tgrayson
New Member
Bingo. There is your AoA change. Without this trim or backpressure change, your throttle change will only result in a change of descent rate.
Your airplane flies just like a C152.
Breaking the "elevator for altitude" habit
- Thread starter shdw
- Start date
Bingo. There is your AoA change. Without this trim or backpressure change, your throttle change will only result in a change of descent rate.
Your airplane flies just like a C152.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
Here's what we'll do.
This is an open invitation for any of you, if you're in the neighborhood, to come and fly the T-38 sim at Vance AFB in Enid, OK.
Let me know beforehand, and we'll set up all the appointments and security stuff.
Then, I'll put you in the seat, and you can show me how to fly the T-38 using these "absolute" GA techniques.
Seriously.
Nobody seems to be able to believe the discussion, so maybe experiencing it for yourself will help frame my end of the discussion.
This is an open invitation for any of you, if you're in the neighborhood, to come and fly the T-38 sim at Vance AFB in Enid, OK.
Let me know beforehand, and we'll set up all the appointments and security stuff.
Then, I'll put you in the seat, and you can show me how to fly the T-38 using these "absolute" GA techniques.
Seriously.
Nobody seems to be able to believe the discussion, so maybe experiencing it for yourself will help frame my end of the discussion.
tgrayson
New Member
I'm really puzzled as to what you think you're doing differently from a C152. I just showed you that you're making the same control movements, you're just interpreting them differently.
If I were to teach a student to slow down on approach, I'd teach him to do the same thing. The AoA needs to increase, but if he just pulled back on the yoke, he'd balloon, as well as slow down. He needs to pull back on the throttle to neutralize the balloon and increase the AoA, just like you did. Where's the difference?
Just to be clear I am not saying your method is wrong, in fact as I already stated it works perfectly fine and is certainly a better method for precise aircraft control. However, we are discussing a primary student and what they should do. Plain and simple power for airspeed/pitch for altitude relationship can kill you because eventually you will run out of momentum and power for altitude/pitch for airspeed cannot because your thrust will be constant (not counting an engine failure). This basic understanding of physics is a must for a primary student to prevent them from making big holes in my back yard or yours.
I by no means am trying to accuse you of not knowing how to fly an aircraft. But you have to understand that while your procedures are different you are still acting within the bounds of physical law. We have to teach a student to operate within the bounds of physical law first and then we can fine tune their procedures or just let you guys do it when they get to jets.
Physical Rules: I will use AOA for pitch as it can be directly correlated with Lift = Speed + AOA (Practical application lift formula derived from L = 1/2 [p * V2 * A * (2 pi AOA)]
Power controls altitude always and does not ever control speed. When you increase power you climb, when you decrease it you descend. If you want to prevent the climb or descent from a power change then you change your AOA. If you change your AOA your speed must change to balance lift and weight. Speed changed because AOA was changed, not because power was changed.
AOA always controls airspeed because an increase or decrease in AOA will require a subsequent increase/decrease of speed to balance lift and weight.
Momentum can be factored in for changes in AOA, allowing AOA changes to be used for the purpose of a climb at the sacrifice of airspeed.
These are physical laws that cannot be argued even by the dumbest of pilots, they work every day in every environment and in every situation. They are as true as the law of gravity which causes one to fall on their face when they trip.
So why in the world would someone flying a jet not just fly by these simple rules you might wonder?
The answer is you are still operating your aircraft inside the bounds of these rules. Your jet procedures are the way they are because of other physical laws, those of momentum and inertia. Turbine spool up time also plays a roll as it takes longer for your engines to generate thrust equal to that of the power setting chosen.
Momentum = Velocity * Mass
Inertial = Mass (to keep it simple if mass goes up inertia goes up)
Inertia is an objects resistance to change.
