pitch=airspeed; power=altitude

[ppragman]

Will kill you. There is no ifs ands or buts about this one, trying to pitch for altitude will eventually kill you without an engine. The only link missing in this accident chain is fixation. Why put a student one link from death? That, to me, seems silly.

Nope... Not every time, only when required to do it, do you maintain best glide through the farmhouse? or do you pitch up a little bit, clear the farm house, then resume best glide.

 

[shdw]

Nope... Not every time, only when required to do it, do you maintain best glide through the farmhouse? or do you pitch up a little bit, clear the farm house, then resume best glide.

Please read the rest of the quote. Specifically the portion on fixation, something you are exhibiting right now.

 

[ppragman]

Please read the rest of the quote. Specifically the portion on fixation, something you are exhibiting right now.

Lol, dude, you're a riot. Seriously, give it a rest. You don't know everything. There is no absolute way to do it in every airplane. The engine failure checklist for the AN2 is to hold the stick back in your gut, and the airplane will drift in with a survivable speed. If you've got a 100kt headwind, you're going to have to pitch for glide angle. Saying something will eventually kill you every time is ludicrous, not everything can be defined in terms of if x then y.

 

[LarryinTN]

trying to pitch for altitude will eventually kill you without an engine.

If that's what you got from my post them I think you should re-read it and, next time, bold the last seven words of my sentence which you quoted.

BTW, it's not "pitch for altitude", it's "pitch for flight path" and you do exactly that on every flight. When you level off you set the power to achieve the desired airspeed and adjust pitch to maintain a level flight path.

 

[tgrayson]

If you're saying that you're already at full throttle in your scenario then power is fixed. See below. In that case, power is already full so you can't add power to climb, either.

I'm thinking you don't quite understand the information that a power curve conveys. The chart plots climb rate, which implies a pitch attitude.

In the scenario I posted, the throttle is indeed fixed, but excess power is not. The pilot can achieve a climb by pushing forward on the yoke. This will reduce the AoA and move the airplane to a point on the power required curve that requires less power. The chart clearly shows a climb at a faster airspeed.

The "power for airspeed" concept will never get you out of this situation because it's a fundamental mistatement of reality.

 

[shdw]

If that's what you got from my post them I think you should re-read it and, next time, bold the last seven words of my sentence which you quoted.

I did reread it and I think you should reread some of what we have been saying. Here is one example:

The technique is "When power is available and variable, power controls airspeed

The "power for airspeed" concept will never get you out of this situation because it's a fundamental mistatement of reality.

If the argument was technique I would happily agree, but we aren't talking about technique and haven't been for most of this thread. We are arguing the reason something is happening. Telling someone that applying power controls airspeed is false. Applying power gives you excess power that results in a climb. Pitching forward to stop yourself from climbing gives you speed.

You can teach them to apply this anyway you like, that is technique. What you cannot do is tell them something is happening that isn't truthful, that is dangerous.

This, what I stated early, isn't technique. It is fact:

Pitch > AOA > Airspeed
Excess power > altitude achieved by:

Increasing power
Changing airspeed to change required power​

You can teach someone how to apply this any way you want to achieve a technique. But don't lie to your students and tell them they are controlling something in a way that is physically impossible. A "pilot invented technique" where by "everything controls everything." One that disagrees with every aerodynamics book I have ever come across and 4 shelves worth of them that tgray has already mentioned.

Lol, dude, you're a riot. Seriously, give it a rest. You don't know everything.

Apparently a pilots conceptual understanding of the physical world is far superior to any egghead that spends their life's work studying and publishing books/articles on it. What pilots need to understand is that just because they see one result from one action doesn't mean they saw the right result, the entire picture, or that we even understand what has happened.

