching motion during a slip? Have you considered that
during a slip, you must increase the angle of attack because the lift
verctor is no longer antiparallel with graivity (as in a turn)? Are
you aware that the pitching moment of the elevator decreases with
increased beta? What effect on lift and drag does the effective
reduction of wing aspect ratio have? What differences in stick use can
be expected in a high performance versus a wide-body glider during
slipping? Is there any aerodynamic difference between a forward and a
side slip? If there isn't, why do we bother differentiating them? Have
you ever seen any of these ideas discussed in a flight primer? Why not?
I consider all these questions foundational. Yet it took me a long time
to start asking them. I learned to do slips by rote, but never did them
really well until I began to ask these questions. Hopefully, you'll
recognize I've only asked some of the less obvious questions. There are
plenty of others, some taught, some ignored, some simply not
recognized. An example of the latter... how do you measure airspeed in
a slip?

OK, I'm dancing on the head of pin, but I needed an example to drive
home what we don't know about something so "simple" as slipping. A good
pilot should be asking questions and looking for answers all the time.
A good instructor should be looking for new and better ways to pose and
answer such questions. One last example, if I asked "What is the
primary yaw control in a glider?" how would you react if I answered,
"its the ailerons?" And why might this be a better answer than "the
rudder?"

There's alot left to learn, and discuss, and apply. And alot of bright,
"mis-informed" people out there who have something to contribute. I'll
address myself to Burt again... if the RAS is misinformed, isn't the
source culpable? Isn't the first step to recognize that we're ALL, to a
greater or lesser degree, misinformed so we can get about the business
of improving our understanding?

Not to be argumentative without cause...but in my humble opinion you are
very caught up in the minutae or degree of specificity as though you have
the only way...I guess that my point. There are many ways to discuss these
and a myriad of issues and the real key is to convey the information to a
student so that HE/SHE understands the principles...Just when I start
thinking I really know my stuff about aerodynamics, I listen to someone like
Mark Maughmer...or some other guy who REALLY knows his stuff...and all the
blacks and whites start turning grey...


I guess my analogy would be...that I really don't completely understand the
funky new "low volume flushing toilet" to an exacting tolerance, but I've
never had difficulty understanding it's theory of operation, or using it, in
its intended roll.

My opinion would be that we should speak simple english, that new guys can
understand and make certain that we've conveyed the correct principles and
answered questions in logical fashions...And demonstrated behaviors that are
consistent across the board. I've had lots of check rides and bi-ennial's
and NEVER...NOT ONCE....do you answer every question to the satisfaction of
the examiner/instructor. Not to worry though...the trick is in making sure
that the student or examinee understands well, and has the tools required to
accomplish the task at hand.


That's it from me...


Steve.

Steve, don't run away...

You're going in an interesting direction and raising interesting
questions. I think I'd like to see wrangle through just what
information needs to be conveyed? I can speak simple English and
present you with a model that is patently wrong, but applicable. And
that's my point: what's the right model?

What's fascinating about where we're going with this discussion is that
we don't have much latitude for experimentation. If we go down the
wrong path, it could cost dearly. But at the same time, the methods we
currently use demand some healthy suspicion.

As for my commitment to a "way," that is, my way... of course I'm
committed to it. This is a potentially dangerous business we pursue,
and we need to have confidence in our abilities to see every flight
through to a successful outcome. As an instructor, I had some axioms,
among them that a student who could not demonstrate control of the
glider had absolutely no business flying alone in it: the basis for my
criticism of your "flexibility." However, that doesn't mean I'm not
open to differing view points. Just be ready for a bit of sparring. I
am, if nothing else, open to having my mind changed. If we were talking
Marxist criticism of Shakespeare, I might be more disposed to wear your
opinion... but when it comes to flying, you'll have to make a sound
argument and skillfully field my objections.

I mean this to be entertaining. A little sparring. A little learning,
for both of us.