Gyroscopic precession engineering question
Unless of course, you want to regale me of the day where knowing the "true reason" the pitch horns are offset saved you from crashing, lol.
Plenty of examples after 6 years in engineering, followed by 18 years in aviation of which 7 years in training people with different backgrounds.
The thinker is always late, he is one of the most difficult people to train as his natural problem handling process is to think about it when he's supposed to act. Understanding is not a problem solution. You still die if you understand the reason why you're dying and the acting came to late. Overemphasising technical knowledge creeps into the ego of many people, and claims an idea that "they know". They usually don't, as even the most advanced theoretical pilot training is limited and does not tell full stories.
Ask any old pilot to explain the theory behind his flying, he will not be able. It doesn't matter to know the why. It matters to know how to act appropriatly.
Keep it simple saves lifes. Complicated theory wastes time.
The thinker is always late, he is one of the most difficult people to train as his natural problem handling process is to think about it when he's supposed to act. Understanding is not a problem solution. You still die if you understand the reason why you're dying and the acting came to late. Overemphasising technical knowledge creeps into the ego of many people, and claims an idea that "they know". They usually don't, as even the most advanced theoretical pilot training is limited and does not tell full stories.
Ask any old pilot to explain the theory behind his flying, he will not be able. It doesn't matter to know the why. It matters to know how to act appropriatly.
Keep it simple saves lifes. Complicated theory wastes time.
The following users liked this post:
Tell you what kills pilots quicker than being over-trained... Being under trained. I've seen plenty of people come a cropper because they didn't understand a system. If you're having to act rather than think about it, you did something wrong a while back. If you subscribe to the "you don't have time to think up there" school of thought, in my opinion you're probably doing it wrong.
Ask any old pilot to explain the theory behind his flying, he will not be able.
Knowing how to act appropriately comes from quality training and practice - especially when under stress from complex scenarios or emergencies.
If you are an engineer then I assume you were taught in some detail and weren't expected to just 'act appropriately' when managing or fault finding complex systems - you relied on detailed knowledge.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,154
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
Theory is important - to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, you can never have too much. Knowing how the vectors move helps you realise why you don't need to move the collective when you come in to ground effect. Just sayin'.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
If you are an engineer then I assume you were taught in some detail and weren't expected to just 'act appropriately' when managing or fault finding complex systems - you relied on detailed knowledge.
As a pilot you are an operator. Your brain and body cannot even handle information at the input like an engineer. It is not possible. Forget that. What you do is you learn sitting at a desk, processing information, but then once on the flightdeck this has been vastly simplified otherwise you cannot use it in time critical scenario's.
Don't get me wrong, I respect background knowledge, and have had many discussions... at the bar. I am by heart an engineer and love it. But it has very very limited place on the flightdeck. There have been too many cases where you were wondering why the person was not doing anything. He was thinking. And many times a person does not even reach the process of thinking. You wanted examples? AF447 is a prime example of how, if you cannot simplify things on the flightdeck and stay stuck in complexity, you don't even reach the act of thinking. Very basic rules would have saved that aircraft, not complex theory.
Technical knowledge is important yes, but in modern day of aviation it creates a fake bubble where pilots feel protected by their knowledge, while at the end of the day, they don't know sh$t about the tool in their hands. You are an operator, learn to be an operator. That is a SKILL. Not a knowledge.
Keep it simple. Know your theory up to the point where it allows you to stop stupidity. If that is gyroscopic precession, fine. If that is highly damped vibrations, fine. So yes, I love this thread, but it's not going to make you a better pilot. Just nice discussions at the bar (which you can always invite me to :-))
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,154
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
Nothing to do with bubbles.... I'm talking about how the machine stops going forward all by itself. And talking of Nock Lappos:
“Pure book knowledge should be impeccable - every second of doubt about "what do I do now?" is worth 30% of workload. Mostly because the self-doubt and second-guessing are real time and mental capacity wasters. The more you know flat cold, the easier it is to fly under the gauges”
“Pure book knowledge should be impeccable - every second of doubt about "what do I do now?" is worth 30% of workload. Mostly because the self-doubt and second-guessing are real time and mental capacity wasters. The more you know flat cold, the easier it is to fly under the gauges”
The following users liked this post:
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
In engineering you are thought to think logical and start from A to derive Z. On the flightdeck there is no time to go through that process.
