If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Streve, you said,
"I'd further assert that there are plenty of pilots who simply shouldn't be flying in on the brink of a stall, because they are not keenly enough attuned to the voice of the sailplane and it's subtle ways of letting us know what it needs to keep us flying." No well-trained pilot "flies in on the brink of a stall." In a sailplane, the flair isn't initiated until the pilot is less than 10 feet above the ground. One does not approach stall speed until within several feet of the ground, at which point ham handedness won't lead to much more than landing with a "thud" rather than a "swish." The point at which one chooses to flair or not to flair comes with skill and knowledge. But forcing a glider onto the ground can lead to equally unhappy results, usually ending in a stall and something louder than a thud. By far, the most common landing mistake I see is forcing the glider onto the ground, only to become airborne with the first substantial bump, at which point things become genuinely interesting, and usually end in a fully stalled landing. Why not just cut out the middle man? If a pilot is unable to manage a flair and continue it into a fully stalled landing, the pilot is not yet competent. When he can demonstrate the ability to do this, then he can start experimenting with more energetic arrivals. Crosswinds are another matter. If you'd like, start a thread on them. There are lots of theories about this too. And plenty to question in each of them. I think, though, I'm being too negative . You do make a good point. Flexibility is a desirable quality. I once had a student who simply couldn't get his landings right, even though he was doing everything by the book. He was a sailor. Finally, in exasperation, I said, "Bill, do you dock your boat the same way every time? Don't you have to change how you do things based on wind and current?" From that point on I could never find anything criticize in his landings. He soloed several flights later. But flexibility depends a sound foundation of knowledge. If your conceptual model is flawed, flexibility might hurt you. Interesting line of thought... |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
I think perhaps I've crossed wires somewhere along the line...the stall
comment I meant in earnest. I have flown with plenty of pilots who are afraid of stalls...or let's say..."uncomfortable" performing them. To me, I think they're pretty neat. My comment was aimed at pointing out, that if you teach an undynamic approach...regardless of what it is...we are asking for trouble at some point. Every landing is different. When I refer to flying in on the brink of a stall, I was responding to unclehanks previous posting regarding someone not being able to fit into a tight field. An off field landing into a tight field, is a completely different mindset and setup and I do slow my ship WAY down, when I have to land very short. You give up layers of options in doing so and fully commit yourself to a different level of risk. But skill and awareness generally keeps us safe. Just to clarify my point further. Steve. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
wrote: 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. ================================================= ==================== Earlier I made two examples that I thought detailed some of the more pressing problems in instruction today: lack of detailed ground instruction on a conceptual basis, and a specific example of how that translated a short-handed description into a bad understanding for a student (in that particular case a new PPG). Pilots like to fly, otherwise they would do something else. Some instructors are very good pilots, yet they are not particularly good at communicating on a conceptual level the art of flying. Result, a flying instuctor that hangs onto the stick and is always willing to show instead of teach. New instructors are particulary susceptable to this as they are not quite sure of their ability to let out enough rope to the student but not so much as to hang themselves as well. So they hang on. Some very experienced pilots do just that. When I had one flying me around while I was being checked out in the club's grob, I suddenly realized that I was probably doing the same and wasn't even aware of it. Speak more, show less. Which brings out another frequently overlooked item. An aircraft is a lousy classroom. In a tandem configuration, I am talking to the back of someone's head. If we accept that a great portion of communication is non verbal, then students are only receiving a small portion of what is trying to be conveyed verbally. It is more fun to fly. I would rather strap into the glider and fly flight after flight, but were I to do that with students, how would I plan, brief, clarify questions, query, and evaluate progress for that day while examining my student's hat or hair style? Impossible. The instructor sets the plan and executes the instruction. By taking the time, and it does take AT LEAST the same amount of ground time as flight time to settle any misconceptions and solidify instruction, your student will have fewer bad habits and hopefully fewer withdrawls from the bank of luck. Terry |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Don't sweat it...no running here.
