Dear Burt

At 01:30 05 February 2005, Tony Verhulst wrote:
wrote:
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.

Let me play 'devil's advocate' for a minute. A friend
of mine was taking
power lessons and the CFI asked how a VOR works. My
friend started to
explain the reference and rotating signals. The CFI
stopped him and said
'I see you're an engineer, now tell me how a VOR works'.
'You tune and
identify the frequency and set the radial on the OBS'.
'Right'.

Tony V.


Nope, that's how you work a VOR; he was right about
how a VOR works. Language is a funny tool.

Nope, that's how you work a VOR; he was right about
how a VOR works. Language is a funny tool.

The point I was trying to make was that you don't have to know how a VOR
works in order to use it. Just as you don't have to know what makes an
airplane turn in order to turn an airplane.

Tony V.

Great thread you guys but I'm thinking that there are tons of folks missing
out due to the "Dear Burt" title.

I agree with you Steve and will add in response to some earlier comments
that I get very tired of the "guess what I'm thinking" approach to teaching.
Many years ago I had an instructor refuse to sign me off at a commercial
operation in So Cal because my approach turns were not at the exact
altitudes he expected and the speed was slightly slower than he wanted. As
far as I'm concerned if your approach is identical whether landing on a
7000' paved runway or an outlanding in a short field you have missed the
boat somewhere.

I teach residents in a medical setting and learn a lot from watching them.
There are nearly always multiple appropriate solutions to the same problem
and to insist that there is a single solution not only is incorrect it
confuses the student. It also shows that prior instructors were insecure in
their own knowledge base. What I suggest they do is to politely listen to
all of the various methods and then to either incorporate one that they feel
best fits their own thinking or to maybe combine some to make a new
solution.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

"Vaughn" wrote in message
...


the simple formula "E= M * V^2",

Typo. Actually, the formula is "E=.5M * V^2" but the important thing is
the relationship between mass and velocity. Double the mass of your glider and
you "only" double the landing energy, double your speed and you quadruple the
energy!

Vaughn

At 15:00 05 February 2005, Tony Verhulst wrote:

Nope, that's how you work a VOR; he was right about
how a VOR works. Language is a funny tool.

The point I was trying to make was that you don't have
to know how a VOR
works in order to use it. Just as you don't have to
know what makes an
airplane turn in order to turn an airplane.

I understood, Tony. I just like to belabor the point
that what we say is not a;ways understood. What we
communicate is not what we say; it is what the other
person thought we said.

I don't really intend to be a smartass; my apologies
if I come off that way!

At 17:30 05 February 2005, Vaughn wrote:

'Vaughn' wrote in message
...



the simple formula 'E= M * V^2',

Typo. Actually, the formula is 'E=.5M * V^2'
but the important thing is
the relationship between mass and velocity. Double
the mass of your glider and
you 'only' double the landing energy, double your speed
and you quadruple the
energy!

Vaughn


Thank you for that simple statement. It is clear and
concise, the way our instructions should be. Many of
us and many, many more do not 'read' formulae. I have
no personal knowledge of the meaning of the '^' symbol
in the above equation, but I know very well the truth
of what it purports to state.

I understood, Tony. I just like to belabor the point
that what we say is not a;ways understood. What we
communicate is not what we say; it is what the other
person thought we said.

I don't really intend to be a smartass; my apologies
if I come off that way!


No problem - and you were right. I just didn't know if my point was
clear or not, and so I clarified it.

Tony

"Nyal Williams" wrote in message
...
At 15:00 05 February 2005, Tony Verhulst wrote:

Nope, that's how you work a VOR; he was right about
how a VOR works. Language is a funny tool.

The point I was trying to make was that you don't have
to know how a VOR
works in order to use it. Just as you don't have to
know what makes an
airplane turn in order to turn an airplane.

I understood, Tony. I just like to belabor the point
that what we say is not a;ways understood. What we
communicate is not what we say; it is what the other
person thought we said.

I don't really intend to be a smartass; my apologies
if I come off that way!

I know you believe you think you understand what you thought I said; but I
am not sure you realize that what you heard was not what I meant!

Tim Ward

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 have to bring gravity, centrifugal
force, and the effect of the tail feathers into this picture.
We need a good mental picture of what is happening.......

"The math" doesn't give a "good mental picture".
Gravity provides the thrust for a glider. It is sliding downhill.

Centrifugal force is provided by part of the lifting force of the
wings. It causes the glider to turn because it is always at
right angles to the direction of flight. Don't think of it as pulling
you sideways but rather as pulling you round. (sic.)

The "tail feathers": The rudder is used to counteract the adverse
yaw of the wings caused by the differences of drag on the two
wings during turning flight.

The elevator is used to counteract the loss of some of the
"upwards" lift being used to create "inwards" lift (towards the
center of the circle) during banking. This loss is made
up for by increasing the angle of attack.

The use of the rudder and elevator during turning is not entirely
necessary but it does make flying safer and more efficient.

David

Some parties are best kept small...

Casey, could you expand a little on your methodology. Specifically, as
it relates to aviation, your residents must have a foundation of
knowledge you can trust. Methods for monitoring patients, a copy if
Griffith's in their pockets, etc. Experimentation and sharing insights,
opinions, sudden flashes of clarity are an important part of learning,
but we do the majority of learning in the air alone. What about teach
the immutables? (or semi immutables... ie, if I choose to go against
this precept, I'd better have a damn good reason). What is the parallel
in medicine of a certified pilot yanking back the yoke and trying to
snatch up a dropping wing without an equal helping of rudder? Is it
possible for a doc, under your tutelage, to get it that wrong?

I'm trying to work us backwards into the beginnings of an answer for
"Why aren't we giving every pilot the tools necessary to protect him
from self-inflicted injury?" And how do we get there?