As part of that process there were various aptitude tests, based on ones used by the military.
One test was to enter a room where an invigilator at a desk (actually the HR manager) pointed out the rules, which were to remove a number of assorted objects, some large and heavy, some small and light, from a taped off area on the floor. There was a bag of "implements" that could be used to remove the objects, but each one could be only used once. No objects could be touched by hand. There was a time limit, twenty minutes iirc.
Myself plus two other pilots were sent in. None of us knew each other and we had only met earlier at the recruitment event - and were in effect competing for a job. As we were told "Go", we emptied out the bag of implements. There were ropes, canes, short pieces of wood etc and not much else. We had a quick individual think, a short consultation and then got on with it. We completed the task in less than half the time. The invigilator said because we had removed all the objects she wanted us to put everything back as it was whilst she kept the clock running. We did that, too, inside the original time.
The HR manager told us in the debrief that we were the first group of pilots she had put through the test and that she was very surprised how well we worked together and got it done. Only engineers had been put through before and NONE of them had ever finished within the time limit because they spent a great deal of time discussing the task and coming up with alternative theories.
In engineering you are thought to think logical and start from A to derive Z. On the flightdeck there is no time to go through that process.
As a pilot you are an operator. Your brain and body cannot even handle information at the input like an engineer. It is not possible. Forget that. What you do is you learn sitting at a desk, processing information, but then once on the flightdeck this has been vastly simplified otherwise you cannot use it in time critical scenario's.
Don't get me wrong, I respect background knowledge, and have had many discussions... at the bar. I am by heart an engineer and love it. But it has very very limited place on the flightdeck. There have been too many cases where you were wondering why the person was not doing anything. He was thinking. And many times a person does not even reach the process of thinking. You wanted examples? AF447 is a prime example of how, if you cannot simplify things on the flightdeck and stay stuck in complexity, you don't even reach the act of thinking. Very basic rules would have saved that aircraft, not complex theory.
Technical knowledge is important yes, but in modern day of aviation it creates a fake bubble where pilots feel protected by their knowledge, while at the end of the day, they don't know sh$t about the tool in their hands. You are an operator, learn to be an operator. That is a SKILL. Not a knowledge.
Keep it simple. Know your theory up to the point where it allows you to stop stupidity. If that is gyroscopic precession, fine. If that is highly damped vibrations, fine. So yes, I love this thread, but it's not going to make you a better pilot. Just nice discussions at the bar (which you can always invite me to :-))
As a pilot you are an operator. Your brain and body cannot even handle information at the input like an engineer. It is not possible. Forget that. What you do is you learn sitting at a desk, processing information, but then once on the flightdeck this has been vastly simplified otherwise you cannot use it in time critical scenario's.
Don't get me wrong, I respect background knowledge, and have had many discussions... at the bar. I am by heart an engineer and love it. But it has very very limited place on the flightdeck. There have been too many cases where you were wondering why the person was not doing anything. He was thinking. And many times a person does not even reach the process of thinking. You wanted examples? AF447 is a prime example of how, if you cannot simplify things on the flightdeck and stay stuck in complexity, you don't even reach the act of thinking. Very basic rules would have saved that aircraft, not complex theory.
Technical knowledge is important yes, but in modern day of aviation it creates a fake bubble where pilots feel protected by their knowledge, while at the end of the day, they don't know sh$t about the tool in their hands. You are an operator, learn to be an operator. That is a SKILL. Not a knowledge.
Keep it simple. Know your theory up to the point where it allows you to stop stupidity. If that is gyroscopic precession, fine. If that is highly damped vibrations, fine. So yes, I love this thread, but it's not going to make you a better pilot. Just nice discussions at the bar (which you can always invite me to :-))
There's a reason its called a "Pilot Certificate" and not a "Pilot Degree". Being a good pilot is about skill and experience, not book smarts.
