Flight Lessons

Subject: Flight Lessons
From: Cub Driver
Date: 8/6/03 2:48 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:


You're choosing to focus on aspects that YOU happen to be familiar
with

That is totaly true. But this would be a better NG if everyone else did the
same.

Thanks for brightening my morning.

all the best -- Dan Ford


My pleasure. (grin)




Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

ArtKramr wrote:
Cub Driver wrote:

I found the E6B circular slide rule "computer" a real bear to
understand and use, plus there was always the problem of where to
store it and how to use it when your left hand is on the stick.

No prob. Simply hold the stick in one hand and rotate the circular
slide rule on your E6B in the other. Considering how slowly one
"drives" a Cub thru the air, it really shouldn't be all that difficult
(kinda' like walking and chewing gum at the same time). Of course,
they also make these thingy's that you strap on your knees called
"kneeboards" that come in handy as well.

W lived and died by the E 6-B.After 60 years I still treasure mine and always
thought it a gift from the gods. I thought how amazing it was that we had a
device the could do everything. Even today I could probably still run a double
drift and end up with a nice tight wind star.(grin)

Do trophies I won at the local bomb drop contests count? Folks knew I
would always win so to be competitive they kept changing the rules in
midstream (e.g: allowing the competition to fly lower and lower before
releasing their "bombs").

The rules stipulated two bombs per pilot (brightly colored socks
filled with sand dropped from no lower than 100 ft. AGL). I finally
got tired of their cheatenous ways so the last time I entered the
silly contest, in addition to the two "official" bombs they issued,
when they weren't looking I decided to load up my "bomber" with
a half dozen bombs filled with flour along with two water balloons
thrown in for good measure.

When it was my turn, I initiated my normal bombing run at the "target"
(a 10 ft. X 10 ft. box outlined on the ground with chalk or tape) but
this time, I waited until I was aimed straight at the crowd of
spectators gathered on the sidelines before rolling wings level.
I remained up at the regulation 100 ft. AGL height so they wouldn't
suspect anything out of the ordinary was about to happen...

I won't soon forget the sight of all those nice folks frantically
scattering in all directions while trying to avoid the bursting water
balloons and clouds of flour. I promptly departed the area after
my bombing run....


-Mike (and haven't been back since) Marron

(ArtKramr) wrote:

GPS was something we could only dream of.Think of the thousands of lost planes
and lives and ruined missions that could have been saved if we only had GPS.

Arthur Kramer

A lot of guys had the same wistful thought about INS. Simply enter the
coordinates and follow the bearing pointer to the target. I can't
begin to tell you the long series of stories of guys blindly following
the needle while totally ignoring the landmarks, the TACAN, the radar
presentation and good ol' fashioned ded reckoning until they are
totally lost, busted the TAC check and missed the target.

GPS is simply one of a series of tools that must, repeat MUST, be used
in concert and with common sense.

Even the vaunted E-6B (I taught flight planning and navigation in
pilot training academics) was only as good as the common sense of the
user. I would patiently tell the students repeatedly to first estimate
what they think an appropriate answer might be, then do the "whiz
wheel" calculation. For example, my airspeed is 300 knots and I'm
going 120 miles on the leg, how long should it take me? If you guess
24 minutes before you pick up your E-6B, you've got a good chance of
coming up with the right answer.

I recall an ORI out of Torrejon Spain that sent us to a tanker in the
N. Atlantic on a track we seldom used. The "planning cell" in the
command post prepared our flight data cards and transposed two digits
in a Lat/Long for INS coordinates. I was leading with the wing DO on
my wing. When we coasted out from Spain, the bearing point showed 40
degrees left of where the TACAN radial was and where ded reckoning
said we should head. I went to the tanker track while the DO told me I
was wrong and should follow the INS. I told him he was #2 and to
maintain radio silence. We went to the tanker.

Garbage in--garbage out. It never changes.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

ArtKramr wrote:
Cub Driver wrote:

Thanks for brightening my morning.

