AOPA Rod Machado article

[nosehair]

There are two different "debates" happening here:

1. Should some basic level of the math be taught...

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

Right. And this area of debate is, or should be, over the level of knowledge required after solo, or more precisely, during the advanced portion of flight training.

The initial discussion was:

Did anyone else read Rod Machado's article in the latest AOPA Pilot mag? Cliff's Notes: One thing we could do to improve student retention is cut some of the extra crap in syllabi and work on getting back to the days of the 10-hour student solo.

This debate has centered on how much of the 'extra crap' we should include. Save that for after solo.

While the military pilot schools do include some heavy math, they don't pile it on during pre-solo flight training. That period of training is centered around eye-hand skills, simulator mock-ups, buddy flights, etc. A total round-the-clock immersion in flight line gymnastics. The bookwork comes later, or maybe earlier, but not right at that time.

Civilian flight training rarely devotes a sufficient amount of attention to basic skills during pre-solo; the 'system' causes the CFI to try to present all training right out of the PTS, so that too much information is presented in the beginning, and basic skills (the trees) are not trained to an habitual level before trying to create a private pilot or beyond, the forest.

I'm not in favor of decreasing training time to get a PP, nor necessarily in favor of soloing in the shortest time, but I am in favor of decreasing the attendant 'noise' that has crept into pre-solo primary training.

What's learned first is learned best. When the student sees all the attention going to checklists and getting the atis and making sure you're on the right freq and looking for this and that and what are you doing give me that I didn't say touch that...

By the time you've gotten to altitude away from the tower and off freq, the student has tried to soak up so much, his head is spinning and he isn't going to be impressed much by holding the yoke and making some turns.
Or feeeeling the controls go soft as you slow...
...liiisten to the sound as...

Those basic skills. Where did they go?

Too much extra crap.

 

[ryan1234]

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?

You met Bob Hoover and you discussed math?

 

[seagull]

Nosehair, I agree with what you wrote. The pre solo time does not need to go into it in as much depth, but more should be added as the person progresses.

You met Bob Hoover and you discussed math?

Not as the primary topic, but in discussing flight test issues he was clearly conversant. Same with Tony LeVier, through whom I ended up in the conversation with Bob. Bob got his routine from Tony, originally.

 

[ryan1234]

Not as the primary topic, but in discussing flight test issues he was clearly conversant. Same with Tony LeVier, through whom I ended up in the conversation with Bob. Bob got his routine from Tony, originally.

I see what you're saying - his autobiography, Forever Flying (a great book), mentioned that he had real battles with Math, particularly during his studies at the Navy Test Pilot School. The book also mentioned a few run-ins with the engineering/math-whiz types during his work at NAA.

 

[seagull]

I see what you're saying - his autobiography, Forever Flying (a great book), mentioned that he had real battles with Math, particularly during his studies at the Navy Test Pilot School. The book also mentioned a few run-ins with the engineering/math-whiz types during his work at NAA.

The fact that he struggled a bit to get through it does not mean that he did not stick with it until he understood it. I haven't read the book, but I would venture the second part is that there are times that a person using ONLY an engineering approach can make assumptions that do not match reality. There are people who can crunch the numbers but do not really understand what the numbers really mean. That is, IMO, almost as bad as someone that has no clue about the math. Both can lead to the wrong conclusions and mistaken understandings of concepts. It is, however, less likely, to have an understanding of the math and not the science than the person who has a pseudo understanding of the science and does not understand the math. That is because a little time exploring the math will quickly force reality on the pseudo understanding.

Incidentally, when we are talking about flight theory, it is a science, NOT an "art". There can be art in the techniques and philosophies towards flight, but flight itself is pure science, and will only react to real, objective, inputs, not the subjective ones. There are no "subjective" inputs into flight that I am aware of. Flight obeys only the laws of physics. Physics is best understood with some mathematical basis. The math can give one what might be considered a more intuitive sense of the probable outcomes. Yes, you can get a lot of that without math, but there is a risk of also having the wrong idea and justifying it with wrong concepts. The lift "equal transit" theory is one such example. There are others, though, that have more serious consequences than just not understanding how lift is created.

