Airplane Pilot's As Physicists

On Oct 11, 10:23 am, "Gatt" wrote:
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in
Nothing wrong with a little discussion.

Why did you post "True Understanding Or Monkey Mode" about the same thing in
rec.aviation.piloting. Are you accusing pilots of being monkeys?

No. If you read the posts, I was complaining about both the students
and the pilots, mostly the students.

As I mentioned, I was sitting in lobby of flight school one day,
toward the end of ground school class, and there were 7-8 students
cramming for their final and to take FAA KT. We were talking about
what we think we should know, and one of the students hintet that
understanding was not really important. And said, "Well, I'm going to
take the final, and pass hopefully, but I get the feeling that this
class was too fast, and frankly, the only reason I have passed so far
is that I've been cramming." They all laughed and said, "Yeah, and?.
Look, if you want to pass the FAA KT, forget about that book
(Jeppesen's private) pilot. Go to Sporty's. They have a bunch of
questions. Plus you should get as many real FAA test questions.
That's all you need to do, to be able to anticipate what they are
going to ask you." I asked, "Don't you really want to know..or?" They
said, "No, after the exam, it doesn't matter. Not like I'm going for
ATP or anything." I looked around the room and there was general
agreement, although there was one student who understood because he'd
been into flying from very early age (like 10). One of students
announced that this was his 4th time around, and this time he was
focused...but it was apparent that by, "focused", he meant passing the
exam.

If so, do you expect to be treated with some sort of respect by people who
actually read aviation textbooks and fly planes? By the way, how's that
EB-6 training going?

Just trying to get to the bottom of what expectations there should
be. I've taught at professional level, and I can tell you that, while
I did not expect my students to know everything we've covered, when
they took an exam and wrote down an answer, it was due to thinking
through the problem, not memorization.

As for the EB-6, no problem. I studied it in advance before the ground
school class. I knew how to covert between the various types of
altitudes, etc...but I did not really know what density altitude.

I think these topics would be easier to remember if they were thought
through. For example, remember 29.92 on barometer is good, but would
be better if people had some idea of where 29.92 comes from. I asked
around the room, and no one knew, not even the CFI.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

On Oct 11, 12:15 am, "Morgans" wrote:
wrote Denny, this newsgroup is pretty effectively moderated by Bertie. The
Dudley man does a good job too.

\
Sadly, it has deteriorated to the current state.

People used to have real discussions about flying, instead of the constant
discord.

I long for the return of discussions where an idiot does not pervert every
thread, and all of the people that left, return.
--
Jim in NC

Hmm...I re-read my original 3 posts, two to rec.aviation.piloting, and
I do not see much perversion in them. I have recopied the most
controversial post for benefit of people in sci.physics.

If there is any perversion, it mostly came from susquent insults from
people who were upset by the idea that I might be reevaluating
backwash.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Orginal Post Entitled "Backwash Causes Lift?" in
rec.aviation.piloting:

On Oct 2, 8:57 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
Hi,

Student pilot here, self-teaching using the Jeppensen Private Pilot
Kit after taking ground school.

I read in the book that combustion "creates" energy, which is
technically not true, but I decided to ignore it since the pictures
are sooo pretty.

Now, in Chapter 3, section about airfoils, it actually says:

"In addition to the lowered pressure, a downward-backward flow of air
also is generated from the top surface of the wing. The reaction to
this downwash results in an upward force on the wing which demnstrates
Newtons' third law of motion. This action/reaction principle also is
apparent as the airstream strikes the lwoer surface of the wing when
inclinded at a small angle (the angle of attack) to its direction of
motion. The air is forced downward and therefore causes an upward
reaction resulting in positive lift."

IMHO, the latter part of this paragraph is correct, but the former
part is wrong.

Obviously, any air above the wing can only result in a force downward
on top of the wing. The only force causing the plane to want to move
upward comes from beneath the wing. The effect of any air above the
wing is to cause rarefication above the wing, resulting in lower
pressure, thereby giving the 14.7lbs/in^2 (plus) to do its work. That
"reaction" coming from downward movement of air seems just plain silly
to me.

I am also inclined to take issue with the explanations of Bernouilli's
Principle which I see often in the literature, but that's a different
subject. [Note, I don't doubt Bernouilli's Principle, I just think
there is more to it than the way it is being described in context of
flying.]

-Le Chaud Lapin-

"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote

As I mentioned, I was sitting in lobby of flight school one day,
toward the end of ground school class, and there were 7-8 students
cramming for their final and to take FAA KT. We were talking about
what we think we should know, and one of the students hintet that
understanding was not really important.

Anyone who thinks that will be in for a surprise when they take the oral
portion of the practical test, if they get that far. Good instructors will
be checking their students' comprehension of the required knowledge on a
continuing basis as flight lessons progress. I doubt that you would get a
signoff for your practical from an instructor who suspected that you were
only at the rote learning level.

I think these topics would be easier to remember if they were thought
through. For example, remember 29.92 on barometer is good, but would
be better if people had some idea of where 29.92 comes from. I asked
around the room, and no one knew, not even the CFI.

If true, that's one end of the spectrum I suppose, and one isolated
instance.