If you take an large aircraft, say a 747, you will have a large amount of inertia and momentum. So if we want to make a small change in altitude in such an aircraft it would be more logical to use this incredibly large amount of momentum to make this small change. Where as increase power would certainly do the trick you have to wait for your turbines to spool up and then those engines have have to overcome a vastly larger amount of inertia than that of a smaller aircraft.
Inertia is also the reason you will never hear of a large commuter aircraft getting behind the power curve and surviving it. There is simply too much inertia for the engines to overcome once falling behind the power curve. This is also why stall recovery in such an aircraft takes such a large amount of altitude. All physical laws.
Like it or not and whether a pilot understands the laws or not they are laws. Until these laws of physics are proven wrong by someone much smarter than myself I will continue to follow them and teach my students accordingly.
I was going to post something here as you two have, but then after getting to near the end of all of this.......... IT'S BECOME WAY TO OVER COMPLICATED TO RESOLVE A SIMPLE ISSUE! Once again, just fly the damn plane any way you see fit in an effort to not kill yourself, or bend the airplane. As long as the outcome is exactly that, you have done everything the right way. Some people think they know it all, and some know that they know just enough to not kill themselfs and others. I consider myself the latter.
Pilots and hour breakdowns
250hrs: I know everything I need to know
500hrs: I don't know anything
1000hrs: Now I know everthing I need to know
1500hrs: I don't know crap again....WTF!!!
3000hrs: Do I know everything again?
35000hrs: I've forgoten more than most other pilots know, AND I STILL DON'T KNOW CRAP!
This is what I am talking about in terms of over complicating a simple issue. When I teach slow flight, or flight at MCA, however you want to say it, I first take the airplane and do slowflight, and show them how pulling harder when slow (region of revers comand/behind the powercurve/whatever the eff you wanna call it) will only result in a descent. I leave the over complicated math equation out of the picture for two reasons. #1, and most important, we are not usually teaching pyhsics/math majors, so the practical will have a much greater impact that the theoretical. #2, I am not a math/physica major, so why bother showing a student something that will not only be hard to teach, but even harder for them to "see it in thier mind" while it's happening.
There is nothing wrong with useing either the elevator or power for altitude as long as you understand that useing either of those is going to affect the airplane in it's own unique way. There is more than one way to skin a cat gentlemen. you say toe-mae-toe, I say ta-ma-toe. But it's still spelt the same in the end.
P.S. I don't even know what all this means..... L = 1/2 [p * V2 * A * (2 pi AOA)]
poser765
Well-Known Member
I don't either. Not a clue, nor do i really want to know. I do know that i am a safe, good pilot
L = lift
p = air density
V = velocity (the 2 means squared)
A = wing area
2 * pi * AoA = Coefficient of lift
You didn't need to know that, thats why I said refer to Lift = speed + AOA, that gives a pilot everything they need to know for a practical purpose. If speed goes up the AOA must go down to keep lift the same. I only gave actual lift formula to prove that lift = speed + AOA was in fact right and if you didn't believe it you could plug it into the "official" lift formula.
Example: 10 = 5 + 5, if we make speed go down to 4 then 10 = 4 + 6 proves AOA has to go up to keep lift the same right? The numbers are irrelevant, the conceptual understanding is the overall purpose.
Again falsely believing that pitch controls your altitude is just like believing you can jump off your roof and expect to fly. Gravity works, thanks to a wise man by the name of Isaac Newton who proved this to us. Momentum, or pitching up, will only get you so far and if your student doesn't know (to the point where it is habit to add power when hitting sink on final and not pitch back!!!) that he/she is a potential NTSB report.
PS I don't show my students the actual lift formula. I figured as CFIs people would have at least a rudimentary concept of how the airplane produces lift and be able to realize how they fit into that formula, sorry. But I guess if a 35,000 hour pilot didn't get it...
Again falsely believing that pitch controls your altitude is just like believing you can jump off your roof and expect to fly. Gravity works, thanks to a wise man by the name of Isaac Newton who proved this to us. Momentum, or pitching up, will only get you so far and if your student doesn't know (to the point where it is habit to add power when hitting sink on final and not pitch back!!!) that he/she is a potential NTSB report.
