Airplane Pilot's As Physicists

"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

On Oct 11, 12:38 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
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?

Yes, seriously. The CFI was a very likeable person, a bit young,
maybe mid 20's. I am sure he is competent as a pilot. I would not
hesitate to fly with him. But personally, I have a real hard time
being told to plug in numbers with no real understanding why. My
ability to retain quickly drops to zero doing that.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

On Oct 11, 1:27 pm, "Gatt" wrote:
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in glegroups.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.

Nope. I mentioned that I had followed the yellow and blue book page
by page, and after that, I want to look at the EB-6 a little more, to
try to understand if there were any relationships on the scales to
help with memory. I asked if those relationships were linear, and one
or two other people said that it was logarithm, and another person
said that it is effectively a slide rule. I did not say whether it
was linear or logarithmic, except for the temperature scale.

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.

So, my question might have been, which B A R R Y seems to have
answered, is...

"Given all the things in the Jeppesen $200 kit, are we expected to
know those things or not?"

I had been assuming that the FAA actually wants people to know. I had
decided for myself not to take the KT yet even though I could probably
pass (barely) right now.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

On Oct 11, 1:31 pm, "Gatt" wrote:
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in ooglegroups.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.

Hmm...that answers that question. We had some flight planning toward
end of class. That's when it really hit me that one actually has to
know what he's doing.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

"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

"mike regish" wrote in message
. ..
I think that the shape of the wing simply allows for a greater range of
angles of attack. A sheet of plywood would provide lift, but only at a
very
precise and small angle of attack.

The airfoil shape allows the wing to
provide lift through a much larger range of angles of attack.

Well sort of.

Thick wings do tend to operate over a wider range of angles than thin wings
but most subsonic wing sections will work from 0 to 10 degrees or more. It's
above 12 or 15 degrees that the section becomes more critical.

A conventional wing section with camber can produce +ve lift at zero degrees
AOA.

The zero lift angle (the angle at which no lift is produced) is actually
negative on many conventional sections.

Colin

JMO.

mike
"Gatt" wrote in message
...

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

Even though this (new) thread is not about what causes a wing to
lift,
I just wanted to say for the record that I agree with this answer,
that it is both AoA and curvature of the wing.

It's just AOA.

Nope.

There goes my Lapin = MX theory. Apologies to Chaud are probably in
order. (I probably apologize?)

-c

"CWatters" wrote in message
...
:
: "mike regish" wrote in message
: . ..
: I think that the shape of the wing simply allows for a greater range of
: angles of attack. A sheet of plywood would provide lift, but only at a
: very
: precise and small angle of attack.
:
: The airfoil shape allows the wing to
: provide lift through a much larger range of angles of attack.
:
: Well sort of.
:
: Thick wings do tend to operate over a wider range of angles than thin
wings
: but most subsonic wing sections will work from 0 to 10 degrees or more.
It's
: above 12 or 15 degrees that the section becomes more critical.
:
: A conventional wing section with camber can produce +ve lift at zero
degrees
: AOA.
:
: The zero lift angle (the angle at which no lift is produced) is actually
: negative on many conventional sections.

Ever heard of Bernoulli?
Try this demonstration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCcZyW-6-5o
A Tomahawk cruise missile uses its wings as a control surface more
than for lift. Straight and level is useful for the computer programmer.
He thinks that way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19XXTArAGaM

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

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

Nope. I mentioned that I had followed the yellow and blue book page
by page, and after that, I want to look at the EB-6 a little more,


I suggest you take a much closer look at your flight computer. I recommend
a Google Search of EB-6. Like I said, science is exact and requires
precision.


-c

"Gatt" wrote:
I recommend a Google Search of EB-6.

It's E-6B or just E6B. (I suppose E6-B is used also.)
But not EB-6.

I've been seeing the same typo repeated for quite a few postings on this
thread and until now had no reason to correct it.

On Oct 11, 4:18 pm, "Gatt" wrote:
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in ooglegroups.com...



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

Nope. I mentioned that I had followed the yellow and blue book page
by page, and after that, I want to look at the EB-6 a little more,

I suggest you take a much closer look at your flight computer. I recommend
a Google Search of EB-6. Like I said, science is exact and requires
precision.

????????

-Le Chaud Lapin-