Airplane Pilot's As Physicists

On Oct 10, 7:46 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"CWatters" wrote in
:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
. ..
The essential feature of an airfoil is that it twists the flow of
air as
it
passes (or as the airfoil passes through still air, which is
equivalent,
and
that's how it works in airplanes). The air is accelerated downward,
and
this
engenders an equal and opposite force that is lift.
Nope. That wouldn't explain how wing sections for tailless planes
work. The sections for those curve up towards the trailing edge. The
leading edge produces lift but the trailing edge produces a _downward_
force to counter the pitching moment. Example section...

http://www.desktopaero.com/appliedae...mages/image13_
43.
gif

Good point.

The porblem with this guy is (and it's just one guy with a handful of
sockpuppets) is that he ses some discrepencies in how bernoulli is
explained and has concluded that it must be incorrect since there is
"disagreement amongst the experts"

A good analogy here would be the eeedjit creationists who grasp at the
straws presented by the minor scuffles occuring within the evolutionary
sciences.

Bertie

This is exactly how I see this as well. This character and his puppets
are playing out a conversation with themselves (one person) designed to
capitalize on the few simple misconceptions concerning Bernoulli that
are common knowledge among the professional aviation community and have
been "corrected" years ago.
Unfortunately for this forum, there are still a few old textbooks
hanging around out there reflecting these misconceptions. This, coupled
with the fact that there are individual pilots out here (from the GA
community mostly) who apparently lack the formal physics knowledge to
take on someone whose sole intent is to discredit them by cleverly using
the remaining confusion in the community concerning Bernoulli against them.
The REAL rub in this situation is that the idiot doing this, from what I
have seen in his posting, has very little knowledge HIMSELF about the
lift issue and is totally wrong in critical areas of his argument.
It's an unfortunate situation designed by a person who seems to pleasure
himself by what he's doing.
Personally I wouldn't give this idiot the time of day. His understanding
of Bernoulli is much worse than those with whom he has engaged. Those
who are on to him he avoids, only taking glancing shots at them knowing
he won't be answered directly.
It's a shame really....but what the hell, it's Usenet!!
:-)))

--
Dudley Henriques

I haven't minded taking the bait. The process has
pointed out many good websites we can use in instruction, and has
forced a review of some basic principles. Got to find the silver
lining, right?

Dan

On Oct 10, 10:25 am, wrote:
This is exactly how I see this as well. This character and his puppets
are playing out a conversation with themselves (one person) designed to
capitalize on the few simple misconceptions concerning Bernoulli that
are common knowledge among the professional aviation community and have
been "corrected" years ago.
Unfortunately for this forum, there are still a few old textbooks
hanging around out there reflecting these misconceptions. This, coupled
with the fact that there are individual pilots out here (from the GA
community mostly) who apparently lack the formal physics knowledge to
take on someone whose sole intent is to discredit them by cleverly using
the remaining confusion in the community concerning Bernoulli against them.
The REAL rub in this situation is that the idiot doing this, from what I
have seen in his posting, has very little knowledge HIMSELF about the
lift issue and is totally wrong in critical areas of his argument.
It's an unfortunate situation designed by a person who seems to pleasure
himself by what he's doing.
Personally I wouldn't give this idiot the time of day. His understanding
of Bernoulli is much worse than those with whom he has engaged. Those
who are on to him he avoids, only taking glancing shots at them knowing
he won't be answered directly.
It's a shame really....but what the hell, it's Usenet!!
:-)))

--
Dudley Henriques

I haven't minded taking the bait. The process has
pointed out many good websites we can use in instruction, and has
forced a review of some basic principles. Got to find the silver
lining, right?

Right.

Nothing wrong with a little discussion.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
ups.com:

On Oct 10, 10:25 am, wrote:
This is exactly how I see this as well. This character and his
puppets are playing out a conversation with themselves (one person)
designed to capitalize on the few simple misconceptions concerning
Bernoulli that are common knowledge among the professional aviation
community and have been "corrected" years ago.
Unfortunately for this forum, there are still a few old textbooks
hanging around out there reflecting these misconceptions. This,
coupled with the fact that there are individual pilots out here
(from the GA community mostly) who apparently lack the formal
physics knowledge to take on someone whose sole intent is to
discredit them by cleverly using the remaining confusion in the
community concerning Bernoulli against them. The REAL rub in this
situation is that the idiot doing this, from what I have seen in
his posting, has very little knowledge HIMSELF about the lift issue
and is totally wrong in critical areas of his argument. It's an
unfortunate situation designed by a person who seems to pleasure
himself by what he's doing.
Personally I wouldn't give this idiot the time of day. His
understanding of Bernoulli is much worse than those with whom he
has engaged. Those who are on to him he avoids, only taking
glancing shots at them knowing he won't be answered directly.
It's a shame really....but what the hell, it's Usenet!!
:-)))

--
Dudley Henriques

I haven't minded taking the bait. The process has
pointed out many good websites we can use in instruction, and has
forced a review of some basic principles. Got to find the silver
lining, right?

Right.

Nothing wrong with a little discussion.



You're not intersted in discussion, fjukkwit


Bertie

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

I haven't minded taking the bait. The process has pointed
out many good websites we can use in instruction, and has
forced a review of some basic principles. Got to find the silver lining,
right?

Right.

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?

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?

-c

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-

"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

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 message
oups.com...

How difficult is the oral part?.

It's easy if you know the material. It's going to be related to practical
things like airspace, regulations, medical and equipment requirements, cross
country planning, etc.

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?

It's possible, but if you can't do well on the oral portion the practical
might really kick your ass, particularly in the flight planning phase.

-c

"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote

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?

Download and review the PTS - in general you can be asked about anything in
it. You can fail on the oral alone and never get to the flying portion of
the test. If you do that badly I suspect the examiner will be in touch with
the CFI who gave you the endorsement to take the practical.

Also note that the CFI who endorses you for the practical must also certify
that they have given you instruction in the areas you were found to be
deficient in when you took your knowledge test.

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

Depends on what you mean by instruction. If you fail to perform any
maneuver to the PTS standards you are probably not going to get instruction
on how to meet them and then also be rated as satisfactory. Same goes for
the oral.

CFIs who send too many poorly prepared students to examiners will probably
draw the attention of the local FSDO office at some point.

BDS