AOPA Rod Machado article

[SteveC]

Post count would be zero. But when they start like this, all I see is fire.




Same with yours.

I'm not seeing the flame bait in either one of those posts. :dunno:

I see disagreement, but since when is disagreeing with someone "...calling someone out" or trolling?

 

[Matt13C]

Merry Christmas to all!!!!

Thread is full.

 

[mshunter]

I'm not seeing the flame bait in either one of those posts. :dunno:

I see disagreement, but since when is disagreeing with someone "...calling someone out" or trolling?

Really, you don't see how if I had returned with any comment it wouldn't have turned into another "well mine's this big" contest..........

Because thats all I am seeing.

 

[SteveC]

Really, you don't see how if I had returned with any comment it wouldn't have turned into another "well mine's this big" contest..........

Because thats all I am seeing.

If you want me to understand what you were trying to say then I'm going to need you to word that a little differently.

 

[seagull]

Really, you don't see how if I had returned with any comment it wouldn't have turned into another "well mine's this big" contest..........

Because thats all I am seeing.

Perhaps that is what you have chosen to see? I am aware that you took offense to what Tgray said, but I know for a fact that he did not intend any offense. He just states the facts as he sees them, and he is open to opposing points of view. Rather than reply to him with a meaningful debate, some here too offense. Reading through it, this was literally like someone stating that 2+2=4 and others attacking them for the factual statement. If you look at what I wrote, the issue is a simple one and I still do not see any sort of argument against it being possible. The fact that there have been NO arguments against it, just attacks on the individuals who made the statements in the first place tends to confirm that there are not arguments that can be made against the basic statement.

Some friendly advice, and not meant as an attack of any sort: mshunter, I know you have been going through a rough spot lately, so I am going to attribute your sensitivity to that, but I also would say that you should be careful about attacking people with emotional arguments when they are just stating facts or their opinions in non-confrontational ways. You are just starting out in this industry, and it is a small one. There are people here who may be able to help you in the future, and you want to present yourself in the best light possible (this applies to everyone really, but is particularly important for those who have not reached the top of their career).

 

[mshunter]

Perhaps that is what you have chosen to see? I am aware that you took offense to what Tgray said, but I know for a fact that he did not intend any offense. He just states the facts as he sees them, and he is open to opposing points of view. Rather than reply to him with a meaningful debate, some here too offense. Reading through it, this was literally like someone stating that 2+2=4 and others attacking them for the factual statement. If you look at what I wrote, the issue is a simple one and I still do not see any sort of argument against it being possible. The fact that there have been NO arguments against it, just attacks on the individuals who made the statements in the first place tends to confirm that there are not arguments that can be made against the basic statement.

Some friendly advice, and not meant as an attack of any sort: mshunter, I know you have been going through a rough spot lately, so I am going to attribute your sensitivity to that, but I also would say that you should be careful about attacking people with emotional arguments when they are just stating facts or their opinions in non-confrontational ways. You are just starting out in this industry, and it is a small one. There are people here who may be able to help you in the future, and you want to present yourself in the best light possible (this applies to everyone really, but is particularly important for those who have not reached the top of their career).

I appreciate your post. However, I respectfully disagree. And I am certian I am not the only one who feels this way. I also would like to say that I am cooking and drinking right now, so for me to continue this debate would lead to certian death of me on these forums, so maybe another time.

 

[nosehair]

there's range of "satisfactory" depth of understanding for our discussion.:


The problem is that to truly understand the mathematics, you have to have more than simply an algebraic understanding of why something does something. You have to know a little calculus to know "why" there's a 1/2 or "why" there's a 2 in front of it, then to truly understand lift you have to know how to work in the Complex Plane and do the Calculus of Complex Variables so that you can calculate how the Jukowski airfoil sections apply forces in different directions. Then you have to be able to apply that to surfaces which aren't necessarily perfect airfoils, then you might have to use Navier-Stokes equations to try to get a grasp on the turbulence in the flow.

See, at some point the information about the physical aspect of flying gets lost in the noise of all the other BS that you're having to sort through to get it. Its not a truly deep understanding if you know "this is the equation that governs lift, this is how it works," if you don't know where it comes from. By the time you get to a truly complete understanding of the mathematics of it, you're so worried about the minutiae you stop thinking the big picture. Depending on the student, someone who's less versed in the mathematics of the subject might actually have a worse understanding of how flying works if they're mired in formulaic jargon. Knowing that lift increases with the square of velocity doesn't tell me a damn thing about "why" it does so. So really, all I've really done is rote memorized some equations at the low end of the mathematics, then maybe, maybe correllated them to the act of flying. I don't really see that as "understanding."