PS I don't show my students the actual lift formula. I figured as CFIs people would have at least a rudimentary concept of how the airplane produces lift and be able to realize how they fit into that formula, sorry. But I guess if a 35,000 hour pilot didn't get it...
Funny you should mention 1st paragraph, I had this exact thing happen today. I am preparing a student for her solo signoff, and one of the last things I practice is power failures in the traffic pattern before they get their signoff(usually about an hour+). She started pulling thinking she wasn't going to make the runway, got slow and added power, even though if she would have just pitched for best glide, she would have been o.k. Becoming an NTSB report is a matter of doing the wrong thing FOR THAT SCENARIO, sometimes including what you have been tought. Aviation and the world we fly in is ever changing, and deciding that there is one "fix all" is ludicrus. ADM is way more important than "if you encounter X then use procedre B" is not always going to work. Think of operation Bolo in Vietnam. We coulden't get Mig21's to leave the ground when they thought F-4's were in the air, only when F-104's were in the air. So we put a pod on the F-4's to mimic the 105's and got the 21's to fly, and shot down 7 of them because the 21 drivers had only been tought to deal with the 105's not the F-4's. We took out almost 50% of their fleet in one operation.
I think you should pull the jab from the last paragraph too bud. Don't forget that you are in the company of pilots who have much more experince than you, and the majority of your posts are questions (more or less) trying to better your teaching and understanding of putting theroy into practice. You don't have to know anything about even basic math to understand why an airplane fly's. We all know that all it takes is large sums of...........
MONEY
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
It was actually less complicated than that.
They simply swapped the radio callsigns between the F-4s and the 105s. The MiGs launched based on what they thought were the F-105 callsigns, and were instead met with the F-4s.
It wasn't that the MiG pilots hadn't been taught to deal with F-4s...it's that the F-105 had significantly less air-to-air prowess and capability than the F-4. The MiG pilots knew this, and the Thuds were relatively easy prey for them, whereas the F-4s were a much tougher opponent.
Although Bolo is considered 'genius', realize that it was dreampt up by Robin Olds as a reaction to his anger at how predictable US forces had become. ROE restricted run-in paths, so they were flying the same routes every day. The groups developing the air tasking orders were using the same callsigns for the same aircraft every day, and would not change because it would confuse friendly forces (?). It made US strike packages predictable for the MiGs and SAMs, and the toll on US forces was predictable given the scenario.
Olds, as the Wolfpack Wing Commander, tried and tried and butted heads with higher echelons to change the predictability of US tactics, but met a stonewall of resistance.
Bolo was Olds' way of operating within thos confines and still holding the element of surprise against a smart enemy.
Basic physics as it applies here hasn't changed since the early 1700s...
An airplane is what it is and does what it does because of physics and physics involves math, thought you can leave it out by working with conceptual physics. If you don't know the math side of physics though I find it hard to believe you could explain the conceptual side of it. To think you don't need any knowledge of the physical environment as a pilot is like telling an accountant they don't have to know finance.
What do you think would have happened if it was an actual emergency and she was trying to make the runway over a hilly or tree covered environment with no other landing option? For every scenario related to this if you keep the pitch down and realize it won't give you altitude beyond the bounds of momentum you won't end up here. Her instinct/habit right now is exactly what I am referring to and is exactly the instinct/habit, these are what you will rely on in a true emergency, that isn't being taught away.
I suspect much of it is due to pilots not understanding these basic physical concepts related to this situation. The posts arguing with me and tgray this entire thread and that 35,000 hour pilot scream that my assumption is likely a reality. You have to teach a student to operate within the bounds of physical law until their reactions become instinctual/habitual, then you can teach whatever wonderful procedures you have after that.
