![]() |
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. -Le Chaud Lapin- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DC-3 parts to give away | Robert Little | Restoration | 2 | November 23rd 06 03:30 AM |
Who can give a checkout? | Mark S Conway | General Aviation | 2 | May 9th 05 12:15 AM |
Winch give-away | KP | Soaring | 6 | January 11th 05 08:04 PM |
Did you ever give up on an IR? | No Such User | Piloting | 24 | November 26th 03 02:45 PM |
FS 2004 give away | Ozzie M | Simulators | 0 | November 23rd 03 03:50 PM |