What you said, pragman. It bears repeating, and I edited a bit for emphasis.
I think the thrust of the original subject was slimming down on some of the non-essential pre-solo preparation in order to get new pilots up-out-and interested.
But underneath it all, as you know, if the instructor does not talk to the student, that student will not hear that instructor.

 

[Hacker15e]

He just states the facts as he sees them, and he is open to opposing points of view.

Eh? That's definitely one possible way to interpret these statements:

I don't usually pay much attention to your posts.

I have no interest in whether anyone here or anywhere else disagrees with me, because they are mistaken.

Personally, I haven't seen *any* openness to opposing points of view.

There are lots of people here who do want to exchange ideas and learn from one another, and how people choose to word their interaction makes a lot of difference in perception of personality and intent. I don't know Taylor at all, and because of that I'm only able to ascertain things about him from what he posts here...and I don't think mshunter's feeling is unique based on this, and other threads.

Taylor, clearly you're an intelligent and intellectually curious individual, and quite possibly many of us could learn a thing or two from you, but your demeanor on this forum sometimes makes it challenging for others to give your posts merit because of how they're delivered (and how you react to the opinions and experiences expressed by the other participants in this board). Interestingly enough, there is probably quite a bit that you could learn from us as well.

 

[shdw]

By and large I would agree, however I think that there's range of "satisfactory" depth of understanding for our discussion. Non-Exposure to the math is also essentially meaningless if someone isn't conversant in math.

First statement I absolutely agree with. As for the second, well I'd tell you that is what you're paid for.

People are conversant in any method of presentation, so long as care is taken to communicate the information at a level the listener can comprehend.

Pictoral, and written descriptions might provide a deeper understanding to that specific person rather than simply glossing through the heiroglphys of the algebra.

I agree 110 percent, if that is possible. Then again, you probably know this with my repeated presentations of multiple intelligences and other similar posts that speak directly to this fact. We certainly do all learn differently.

However, when learning why something works, scientifically, any understanding that does not include math is an incomplete one. The numbers are the core of science and I think we can both agree that flight is a science.

I don't think there is a person reading these forums who is incapable of attaining a basic algebra education. In fact, I'm fairly certain it would be a refresher from the high school years for most.

...Navier-Stokes equations...See, at some point the information about the physical aspect of flying gets lost in the noise of all the other BS that you're having to sort through to get it.

It is the instructors job to make sure the forest doesn't get lost to the tries, as you put it. Something I quickly learned about science after graduating college and joining these forums was that the rabbit hole almost always goes deeper. However, learning differential equations isn't by any means a prerequisite for gaining a rudimentary understanding of the dynamics involved in flight.

I don't think anyone has presented anything looking remotely close to what you see below:

Now if this is the kind of thing you're expecting out of the average person. Well then I'm certain the forest won't even been seen, much less losing it to some trees.

By the time you get to a truly complete understanding of the mathematics of it, you're so worried about the minutiae you stop thinking the big picture.

Again, it is the teachers job to ensure this doesn't happen.

 

[SteveC]

The way that material is presented is the most important part of being an effective teacher.


I'm specifically talking about posting on web forums, not being a CFI.

 

[ppragman]

First statement I absolutely agree with. As for the second, well I'd tell you that is what you're paid for.

People are conversant in any method of presentation, so long as care is taken to communicate the information at a level the listener can comprehend.



I agree 110 percent, if that is possible. Then again, you probably know this with my repeated presentations of multiple intelligences and other similar posts that speak directly to this fact. We certainly do all learn differently.

However, when learning why something works, scientifically, any understanding that does not include math is an incomplete one. The numbers are the core of science and I think we can both agree that flight is a science.

I don't think there is a person reading these forums who is incapable of attaining a basic algebra education. In fact, I'm fairly certain it would be a refresher from the high school years for most.




It is the instructors job to make sure the forest doesn't get lost to the tries, as you put it. Something I quickly learned about science after graduating college and joining these forums was that the rabbit hole almost always goes deeper. However, learning differential equations isn't by any means a prerequisite for gaining a rudimentary understanding of the dynamics involved in flight.

I don't think anyone has presented anything looking remotely close to what you see below:

Now if this is the kind of thing you're expecting out of the average person. Well then I'm certain the forest won't even been seen, much less losing it to some trees.



Again, it is the teachers job to ensure this doesn't happen.

