A dumb doubt on stalls

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:q2Ymg.49475$ZW3.39824@dukeread04...
Did I ever say that I had taught any particular theory to
any student?

Nope. You said that you're a CFI and that you believe stalls work in a
particular way. Most CFIs teach what they believe to be true about
fundamental aviation matters. Do you do otherwise?

--Gary

In article ,
Gary Drescher wrote:
"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:q2Ymg.49475$ZW3.39824@dukeread04...
Did I ever say that I had taught any particular theory to
any student?

Nope. You said that you're a CFI and that you believe stalls work in a
particular way. Most CFIs teach what they believe to be true about
fundamental aviation matters. Do you do otherwise?

I predict what I'm about to write will be unpopular, but what the heck.

I certainly agree that any CFI should have a good (and correct)
understanding of the aerodynamics of stalls. That being said, all
your typical pilot really has to know is:

1) Stalls happen when the wing exceeds the critial AOA.

2) This can happen at any airspeed and attitude, but for most people
who fly near 1G almost all the time, "don't get too slow and don't
point the nose up too high" is a pretty good rule of thumb.

3) You can recognize a stall by mushy controls, stall warner going
off, buffet, and/or inability to maintain altitude.

4) You break the stall by reducing the AOA. Again, for most people
who live near 1G and the dirty side down almost all the time, that
means "push the yoke forward".

If a student believes the tailplane stalls at the stall break, and
that's what causes the nose to pitch down, it's not going to kill
them. It's wrong, but it's an esoteric wrong and people don't get
killed by esoteric wrongs.

Not being able to figure out if you have enough fuel to get where
you're going will kill you. Not knowing how to obtain and understand
accurate weather information will kill you. Not understanding that
stomping on the inside rudder to fix a misjudged base-to-final turn
can cause a stall/spin will kill you.

Not understanding the subtle details of the aerodynamics of a stall
such as we've been discussing here may get you a lower score on a
written test, or even make you flunk a CFI oral exam, or get roasted
on usenet, but it won't kill you, and it won't kill your students
either.

OK, you all can beat me up now.

Anyway, everybody really knows that stall recovery works like this:

1) Stall warning buzzer goes off.

2) Pilot instinctively puts his hands to his ears to block out the
annoying noise.

3) As soon as his hands are removed from the yoke, the plane recovers
on its own.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
If a student believes the tailplane stalls at the stall break, and
that's what causes the nose to pitch down, it's not going to kill
them. It's wrong, but it's an esoteric wrong and people don't get
killed by esoteric wrongs.

Roy, I agree with your general point. Much of the detail about how lift and
stalls work is of interest to engineers and physicists, but not to pilots as
such. And I agree that it's useful to present student pilots with as simple
a model as possible that supports the right conclusions about how to fly.
(Students who happen to be curious can learn more complex, more accurate
models.)

Still, I think it's useful to include a bit more information than the points
you enumerated. In particular, some reference to the Bernoulli aspect of
lift, and the separation of the boundary layer during a stall, helps make
clear why the condition of the upper wing surface is important (and why a
thin layer of frost on the upper surface can make it dangerous to take off,
for example).

Similarly, Jim's false model of stalls has some ramifications that are of
interest to pilots. In particular, if Jim's model were correct, then pilots
would have no reason to consider tail stalls more worrisome than normal
stalls (because normal stalls would *be* tail stalls). But Jim's model is
wrong, and a student who took it seriously could get into trouble. That
probably wouldn't happen (because a student who could figure out that
ramification could probably also figure out what's wrong with Jim's
explanation), but it's still an unnecessary risk.

--Gary

All the time, on the Internet.



"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
. ..
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:q2Ymg.49475$ZW3.39824@dukeread04...
| Did I ever say that I had taught any particular theory
to
| any student?
|
| Nope. You said that you're a CFI and that you believe
stalls work in a
| particular way. Most CFIs teach what they believe to be
true about
| fundamental aviation matters. Do you do otherwise?
|
| --Gary
|
|

Roy Smith wrote:

In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:


It is pretty clear that he doesn't want to know the correct answer.
Yes, it is sad that he's a CFI and propogating these OWTs to his
students. It is even scarier than the system let him get to the ATP
level with this erroneous thinking.


Getting your ATP only requires a few things:

1) Logging 1500 PIC hours. Anybody with enough time, money, and tenacity
can do that.