BDS

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

For example, remember 29.92 on barometer is good, but would
be better if people had some idea of where 29.92 comes from. I asked
around the room, and no one knew, not even the CFI.

Seriously?

"CWatters" wrote:
"CWatters" wrote in message
...

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"ABLE_1" wrote:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KCcZyW-6-5o

Enjoy!!!

Here's something that flies which doesn't rely on Bernoulli's theorem:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1T2gg4zpyuo

...except when it's trying to climb fast, or turn. :-)

Oh and for the props.

Minor details! ;-)

(I also know that rigid airships typically flew deliberately "heavy" and
relied a bit on dynamic lift.)

On Oct 11, 12:31 pm, "BDS" wrote:
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote

As I mentioned, I was sitting in lobby of flight school one day,
toward the end of ground school class, and there were 7-8 students
cramming for their final and to take FAA KT. We were talking about
what we think we should know, and one of the students hintet that
understanding was not really important.

Anyone who thinks that will be in for a surprise when they take the oral
portion of the practical test, if they get that far. Good instructors will
be checking their students' comprehension of the required knowledge on a
continuing basis as flight lessons progress. I doubt that you would get a
signoff for your practical from an instructor who suspected that you were
only at the rote learning level.

That brings me to next question:

How difficult is the oral part?. Time is limited so obviously they
cannot ask every thing. Is it possible for a student to slip by on the
oral portion and just do well on practical and still pass?

Also, can FAA examiners act as instructors simultaneously or is there
a rule forbidding it?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

How difficult is the oral part?. Time is limited so obviously they
cannot ask every thing.

No, but displaying weakness on a subject matter will usually draw more
questions, or requests for clarification, on that subject. In my
experience, the examiner will arrive with a plan for each section of the
exam, so that the important stuff will be covered.

For stuff that isn't often used, ex:// FAR minute details, you can ask
to look it up. BS'ing is usually a bad plan if you really don't know
something.

The actual time period is at the discretion of the examiner. There is
no egg timer running during the test.

Also, the oral portion doesn't end when you get into the airplane for
the practical portion. The oral can theoretically continue right up to
when your temporary certificate is issued.

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
ps.com:

On Oct 11, 10:23 am, "Gatt" wrote:
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in
Nothing wrong with a little discussion.

Why did you post "True Understanding Or Monkey Mode" about the same
thing in rec.aviation.piloting. Are you accusing pilots of being
monkeys?

No. If you read the posts, I was complaining about both the students
and the pilots, mostly the students.

As I mentioned, I was sitting in lobby of flight school one day,
toward the end of ground school class, and there were 7-8 students
cramming for their final and to take FAA KT. We were talking about
what we think we should know, and one of the students hintet that
understanding was not really important. And said, "Well, I'm going to
take the final, and pass hopefully, but I get the feeling that this
class was too fast, and frankly, the only reason I have passed so far
is that I've been cramming." They all laughed and said, "Yeah, and?.
Look, if you want to pass the FAA KT, forget about that book
(Jeppesen's private) pilot. Go to Sporty's. They have a bunch of
questions. Plus you should get as many real FAA test questions.
That's all you need to do, to be able to anticipate what they are
going to ask you." I asked, "Don't you really want to know..or?" They
said, "No, after the exam, it doesn't matter. Not like I'm going for
ATP or anything." I looked around the room and there was general
agreement, although there was one student who understood because he'd
been into flying from very early age (like 10). One of students
announced that this was his 4th time around, and this time he was
focused...but it was apparent that by, "focused", he meant passing the
exam.

If so, do you expect to be treated with some sort of respect by
people who actually read aviation textbooks and fly planes? By the
way, how's that EB-6 training going?

Just trying to get to the bottom of what expectations there should
be. I've taught at professional level, and I can tell you that, while
I did not expect my students to know everything we've covered, when
they took an exam and wrote down an answer, it was due to thinking
through the problem, not memorization.

As for the EB-6, no problem. I studied it in advance before the ground
school class. I knew how to covert between the various types of
altitudes, etc...but I did not really know what density altitude.

I think these topics would be easier to remember if they were thought
through. For example, remember 29.92 on barometer is good, but would
be better if people had some idea of where 29.92 comes from. I asked
around the room, and no one knew, not even the CFI.


I do, send me 200$ and I'll tell you

I still take paypal.


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

For example, remember 29.92 on barometer is good, but would
be better if people had some idea of where 29.92 comes from. I asked
around the room, and no one knew, not even the CFI.

Seriously?




Bwawhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwh ha!

God you're pathetic sockpuppetboi



Bertie

"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
ps.com...

Why did you post "True Understanding Or Monkey Mode" about the same thing
in
rec.aviation.piloting. Are you accusing pilots of being monkeys?

No. If you read the posts, I was complaining about both the students
and the pilots, mostly the students.

You ARE a student. You, IIRC, where discussing the logarithmic flaws of the
"EB-6" if I remember correctly.

As for the EB-6, no problem. I studied it in advance before the ground
school class.

I can tell. But, like I said in r.a.s, I made it clear through the
commercial license without ever once using an EB-6.

-c