I'd agree with 99% of this, except I don't particularly think that flying is a science, there's too much technique for it to be a science. I think its "art/science," perhaps the best comparison or analogy I can come up with is that flying is more like architecture than engineering. If you think strictly like an engineer when you're trying to be an architect you'll make some piss poor ugly buildings. Similarly when you're flying airplanes, if you think like an aerodynamicist instead of a pilot you'll have some ugly flying (now this is strictly opinion at this point from me). That said, a good architect should know how to do some engineering, and a good pilot should know some aerodynamics, but at what level? Well, that depends on the type of flying you're doing, the career path you've chosen. A professional cub-pilot might not require the same knowledge of aerodynamics that the pilot of a transport-category airplane; a transport-category airplane is more science than art, and flying a cub is more art than science.

Out of all this, I'm of the opinion that we can "never know enough," and that "when you scratch the surface, you create more surface area to scratch," but not only is that not how everyone thinks (and they still make good pilots), but more critically, there's not just "one" right way to teach, there's not a most "accurate" way to teach, and one teaching method doesn't guarantee "a deeper understanding." While a basic level of knowledge of algebra is certainly useful in getting the hang of things if you're a "math person," it might not be that way for everyone. For many people, anything beyond rudimentary arithmetic might be too much. For example, my father is a life long carpenter and former GI, he can do mental math better than anyone I know (multiplication, division, etc.), he can also do conversions of fractions to decimals and back in his head, but throw some algebra at him and he get's frustrated. He never learned it to begin with, . That wouldn't make him a "bad" pilot, or even an "uneducated" pilot. Rather, it means that if I were instructing him, he'd need a different approach than "ok, so here's equation for load factor's effect on stall speed, what does this mean for flying?"

What people find frustrating is the mentality that their technique is the best technique and that no one else can come close to their level of awesomeness without practicing some form of emulation. This industry has too much change, and too much variety for that kind of mentality. Not that the fundamental science is changing, but just when you think you're "the S" somebody or something comes and hands your ass to you. Every operation (including every teaching operation) is different, and applying the same methods to every scenario doesn't lend itself to 100% effective responses to every situation. Semper Gumby, always flexible.

 

[shdw]

I'd agree with 99% of this, except I don't particularly think that flying is a science, there's too much technique for it to be a science. I think its "art/science,"

Agreed, said that earlier too. I was just reiterating that it is also a science and ignoring the math entirely ignores the core of that science side of aviation. Sorry for the confusion this time around.

A professional cub-pilot might not require the same knowledge of aerodynamics that the pilot of a transport-category airplane; a transport-category airplane is more science than art, and flying a cub is more art than science.

Of course, so long as we agree that even the professional cub pilots safety can benefit from some basic understanding of the material.

Out of all this, I'm of the opinion that we can "never know enough," and that "when you scratch the surface, you create more surface area to scratch," but not only is that not how everyone thinks (and they still make good pilots),

Yes, but only pilots. They don't make great professionals if their mindset doesn't jive with what you've mentioned here. Then again, my view of a professional, in any field, is someone who spends their life seeking to further their knowledge of their chosen profession. My opinion though.

but more critically, there's not just "one" right way to teach, there's not a most "accurate" way to teach, and one teaching method doesn't guarantee "a deeper understanding."

I'd be hard pressed to make such a claim. For the most part, from limited research mind you, it would seem places of higher education follow similar methods. If no method is superior to another, then, I would draw the conclusion that a community of educators would not gravitate towards any particular method. Instead, each would have their own method with no surmisable pattern; which isn't the case.


And while we are doing all this debating, happy holidays to everyone.

I'm specifically talking about posting on web forums, not being a CFI.

When we can learn to infer every conceivable way our communications might communicate then we can be "the S" as pprag puts it? Right?!

 

[seagull]

I'd be hard pressed to make such a claim. For the most part, from limited research mind you, it would seem places of higher education follow similar methods. If no method is superior to another, then, I would draw the conclusion that a community of educators would not gravitate towards any particular method. Instead, each would have their own method with no surmisable pattern; which isn't the case.

I agree. Also note that the military, which has worked hard at making good pilots and training them quickly, has done a lot of research in this area. They would not include that stuff in their basic courses if there were not proven, tangible results.

 

[Hacker15e]

I agree. Also note that the military, which has worked hard at making good pilots and training them quickly, has done a lot of research in this area. They would not include that stuff in their basic courses if there were not proven, tangible results.

Just how much mathematics-based information do you think is part of the academics in the military pilot training pipeline?

I can assure you that they're not in there doing fluid dynamics equations and talking about Reynolds Numbers.