Here is a for instance, the retina sees all images upside down. However our conception, based on what we see, says this is false. It isn't. Our lives are riddled with misconceptions on how things really happen and how we perceive them to happen. Here is a fun site I found on this, see how much you (not specific to you ppragman, just an in general here) misconstrue the physical world based on faulty perceptions: http://www.amasci.com/miscon/opphys.html

This was a compiled list I found linked from here: http://www.indiana.edu/~w505a/studwork/deborah/

 

[subpilot]

If the argument was technique I would happily agree, but we aren't talking about technique and haven't been for most of this thread. We are arguing the reason something is happening. Telling someone that applying power controls airspeed is false. Applying power gives you excess power that results in a climb. Pitching forward to stop yourself from climbing gives you speed.

I belive the original post was about technique and then certain people here turned it into a physics arguement.

FWIW, applying power will cause the pitch to rise up and then the airplane begins to climb vice increase airspeed. If you keep the pitch the same while adding power then the airspeed will increase while maintaining level flight. Maybe you are not noticing these small pitch changes when you apply power? It wasn't until someone had me place an x on the windscreen with a dry-erase marker that I started to notice these small changes in pitch. I am not speaking from any textbooks either, just from several years of actual observation in flight.

 

[shdw]

I belive the original post was about technique and then certain people here turned it into a physics arguement.

It isn't a physics argument either, though you need to understand the physics to understand what is being argued. It is an argument about using true statements to define what is happening and not misconstrued perceptions of reality.

FWIW, applying power will cause the pitch to rise up and then the airplane begins to climb vice increase airspeed.

Try that in a T-tail twin or jet.

The increase is from centerline thrust, this was mentioned earlier in the thread. It wouldn't happen if the thrust was through the CG and the horizontal stabilizer wasn't not effected by the slipstream.

If you keep the pitch the same while adding power then the airspeed will increase while maintaining level flight.

Well this isn't entirely true because you will be at a lower pitch and a lower AOA after you added power, not the same. Take it to an extreme: What is the pitch attitude in level slow flight? How bout normal cruise? They are different because the AOA's are different. The change in pitch and AOA is so small for a 5-10 knot changes that, to a pilots eye, it will look unchanged.

 

[subpilot]

Man, do you spend your entire day waiting for updates on this thread? It is hard to make a point here when every extreme example is thrown back in your face.

 

[ppragman]

Man, do you spend your entire day waiting for updates on this thread? It is hard to make a point here when every extreme example is thrown back in your face.

Lol, hey SHDW how many types of airplanes have you flown? Out of curiosity?

 

[shdw]

It is hard to make a point here when every extreme example is thrown back in your face.

Was what I said wrong? If so I'd be glad to have something I said corrected.

Lol, hey SHDW how many types of airplanes have you flown? Out of curiosity?

Just to humor you, ~10. More than 5 hours, 7 (counting 1 glider).

Now humor me and see if you can find the origin of various flight dynamics formulas used today. Bernoulli was published first in 1738, I suspect he had very little flight experience. The lift equation was derived (Source: MIT) from his works, I suspect by others who had little if any flight experience.

My point? Flight time has little bearing on ones understanding of this particular subject.

Again, what we perceive and what actually happens rarely go hand and hand. I can't even begin to tell you the number of faulty perceptions I have had corrected over the last 5 years on these topics. It has been an endless learning process from personal study, college, and discussions here.

 

[subpilot]

Problem is, a majority of us are not looking for the physical reasoning of why one force affects another force. We are talking about real world application (ie. technique) of how to manipulate the flight controls to affect a flight parameter. I understand that these topics are connected but at the same time I feel that we should be able to leave out the math formulas when we are discussing techniques. It always seems like SHDW and TGRAYSON always take over these threads to the point that a lot of us are turned off to even posting our comments. Then again maybe that is just me?

 

[tgrayson]

...TGRAYSON always take over these threads to the point that a lot of us are turned off to even posting our comments.

The fewer people involved, the more likely it is that clear, consistent information can be delivered. Most pilots don't have enough of an analytical understanding of this subject to provide a coherent worldview. Telling them "you have to adjust both" doesn't really convey much information, since even a student pilot knows that; most people are looking for something more insightful. I can normally provide that if I'm able to get a dialog going with the poster, but having other random posters interject technically incorrect information confuses the reader and they walk away having learned nothing.