A pilot spinning in is just as ridiculous as a pilot running out of fuel IMO and let me tell you if a pilot a week for the last 33 years died from fuel starvation it would raise a lot of heads. But for some reason when this happens from stall/spin accidents people still will sit back and argue the teachings of basic physics, I just don't get it.
Wasn't meant as a jab, I am actually quite shocked and read over the my post twice after that and yours again just to make sure I wasn't reading it wrong.
If you don't know that air density, the size of your wing, angle of attack, and speed are the factors effecting lift as a CFI then...*speechless* I didn't say know the formula, I said know the factors (rudimentary concepts of how..) involved in it meaning I didn't think I had to list what the letters meant.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
I figured as CFIs people would have at least a rudimentary concept of how the airplane produces lift and be able to realize how they fit into that formula, sorry. But I guess if a 35,000 hour pilot didn't get it...
I work with a lot of Bridgewater grads. They're all great people, but I'm sorry, the guys with 500 hours are still loading bags for us. Not a dig on them...I'm sure they'll make great pilots for us some day, but the company obviously feels that they need more experience before joining the ranks in the cockpit.
I think you should concentrate on being the best instructor you can be, NOT dumping on those who've done your job, and then some.
When what I am saying is wrong I have no problem jumping aboard admitting that and getting behind all those wonderful people that have done my job and then some as you put it. But when they are blatantly wrong and basically arguing with 100s of years of physical law and concepts discovered some of the most brilliant minds in human history then I have no problem standing up and pointing out their errors. That is part of being a good CFI, telling anyone regardless of hours that they are wrong if you can provide proof which has been done repeatedly throughout this topic.
Just cause you and many others here can't understand these physical laws doesn't mean they don't exist. Furthermore it doesn't mean you can just dismiss them and assume they are not necessary when you don't even understand them in the first place.
PS Bridgewater NJ, not a Bridgewater Mass graduate.
Alright dude. You need to slow your role, back up and take a look at what it is you are posting. Basically comming in here and calling people stupid (no matter how you beat around the bush, thats what you just did) is completely uncalled for. Theroy and practical are two different things. I was working on a reply to one of your quotes, but with this attitude, I don't think you deserve to hear what we the rest of us have to say. You need to be humbled.
But then again, I guess you are holier than thou, since the rest of us don't understand how an airplane actually fly's, just because you know some ludicrus math calculation, and we shall all bow on one knee in your presence. Re-read your post if you don't understand this.
Last I checked the gravity and momentum were not theories...
You seem to like to tell people to slow their roll in regards to aerodynamics, you did it many posts back in regards to flaps when you didn't understand that and again you do it here when you don't understand this. I didn't say anyone was stupid, I said they didn't understand it which is clearly obvious that many don't and that is completely understandable, it isn't easy to understand. I have been digging my head in physics and aerodynamics books since early 2000 and still am constantly corrected on simple things by tgray. Not understand physics by no means makes a person stupid, but refusing to try and understand it and claiming it is irrelevant certainly makes one arrogant.
Post #124 explained these concepts clear as day, when you have taken the time to understand what I am talking about there then come back here and keep arguing. Till than why don't you slow your roll and try to learn something about the environment your operating in.
PS Thanks for having that instrument handout posted, the CFIs where I am working loved it.
When did I say anything about gravity and momentum?
You are so convoluted you can't even understand the nature of my post. You can not slice your post by any other means than calling someone stupid. And you are so narrow minded that you can't see the difference between theory and practical. Cite posts, listen to your bud Tgray, do what ever you like. But don't be so foolish to think that you are always right. Just because you read some book, and like what another poster has to say doesn't make it the end all be all. When you get a few more students under your belt, and a few more hours, and actually have some experince, then mabey people will listen to what you have to say instead of you turning what you have to say into an argument.
Slow your role is not meant for you to look at what you know either. It's meant for you to chill the eff out and come across a little more tactfully. You will catch a lot more bee's with honey, rather than the viniger that you are splashing about right now. Seems like every thread you get yourself involved in turns to a heated debate.