Certainly it's academically briefed (vs exercised) at a college level as part of the background information in the academic classes, but as MikeD has all ready pointed out, in most military flying the stick-and-rudder flying is only about 10% of the overall demands on the pilot. The other 90% of the military pilot's job is knowing and executing sensors, systems, weapons, tactics, threats, formation flying, low level flying, weapons deliveries, etc. Each one of these disciplines individually is just as deep and complicated as the relatively simple aerodynamics concepts that have been covered in this thread.

If the military were to require the depth of academic knowledge (in addition to the practical knowledge) on all of those subjects that is being suggested in this thread as the "best" method of facilitating student understanding, it would take a decade to complete initial training, and an even smaller number of people would successfully complete training. Even the "PhDs" of the military flying community -- the Weapons School and Top Gun instructors -- don't have that level of knowledge on all those subjects, and that is after a decade of experience in their one primary aircraft and many intense qualification upgrade programs which have required deep academic study of the tactical areas.

The strategy in undergraduate military pilot training is to make students "drink from a firehose" -- in other words, throw at them more demands than they can realistically digest (because that's quite honestly what the training timeline requires) and see how they navigate sorting out what is important for success and what isn't. The retention of that information is tested on a daily basis both academically (in a graded area we call "general knowledge"), but more importantly in the practical application in the aircraft.

The reality is, normal human beings -- even those who have successfully navigated multiple highly competitive screenings on the way to becoming high level military aviators and are regularly achieving at a high level of excellence and performance -- don't have the mental capacity to maintain this level of knowledge in so many different areas. For example, those Weapons School instructors who can plan and easily execute some of the most challenging and complicated tactical tasks, are often weak at some of the basics, like systems knowledge and emergency procedures. The plate is only so big...and the more stuff you try and put on that plate, it is inevitable that something is going to fall off.

So, bottom line: in some ways the "military does it" evidence backs up portions of what is being advocated in this thread, but not to the extent that it is being advocated by some in this thread.

 

[seagull]

I know Tgray, and I know what he actually teaches. From everything that I know, he does not go more in depth than you did for your UPT.

There are two different "debates" happening here:

1. Should some basic level of the math be taught to allow for people to make better decisions based on a better understanding of the primary relationships (which is what the military does, and for that purpose);

2. Does a person who has all of the same training, plus the math, have a better overall understanding of flight.


The answer to the first one was my point - there is some basic level that can and does increase the basic understanding of just flight theory, which allows one to have a better sense of the implications of things (such as the actual implications of being out of CG, overweight, etc, etc).

The answer to the second question can only possibly be "yes", as how can another layer ON TOP of the other understanding NOT lead to more knowledge?

 

[mshunter]

The answer to the second question can only possibly be "yes", as how can another layer ON TOP of the other understanding NOT lead to more knowledge?

And that is where the debate in this thread is. Assuming that everyone can correlate the two is just that, assuming. There is no way to measure it in my opinion. Are the applying the math, or the "art" of flying? Someone may be able to spit out the math that was quoted on this page verbatim, but applying it in the airplane may not be possible. And some may have no clue of the math, but can apply the "art" quite well.


Back to the "Need to know vs. nice to know."

 

[ryan1234]

2. Does a person who has all of the same training, plus the math, have a better overall understanding of flight.


The answer to the second question can only possibly be "yes", as how can another layer ON TOP of the other understanding NOT lead to more knowledge?

I flown with a few people who were Math whizzes and could basically explain exactly everything that was going on and why. However, a lot of those people seemed to get caught up in the details and loose the overall understanding of what is actually going on. Many of the personalities associated with that, not saying all, are dogmatic to a fault. How could I possibly be wrong about X? I have a superior understanding of math as it relates to flight.... more so than these others flying around with business degrees.

Bob Hoover was a good example of a pilot who never had an Engineering Degree, nor was a whiz at math (according to his Autobiography), however understood flight very, very well - and was even a test pilot.

 

[seagull]

If you think Bob did not understand the math, you are wrong. I had, personally, discussed the math with him once.

On the second, we are talking about understanding ALL the concepts that would encompass the "art" AND the math. How can that not be more than just the one?

 

[TwoTwoLeft]

I'm on my mobile so it's difficult to go through all the responses and this might have already been brought up...

Has anyone read Bruce Landsberg's Safety Pilot column in January's AOPA magazine...?

http://m.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/2011/sp0111.html

 

[Hacker15e]

I just read that article this morning, although I think it very poorly advocated the position.