My pleasure. (grin)

What's this, a drive-by shooting after I tore your argument apart
limb by limb? (grin)

-Mike Marron

Ed Rasimus wrote:
(ArtKramr) wrote:

GPS was something we could only dream of.Think of the thousands of lost planes
and lives and ruined missions that could have been saved if we only had GPS.

A lot of guys had the same wistful thought about INS. Simply enter the
coordinates and follow the bearing pointer to the target. I can't
begin to tell you the long series of stories of guys blindly following
the needle while totally ignoring the landmarks, the TACAN, the radar
presentation and good ol' fashioned ded reckoning until they are
totally lost, busted the TAC check and missed the target.

GPS is simply one of a series of tools that must, repeat MUST, be used
in concert and with common sense.

Even the vaunted E-6B (I taught flight planning and navigation in
pilot training academics) was only as good as the common sense of the
user. I would patiently tell the students repeatedly to first estimate
what they think an appropriate answer might be, then do the "whiz
wheel" calculation. For example, my airspeed is 300 knots and I'm
going 120 miles on the leg, how long should it take me? If you guess
24 minutes before you pick up your E-6B, you've got a good chance of
coming up with the right answer.

I recall an ORI out of Torrejon Spain that sent us to a tanker in the
N. Atlantic on a track we seldom used. The "planning cell" in the
command post prepared our flight data cards and transposed two digits
in a Lat/Long for INS coordinates. I was leading with the wing DO on
my wing. When we coasted out from Spain, the bearing point showed 40
degrees left of where the TACAN radial was and where ded reckoning
said we should head. I went to the tanker track while the DO told me I
was wrong and should follow the INS. I told him he was #2 and to
maintain radio silence. We went to the tanker.

Garbage in--garbage out. It never changes.

Another great story Ed, thanks. As I tried to explain to Art, despite
its vaunted capabilities, we are just now beginning to understand the
downsides of GPS navigation. The USAF began using GPS as far
back as Dec. 1973, but the civilian pilot community is still wrestling
with GPS issues such as accuracy, availability, redundancy, and
integrity to this day. AOPA conducted a study that indicated flying on
GPS w/o autopilot actually resulted in two to four times *greater*
cockpit workload. Other issues such as reduced accuracy of
maneuvering because the pilot is staring at the GPS and is all
over the sky, lack of standardization (unlike VOR's for example,
every GPS make/model is different), pilots using handheld GPS
units to shoot IFR approaches not realizing that handheld GPS
units lack integrity or RAIM (receiver autonomous intergrity
monitoring), and the threat of terrorism (e.g: GPS jammers currently
available that can jam GPS signals within 45 kilometers) which
would absolutely ruin your day if you happen to be approaching
the FAF and the GPS goes tango uniform, lack of positional
awareness (more airspace incursions), pilots flying via GPS with
out-of-date databases (they're supposed to be updated every
28 days for IFR use), and the list goes on and on...

Don't get me wrong, I navigate with GPS almost every day and
my trusty GPS unit has literally saved my life on more than one
occasion when flying in Can't-See-**** conditions. The worldwide
coverage, free flight off airways on any desired course, and
dead-nuts-on accuracy of GPS's ensures that GPS navigation is
definitely here to stay well into the future.

The point I was trying to get across to our friend Art was simply
that GPS's are not the panacea that he seems to think they are.
Like you said, "garbage in -- garbage out" never changes and
I've had several students get lost on cross-countrys after plugging
in the wrong coordinates.

-Mike Marron

In message , Cub Driver
writes
Isn't Cranwell (the RAF equivalent of West Point) still a two-year
course? And aren't most UK bachelor's-degree programs still three
years in duration?

Three years full-time for my BEng, two years part-time for my MSc. A
four-year full-time UK degree will get you a Master's off the bat.

These aren't indications of a lesser interest in higher education on
the part of Brits (though there is some of that as well, especially
with respect to women). They're a recognition that British schools and
universities get their students better prepared, at least when it
comes to academics.