 

[mshunter]

The fewer people involved, the more likely it is that clear, consistent information can be delivered. Most pilots don't have enough of an analytical understanding of this subject to provide a coherent worldview. Telling them "you have to adjust both" doesn't really convey much information, since even a student pilot knows that; most people are looking for something more insightful. I can normally provide that if I'm able to get a dialog going with the poster, but having other random posters interject technically incorrect information confuses the reader and they walk away having learned nothing.

Although I do agree with you, some of the explanations you give are way to technical for most to understand. The explanations I hear you give are sometimes even over the heads of most CFI's. I gues what I am getting at is dumb it down a little for us. I chose not to get involved in this thread for a reason. But since someone else pointed it out, I figured I'd chime in and say my part.

You are a wealth of knowledge for sure, but understand that some of us need it in "Flying For Dummies" context.

Edit for the add: DIE THREAD DIE! What do I have to do to get this thread locked!

 

[tgrayson]

I guess what I am getting at is dumb it down a little for us.

That's really hard unless the person is listening to me. Otherwise, my dumbed down stuff sounds like everyone else's dumbed down stuff. I generally will only resort to math when I have to battle contrary opinions that are based on intuition, rather than any real science or analysis. I know that doesn't always work and sometimes backfires, but at least I've thrown some objectively true material into the fray for anyone that is receptive.

 

[LarryinTN]

In the scenario I posted, the throttle is indeed fixed, but excess power is not.

If you apply the technique correctly, when power is fixed (i.e. full throttle) then power no longer controls airspeed--it can't, it's fixed. Pitch then controls whatever it is that you want to control. In that situation your only available control is pitch so pitch is what you use. The techniques are identical.

If you're going to argue against a technique, you have to first understand how it's applied.

The "power for airspeed" concept will never get you out of this situation because it's a fundamental misstatement of reality.

Neither technique is a statement of any physical laws. They are techniques to use to determine what control inputs need to be made.

IF YOU APPLY THE TECHNIQUES CORRECTLY, YOU WILL MAKE THE EXACT SAME CONTROL INPUTS REGARDLESS OF WHICH TECHNIQUE YOU USE.


You keep going back to technical descriptions of why it won't work. Why would the exact same control inputs suddenly stop working because the thought process that led to them is different?

If the argument was technique I would happily agree, but we aren't talking about technique and haven't been for most of this thread. We are arguing the reason something is happening.

You and Taylor are arguing the reason why something is happening. I'm talking about technique. As I continue to repeat, the control inputs are identical. If the control inputs are the same, then the physics are also the same.

I am talking about how a pilot reaches a decision on what control inputs to make while you and Taylor are talking about what happens after those control inputs are made. The techniques converge at the point where the control inputs are made. If you do not understand why I says this then you do not understand how the power for airspeed technique is to be applied.

Telling someone that applying power controls airspeed is false. Applying power gives you excess power that results in a climb. Pitching forward to stop yourself from climbing gives you speed.

How does that jive with the FAA's 4-forces of flight where thrust counters drag and lift counters weight?

Try that in a T-tail twin or jet.

I have 3300 hours in a large, T-tail, transport jet and this technique worked very well in that airplane. In fact, there's no way that I could have ever passed a checkride in that airplane if I had tried to fly an ILS using pitch=A/S, power=G/S. It would not have been possible to keep the G/S within ATP tolerances as it is on an G.A. airplane.

The G.A. airplanes in which I've been teaching since June are also all T-tail.

Just to humor you, ~10. More than 5 hours, 7 (counting 1 glider).

39 here, also including one glider, and one helicopter. More than 5 hours--24. Aren't electronic logbooks fun?