I have been flying since I was 8, and am now 30. I think I have a fairly good understanding of why an airplane fly's, how it fly's, and what not to do when I am flying it. I don't need some rediclous math calculation to understand how AOA/Lift/Drag corrilate. I need a thoruogh understand of aerodynamic concepts, and a practical knowledge of how to apply it. I surley don't need some kid telling me how to fly an airplane either because he has a just dried CFI cert., and thinks that just because he was handed it from the FAA, he is god's gift to flying/instructing airplanes.
Do you understand what I mean by slow your role now, or should I type s-l-o-w-e-r?
BTW, I work with Rich Stowell, whom you like to quote so often. I have had many long talks with him trying to grasp just some of his knowledge. I am a flight instructor at the school he developed the EMT course for. After talking to him about some of your "thoughts," lets just say all he could say was "blasphemy."
When you can sit back and interject what you know from experince, then mabey you should come back to these forums and interject something that is worth listening to. Knowing it, and applying it are in two completely different relms. No amount of knowledge can account for experince, which by your own admission, you don't have much of.
Exactly, you need to understand the concept before you sit here and try and argue them, I couldn't have said it any better myself.
Edit to add:
These are what we have been arguing the entire post, but being as you didn't understand them in the first place I am not surprised you are confused.
......face palm......
Lets look at what was posted, rather than what you would like to read.
"I don't need some rediclous math calculation to understand how AOA/Lift/Drag corrilate. I need a thoruogh understand of aerodynamic concepts, and a practical knowledge of how to apply it."
ppragman
FLIPY FLAPS!
The problem with this argument is that there are people among us here on both sides who are unwilling to compromise. Let me just put it this way, there is not one way to do anything. The idea that all of this stuff is set in stone, and that every little bit of minutiae needs to be thoroughly enunciated is ludicrous. The more time I get, and the more flying I do, the more I realize that everything is different. Every takeoff, every landing, every instant of cruise, all of it different. Not only that, but there is no "wrong" way to do anything.
Let's talk about the basis of some of these arguments. People here have talked ad nauseum about "break the elevator for altitude habit," and discussed, fingers bloody at the keyboard, why using the elevator for altitude is wrong. Real answer? It doesn't matter. Someone with a truly thorough understanding is going to realize that if you have no power you're not going to be able to slow up safely. So the theory that "if joe blow thinks he can pull up to get altitude all the time, he'll stall spin crash burn when he loses a motor," is somewhat flawed. Good, realistic training, including stall spin awareness (and I even go as far as to say demonstration) and meticulous power off approaches to a touchdown will show them what they need to know.
The problem with saying that a particular technique (e.g. using the elevator to pull up a little bit when low on approach while adding power) is wrong, is that it anthropormophizes a subject which is strictly physical. As long as the engine doesn't quit, that technique is perfectly fine provided they add enough power to stay in the air. If the engine quits, someone with a thorough understanding will realize that they need to lower the nose, and quick.
The biggest problem I have with the idealized, "this way is right, and this way is wrong/bad/etc." is that it doesn't take into account the real world of commercial flying. In an idealized training environment, these work fine, however, slightly low with power set on the ILS at max forward speed to the numbers at night, you raise the nose a little and pick up that needle. Climbing out at max gross on a hot day do you fly Vy, or do you keep the nose low, the motor cool, and your options open? I choose the second option, but I recall having a fairly deep discussion with Tgray on this one. Another one that comes up is "shock cooling." In the real world it doesn't make a damn bit of difference what your instructor told you about how much of a myth that or oversquare is, you fly the airplane how they tell you to, profiles, cooling procedures, powersettings and all, if you don't like it that much, you can quit, and go somewhere else, where you can learn different powersettings, cooling procedures, and profiles.