I used to think so, but times have changed since I went through the
mill. (Doesn't everyone think it's got easier since they sat their
exams?).

Also, from 16 to 18 I studied maths (pure & applied), physics and
chemistry. Nothing else counted for grades - no history, no economics,
the focus at A-level is dismayingly narrow unless you make the effort to
expand for yourself.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

In message , Keith Willshaw
writes
"Cub Driver" wrote in message
.. .
And aren't most UK bachelor's-degree programs still three
years in duration?

For the most part yes though there are some colleges that run 2 year
courses for high flyers or those with pre-existing lesser qualiications
such as the HND/HNC technical qualifications.

I wouldn't call a HND a 'lesser' qualification, particularly compared to
A-levels.

Typically, in mechanical engineering, HND students skipped the first
year of the course that A-level entrants had to plough through; they
then struggled with the hardcore mathematics in Year 2, while
confidently dominating most other fields. (Teamwork paid off, where
students of differing backgrounds supported each other: explain Laplace
transforms one evening, get water-hammer in pipes made understandable in
return)

HND entrants also tended to be significantly older, with several years'
real-world work under their belts (many I knew had earned their HNDs
part-time on the job before going to university) which tended to mean
they spent more time working and less time hung over. Certainly they
tended strongly to cluster towards the top of the class scores.

All this over a decade old, things may have changed since.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Keith Willshaw
writes
"Cub Driver" wrote in message
.. .
And aren't most UK bachelor's-degree programs still three
years in duration?

For the most part yes though there are some colleges that run 2 year
courses for high flyers or those with pre-existing lesser qualiications
such as the HND/HNC technical qualifications.

I wouldn't call a HND a 'lesser' qualification, particularly compared to
A-levels.


Sure but its narrower than a degree

Typically, in mechanical engineering, HND students skipped the first
year of the course that A-level entrants had to plough through; they
then struggled with the hardcore mathematics in Year 2, while
confidently dominating most other fields. (Teamwork paid off, where
students of differing backgrounds supported each other: explain Laplace
transforms one evening, get water-hammer in pipes made understandable in
return)

HND entrants also tended to be significantly older, with several years'
real-world work under their belts (many I knew had earned their HNDs
part-time on the job before going to university) which tended to mean
they spent more time working and less time hung over. Certainly they
tended strongly to cluster towards the top of the class scores.

All this over a decade old, things may have changed since.


Most HND courses were full time, HNC could be the real
killer 1 day and 1 night per week if you got day release or
3-4 nights otherwise, I know having got 2 of the buggers

Keith

In message , Keith Willshaw
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
I wouldn't call a HND a 'lesser' qualification, particularly compared to
A-levels.

Sure but its narrower than a degree

So are A-levels. Maths, Physics, Chemistry at A-level are narrow as hell
compared to what you need for a Mech Eng degree; the HN crew had more
breadth but less depth, especially in fancy maths. What _is_ a
self-tapping screw? Most A-level candidates wouldn't recognise it even
if you shoved it somewhere tender.


Again, that's why the HN crew skipped the first year, and why they often
struggled with hardcore maths but stormed the "real engineering"
courses.

Maybe I'm biased but I feel they turned out better engineers in two
years, than A-level students in three: certainly the exam boards seemed
to agree. A-level students often seemed to hunker down and focus on
'numbers subjects' that they were comfortable with.

All views personal, all expressed opinions assayed as worth precisely
$0.02, same as usual.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam

Paul J Adam noted:
(Did I mention that you can jam GPS? Even military sets? Iraq tried and
failed, the next enemy may do better)

Murphy attacks, things break, power supplies don't..
Try 14+ hours McChord to HI, daylight, nothing worked, even the sextant had a
split bubble, it is too late to get out the book and read. You better have
learned it in training, whatever crew position you hold.

Oxmoron1
MFE
And it was a FREAKING check ride!