I am simply convinced that many times, one persons perfect plan, is another persons last alternative. I think what we are really referring to, is the single most difficult thing to teach. we can teach the skills, we can teach the theory, but what we cannotn teach, is judgment. The first time you cut a student loose, after knowing they have all the required skills and then you watch them do something truly dumb or completely adverse to what you've taught, you realize that the single best thing we can try to share, is how to think and analyze and act. There was an old military adage called the ODA loop. I'm sure someone will be able to tell you the guys name. It was Observe,Decide,Act. It really became and analytical basis for modern warfare. As Mark James Boyd points out, the PTS does a good job of laying out what is to be demonstrated to the minimum acceptable standards. I have just always sorta felt that the PTS and ensuing exam is based on passing the test in a 2-33 and going for 20 minute sled rides. Real world in a 45:1 sailplane...that test doesn't even scratch the surface of what's required. We can argue for weeks I'm sure and in the end, a free exchange of soaring philosophy from a variety of sources is of more benefit to a soaring pilot advancing into the ranks, then just passing the FAA Knowledge Test and PTS. Just my opinion...flame me all you want. Not a safe soaring pilot, does a freshly printed Glider certificate in hand...necessarily make. I'm still not running....but it is Friday and I'd rather go have a beer than argue anymore. Steve. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Steve Hill" wrote in message ... An off field landing into a tight field, is a completely different mindset and setup and I do slow my ship WAY down, when I have to land very short. You give up layers of options in doing so and fully commit yourself to a different level of risk. But skill and awareness generally keeps us safe. You are simply trading one kind of risk for another, and hopefully making a good deal for yourself and your aircraft in the process. Too many pilots forget the simple formula "E= M * V^2", which tells you how much energy you must dissipate after touching down at a given speed. Note that velocity is a square relationship, so therefore you do not have to increase velocity much before you have doubled the energy that must somehow be dissipated on landing. (Simple example he http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physic...ticEnergy.html ) It is good to sit down and plug in numbers for your own bird at various landing speeds and then you will be far better equipped to rationally make that particular risk tradeoff when you are looking at a landout. Vaughn |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Glad I misunderstood. I'd have joined you, but Laura had beer and pizza
waiting this evening. Cheers, OC (hic) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
I am a Private SEL and Glider Pilot, not an instructor or an examiner,
so go easy if I have no biz contributing! I currently work at an airplane flight school (not as a pilot). I have observed how individual students/customers learn and progress, each in their own timeframe and each with his/her own strengths and weaknesses. I've also witnessed how, with varying levels of success, the CFIs perceive and handle customers' differences. Based on those observations and my own personal experiences, I have two comments: (1) "One picture is worth a thousand words." Terry, I appreciate the value of your thoughts about how "the student needs to learn, not me" and about being able to "fly orally, and certainly there are some things that can only be explained or shown to a point, after which the rest is up to the student/customer. On the other hand, while some CFIs are hesitant or even reluctant to "fly for the student", there are other times when being SHOWN *instantly* teaches an understanding that multiple verbal or written descriptions cannot convey. The preached phrase -- "don't fly on the customer's dime" -- has been taken so literally and absolutely by some instructors that repeatedly and unsuccessfully verbally explaining something vs. demonstrating it sometimes wastes more of the customer's dime than it saves. (2) Please welcome questions, and never EVER make anyone regret asking you. I know how BASIC that is, but it addresses the original ideas about erroneous info on RAS or anywhere, how and why it is born, how long it lives, and whether or not instruction is lacking. Whether we hear it in a hangar caf or read it on RAS, if it gets people thinking about specific areas, and more importantly, if we bring the thought/question to you, a CFI or Examiner, *THAT DISCUSSION*, regardless of the source that prompted it, should be one of the most welcome opportunities you get to further educate us. I have tremendous respect and gratitude for everyone I've taken instruction from, but I have varying levels of comfort approaching each of them with questions. I have been both chastized and applauded for asking questions that originated from discussions on the internet. In one instance, Instructor-A blasted me for even considering that anything I'd read on an internet newsgroup may have validity; Instructor-B heard my question, suggested some topic-specific reading material, and took a flight with me to address the subject hands-on. Which instructor made me feel apprehensive about asking other questions? And which reaction to my question was advantageous to me as a pilot constantly striving to be as safe, knowledgeable and competent as possible? Lastly, I recently was invited to sit-in at a CFI meeting. During an exchange of ideas/suggestions for various areas of instruction, one CFI expressed a preference for teaching instrument or commercial students because "they already know how to fly." Another instantly spoke up, saying that she welcomes and appreciates the opportunity to teach private students because she's had so many instrument and commercial students that have clearly been adequately taught the mechanics of flying, but NOT how to think, reason and make sound judgments in situations that aren't routinely rehearsed for a checkride. She said she felt that skill of how to think, due to the vagueness of how to measure/grade it, was the one most commonly skimmed over and consequently lacking, and sometimes not received as well when addressed in a person already licensed vs during training for Private. Interesting thread. Thanks! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dear Denise | [email protected] | Soaring | 0 | February 3rd 05 03:22 PM |
From "Dear Oracle" | Larry Smith | Home Built | 0 | December 27th 03 04:25 AM |
Dear Jack - Elevator Turbulator tape question | Dave Martin | Soaring | 2 | October 14th 03 08:11 PM |
Burt Rutan "pissed off" | Tarver Engineering | Military Aviation | 22 | September 3rd 03 04:10 AM |
Burt Rutan | Dudley Henriques | Military Aviation | 0 | August 23rd 03 07:03 PM |