An excellent example was at ACE. The CP told us, "if you lose an engine, I don't want to see any of that 'split the ball' crap, trim it out so the ball is centered and keep the nose low, this thing will fly fine with one shut down." Try that in a fully loaded navajo and you could be in trouble. But that's the essence of my argument, there really isn't a right or wrong way to do it. The problem in some respects with these thoughts about single engine airplanes and engine failures is that it doesn't take into account that most of the time you don't really have that many good places to put down anyway. If you're on a cross country flight, better hope you're VFR and have an intimate knowledge of every nook and cranny of the ground you're over. If you're right off the end of the max performance field you just took off from, hopefully there are no trees, traffic, or towers, because otherwise you're screwed.
A quick survey of accident reports reveals that what really gets people more than anything else isn't engine failures, and really, for the most part isn't stall spin, its the weather, and judgment about it. Especially in the commercial side of things. 100% preventable accidents. A simple, "I shouldn't have gone today." Training judgment is the key. Judgment, not wrote muscle memory. If you have judgment, you'll lower the nose when you need to, and not be locked into a legalist interpretation of aerodynamics when you don't.
Let's talk about the basis of some of these arguments. People here have talked ad nauseum about "break the elevator for altitude habit," and discussed, fingers bloody at the keyboard, why using the elevator for altitude is wrong. Real answer? It doesn't matter. Someone with a truly thorough understanding is going to realize that if you have no power you're not going to be able to slow up safely. So the theory that "if joe blow thinks he can pull up to get altitude all the time, he'll stall spin crash burn when he loses a motor," is somewhat flawed. Good, realistic training, including stall spin awareness (and I even go as far as to say demonstration) and meticulous power off approaches to a touchdown will show them what they need to know.
The problem with saying that a particular technique (e.g. using the elevator to pull up a little bit when low on approach while adding power) is wrong, is that it anthropormophizes a subject which is strictly physical. As long as the engine doesn't quit, that technique is perfectly fine provided they add enough power to stay in the air. If the engine quits, someone with a thorough understanding will realize that they need to lower the nose, and quick.
The biggest problem I have with the idealized, "this way is right, and this way is wrong/bad/etc." is that it doesn't take into account the real world of commercial flying. In an idealized training environment, these work fine, however, slightly low with power set on the ILS at max forward speed to the numbers at night, you raise the nose a little and pick up that needle. Climbing out at max gross on a hot day do you fly Vy, or do you keep the nose low, the motor cool, and your options open? I choose the second option, but I recall having a fairly deep discussion with Tgray on this one. Another one that comes up is "shock cooling." In the real world it doesn't make a damn bit of difference what your instructor told you about how much of a myth that or oversquare is, you fly the airplane how they tell you to, profiles, cooling procedures, powersettings and all, if you don't like it that much, you can quit, and go somewhere else, where you can learn different powersettings, cooling procedures, and profiles.
An excellent example was at ACE. The CP told us, "if you lose an engine, I don't want to see any of that 'split the ball' crap, trim it out so the ball is centered and keep the nose low, this thing will fly fine with one shut down." Try that in a fully loaded navajo and you could be in trouble. But that's the essence of my argument, there really isn't a right or wrong way to do it. The problem in some respects with these thoughts about single engine airplanes and engine failures is that it doesn't take into account that most of the time you don't really have that many good places to put down anyway. If you're on a cross country flight, better hope you're VFR and have an intimate knowledge of every nook and cranny of the ground you're over. If you're right off the end of the max performance field you just took off from, hopefully there are no trees, traffic, or towers, because otherwise you're screwed.
A quick survey of accident reports reveals that what really gets people more than anything else isn't engine failures, and really, for the most part isn't stall spin, its the weather, and judgment about it. Especially in the commercial side of things. 100% preventable accidents. A simple, "I shouldn't have gone today." Training judgment is the key. Judgment, not wrote muscle memory. If you have judgment, you'll lower the nose when you need to, and not be locked into a legalist interpretation of aerodynamics when you don't.