2) Passing a written test. Same comment as above.

I'd have thought the written would have at least a few questions about
aerodynamics.


3) Passing a flight test. This is a little harder, because it actually
requires some skill as a pilot, but I've known some very scary pilots who
have ATPs, so I gotta asuume it's not that tough.

I'm not impressed by people with ATPs, since having a clue is neither a
necessary nor sufficient condition for getting one.

I'm less impressed than I was a few days ago that's for sure!


Matt

Roy Smith wrote:

In article ,
Gary Drescher wrote:

"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:q2Ymg.49475$ZW3.39824@dukeread04...

Did I ever say that I had taught any particular theory to
any student?

Nope. You said that you're a CFI and that you believe stalls work in a
particular way. Most CFIs teach what they believe to be true about
fundamental aviation matters. Do you do otherwise?


I predict what I'm about to write will be unpopular, but what the heck.

I certainly agree that any CFI should have a good (and correct)
understanding of the aerodynamics of stalls. That being said, all
your typical pilot really has to know is:

Roy, the topic of discussion has nothing to do with it. It is the
attitude that accepts being wrong and teaching wrong as not being wrong
that is wrong!
:-)

Matt

I have found that when I give a perfectly correct and
complete answer, there is nothing left to say and the thread
dries up. I just tried and succeeded in stimulating the
conversation.

BTW, does anybody know how to explain the left hand rule for
electricity or is it the right hand rule?



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
| Roy Smith wrote:
|
| In article
,
| Gary Drescher wrote:
|
| "Jim Macklin"
wrote in message
| news:q2Ymg.49475$ZW3.39824@dukeread04...
|
| Did I ever say that I had taught any particular theory
to
| any student?
|
| Nope. You said that you're a CFI and that you believe
stalls work in a
| particular way. Most CFIs teach what they believe to be
true about
| fundamental aviation matters. Do you do otherwise?
|
|
| I predict what I'm about to write will be unpopular, but
what the heck.
|
| I certainly agree that any CFI should have a good (and
correct)
| understanding of the aerodynamics of stalls. That being
said, all
| your typical pilot really has to know is:
|
| Roy, the topic of discussion has nothing to do with it.
It is the
| attitude that accepts being wrong and teaching wrong as
not being wrong
| that is wrong!
| :-)
|
| Matt

Jim Macklin wrote:

I have found that when I give a perfectly correct and
complete answer, there is nothing left to say and the thread
dries up. I just tried and succeeded in stimulating the
conversation.

BTW, does anybody know how to explain the left hand rule for
electricity or is it the right hand rule?

Jim, your doctor prescribed those meds for a reason. Don't stop taking
them again.

Matt

In article ,
Matt Whiting wrote:

2) Passing a written test. Same comment as above.

I'd have thought the written would have at least a few questions about
aerodynamics.

I'm sure it does, but you don't need to know anything about aerodynamics to
get the questions right. You just need to have memorized the right answers.

I took my instrument written over 10 years ago. I don't know squat about
MLS, but I can still tell you that for all the MLS questions on the test
(at the time), the correct answer is the one with the biggest number. Once
I spotted that pattern, I didn't waste any additional brain cells on MLS.

Actually, I found a bottle of antibiotic and it has cleared
up my sinuses. But other than that, I'm drug free.


Forty years ago, when I cut my leg in the horse barn, I did
use some of the horse medicine rather than go to a people
doctor to get a shot. I just gave myself a few ccs of
Combiotic (a mixture of two kinds of antibiotic also
approved for people as well as cats, dogs and horses). I
have also done a little surgery to remove things like nails
in my arms, hands and legs, farm work can be dangerous. But
all my original parts are still attached and fully
functional, so I must have done it well enough.

You'd probably criticize Wolfgang Langewiesche for calling
elevators "flippers" or wonder like me, whether General
McCauliffe really said "Nuts" or used some other common
word(s).


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P





"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| I have found that when I give a perfectly correct and
| complete answer, there is nothing left to say and the
thread
| dries up. I just tried and succeeded in stimulating the
| conversation.
|
| BTW, does anybody know how to explain the left hand rule
for
| electricity or is it the right hand rule?
|
| Jim, your doctor prescribed those meds for a reason.
Don't stop taking
| them again.
|
| Matt