 

[ppragman]

The fewer people involved, the more likely it is that clear, consistent information can be delivered. Most pilots don't have enough of an analytical understanding of this subject to provide a coherent worldview. Telling them "you have to adjust both" doesn't really convey much information, since even a student pilot knows that; most people are looking for something more insightful. I can normally provide that if I'm able to get a dialog going with the poster, but having other random posters interject technically incorrect information confuses the reader and they walk away having learned nothing.

It conveys all of the necessary information, change both as required to meet the desired performance.

 

[tgrayson]

In that situation your only available control is pitch so pitch is what you use. The techniques are identical.

So you're going to pitch down to go up? This really removes the only useful aspect of the idea that you pitch for altitude, the intuitiveness of pulling the yoke in the direction you want to go.

Switching the laws of aircraft flight depending on whether or not you have power or whether or not you're behind the power curve is really poor pedagogy. It's only necessary because you fail to teach the actual function of these flight controls. Not only that, but you've crippled the pilot's ability to actually learn more about this subject, because he won't be able to make heads or tails out of what even the lowest level aerodynamics book is saying. Sort of like having a creationist read a biology book.

I do agree that a person can come up with almost any arbitrary mental model of aircraft flight that will work as long as he adds all sorts of ad hoc rules that make the model conform to reality. Ptolemy's model of the heavens comes to mind. The greater the number of exceptions, the greater the indication that the fundamental model is incorrect.

Personally, I believe that a teacher's job is to teach what is correct to the best of his ability, not just what gets the immediate job done. And yes, that's just opinion.

 

[tgrayson]

It conveys all of the necessary information, change both as required to meet the desired performance.

Clearly it doesn't, since people ask about the subject all the time. What you're basically admitting is that you are unable to explain it to him and wish the student to figure it out for himself. What good are you as a teacher in that situation?

 

[mshunter]

I know that doesn't always work and sometimes backfires, but at least I've thrown some objectively true material into the fray for anyone that is receptive.

But what good is that "objectively true material" if the person you are trying to explain it to does not understand it. Building blocks work great, and I see no block before the math equation you routinely post in these forums. I am not saying you are wrong, not even close. But the math equations you use mean nothing to me. Why? Because I am not a math major, and to fly an airplane only requires simple math. So the majority of people understand simple math. Try teaching some of the math equations to some of my 55+ yr. old students who are painter's/ ex. English teachers/ high school students. See my point now. Your math equations, while they do work, and you and shdw can wrap your heads around them, simply will not work with 95% of the general public (and remember, most of us here are the general public).

An example of an analogy that I use all the time is "we are a boat that works in three dimensions. No imagine that that boat is to heavy to float. So you get it slowed down in 'slow sailing,' what happens? The boat starts to sink. So how do we fix it? We throttle it up, and the boat gets back up 'on plane.'" Simple, easy to understand, and a great block to start a foundation from.

It's all about making people understand what you are trying to get across. Not everyone has a brain that works in math equations. My brain sure doesn't. And that's my point. I have to make it so when I explain it, not only I understand it, but more importantly, the person I am trying to explain it to understands it. Sure I could posture, and show how much smarter I am by using something that the student wouldn't have the slightest clue about, but what have I accomplished? I have done nothing but taken a black science, and made it blacker (if that is a word), and frustrated the heck out of them. And IMHO, thats why all of these "Pitch Power" threads end up with twenty pages of bickering back and forth about who is right, who is wrong, and "your going to kill yourself if you do it that way." When you are in the air, and I know you can't disagree with me on this one, it only matters if you can apply a proper technique to fly the airplane properly. The math, the power curve charts, hold almost no merit. Again, 95% of people do not think about math/charts when they are flying. They interpret what is happening, and apply a technique to make the airplane do what they want it to do.

It's not about math, or charts, it's about understanding your machine, and mastering it.


Edit to add: This is why I don't get involved in the CFI forums anymore. If it's not their technique, then it is wrong and will kill you. It's not about sharing your love of aviation and trying to make safe compotent pilots anymore.