 

[ryan1234]

The fact that he struggled a bit to get through it does not mean that he did not stick with it until he understood it. I haven't read the book, but I would venture the second part is that there are times that a person using ONLY an engineering approach can make assumptions that do not match reality. There are people who can crunch the numbers but do not really understand what the numbers really mean. That is, IMO, almost as bad as someone that has no clue about the math. Both can lead to the wrong conclusions and mistaken understandings of concepts. It is, however, less likely, to have an understanding of the math and not the science than the person who has a pseudo understanding of the science and does not understand the math. That is because a little time exploring the math will quickly force reality on the pseudo understanding.

Incidentally, when we are talking about flight theory, it is a science, NOT an "art". There can be art in the techniques and philosophies towards flight, but flight itself is pure science, and will only react to real, objective, inputs, not the subjective ones. There are no "subjective" inputs into flight that I am aware of. Flight obeys only the laws of physics. Physics is best understood with some mathematical basis. The math can give one what might be considered a more intuitive sense of the probable outcomes. Yes, you can get a lot of that without math, but there is a risk of also having the wrong idea and justifying it with wrong concepts. The lift "equal transit" theory is one such example. There are others, though, that have more serious consequences than just not understanding how lift is created.

Just to clarify, my original statement said that he didn't didn't have an engineering degree, nor was a 'whiz at math'. I think that may be fairly accurate. He may have stuck with it to pass the class and later went on to understand how it related to flight, but he had quite an entire career of flying prior to that... as many do hitting the "I believe" button. As a matter of fact, he mentioned several times in the book about the ground effect being a cushion of air between the plane and ground - something we know now is not exactly the case.
I'm not saying that math isn't valuable - but honestly, how many pilots see what they're doing as equations, formulas, and theories while they're flying? I think the math is valuable in moderation to whatever point the person can understand it without getting so saturated in it, that they loose a sense of the bigger picture.


In the words of Joe Dirt's dad: "How exactly does the posi trac on the rear of a Pylmouth work...? It just does":bandit:

[YT]1E6IfdUJn6s[/YT]

 

[Hacker15e]

In the words of Joe Dirt's dad: "How exactly does the posi trac on the rear of a Pylmouth work...? It just does"

Terrible example. There's not such thing as a "Posi Traction" on a Plymouth.

Posi-Traction was a Chevrolet trade name for their limited slip differential.

 

[seagull]

Just to clarify, my original statement said that he didn't didn't have an engineering degree, nor was a 'whiz at math'. I think that may be fairly accurate.
I'm not saying that math isn't valuable - but honestly, how many pilots see what they're doing as equations, formulas, and theories while they're flying? I think the math is valuable in moderation to whatever point the person can understand it without getting so saturated in it, that they loose a sense of the bigger picture.

I agree, and part of the problem with this "debate" is that nobody is saying that they should be doing equations, etc., while flying. The only point is that some of the basic equations can be very useful in ensuring an understanding of the relationships that impact aircraft performance, which has a place in the academic portion. It might also come up in understanding and relating concepts to others, and in ensuring that the calculations for performance are actually making sense. I have seen people that could not recognize that the numbers coming out of their flight computer were totally wrong simply because they had no concept of what the computer was doing. It would be like someone not noticing the fact that they must have made an input error when their computer says it will take 3 hours to go 500 miles at 200 kts. When Tgray responds to someone here about, for example, the load factor in a 60 degree turn and uses math to back it up, he is right. Some will still argue against him, but those arguments are based on a lack of understanding of the fundamental concepts, which, if they had been exposed to the math, they would have most likely have understood correctly in the first place.

 

[ryan1234]

Terrible example. There's not such thing as a "Posi Traction" on a Plymouth.

Posi-Traction was a Chevrolet trade name for their limited slip differential.

Ha - you're right - the video was definitely implied in a satirical way.

 

[mshunter]

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

Great article. So true as well. Like he says, no need to put up unnecessary fronts to keep students out of an airplane. I can think of one student who walked because it was to difficult. Granted, she was a little lazy, but none the less, she still walked.

 

[Hacker15e]

I can think of one student who walked because it was to difficult. Granted, she was a little lazy, but none the less, she still walked.

Is there supposed to be some kind of implied negative implication to her walking?

 

[Mike H]

Is there supposed to be some kind of implied negative implication to her walking?

maybe she had some huge gazongas?

 

[Boris Badenov]

nosehair's post towards the top of the page nailed it, AFAIC. The other discussions are interesting, but for the original post, I might as well just write "ditto".