But I wonder if those engineers may have done better if left to do the task individually rather than debating alternative approaches as a group!?
We did an exercise along these lines years back in a mixed group. One instruction was that nobody could put their feet over a marked line. Simple enough instruction. I thought the team needed a "guard" to make sure this rule wasn't breached, but I couldn't even suggest that before someone had already stepped over the line and we were "out".
As for theoretical knowledge vs applied ability, I understand how sailing boats operate in wind and water but when in sailing competitions, our team always came last or near last, so we gave up!!
Now: back to the theory of rotor dynamics... haaa haaa, haaa.
On the flightdeck there is no time to go through that process.
The Air France accident was caused by not knowing how the AP worked or understanding the hierarchy of control on the sidesticks - yes Attitude Power and Trim would have saved the day but being swamped with information and panicking because you don't understand it is how to kill hundreds of people.
Perhaps people get too hung up on the word pilot - your abilities as a pilot depend greatly on how you were trained, not just for your PPL/CPL, but beyond that to do the required job with the aircraft.
A PPL can call him/herself a pilot but is generally only capable of basic manoeuvres and simple navigation - CPL takes that up a notch and allows you to earn money flying - ATPL goes up several extra notches again.
What is the difference between these levels? Experience, training and KNOWLEDGE.
If all you do is GA flying as a PPL or tour flying as a CPL, do you really think you have the skills and knowledge of an ATPL holder?
Now plenty of people are happy with the level they get to and that is great but on this forum there are a lot of very experienced and well-qualified pilots from all walks of life who have pushed themselves (or been pushed) to expand their skills and knowledge to make them better pilots.
So when statements are made regarding pilot skills, knowledge and abilities, especially with regard to the training required just remember there is a very long way between PPL and Test Pilot and what suits PPL training won't cut the mustard with more advanced levels.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
That is patently untrue and the existence of emergency checklists demonstrates this - the flashing white glove around the cockpit has caused far more accidents than knowing too much about the aircraft.
The Air France accident was caused by not knowing how the AP worked or understanding the hierarchy of control on the sidesticks - yes Attitude Power and Trim would have saved the day but being swamped with information and panicking because you don't understand it is how to kill hundreds of people.
The Air France accident was caused by not knowing how the AP worked or understanding the hierarchy of control on the sidesticks - yes Attitude Power and Trim would have saved the day but being swamped with information and panicking because you don't understand it is how to kill hundreds of people.
If they had kept their brain focused on basic & simple aerodyn - hence disregarding all technical messages - they would have realised that high altitude, a pitch up of 20° is simply not surviveable as TOGA power is nothing compared to what is available on the ground. And exactly this SKILL is the part UNDERtraining is discussing and where all regulations have been adapted with extra high altitude upset recovery excercises.
Pilot technical knowledge as explained in FCOMs is what I call "blackbox theory". It says a little about what comes in, and a little about what comes out. The rest is a giant black box. That knowledge is basic and not to be overrated. Our job is to stay within the controllable flight envelope. If a system is not working, we switch it off. If there is an alternate, we use the alternate. Simple.
Anyway, I'm going to leave it at that, I made my point boringly enough. Back to rotor dynamics (if one still dares :-))
Did you re-read your post? You just made my point. The checklists is the most basic simple protection humans have designed because... the brain ain't that good. This has nothing to do with the white glove. The Air France accident was caused by overreliance in automation and pilots inadequate to pick up the error because... the brains were overloaded.
Many complex failures have only been survived because of the detailed knowledge of the systems by the crews involved.
Most of the pilots I trained with in the military could do the whole start and stop checklist from memory along with the emergency drills so the brain isn't the problem there - stress is the problem where the brain tries to go from A to Z ignoring B to Y on the way and why dumbing down to Pavlovian responses based on very basic information just doesn't work.
The Air France pilots were confused by the number of alerts and warnings they received and the unexpected response from the aircraft since they were both trying to fly it at the same time (doesn't work with sidesticks). They simply failed to fly the aircraft - and when that happens you are on a hiding to nothing whether you know everything or nothing about the machine.
Lion Air Flight 610 crashed on 10/29/2018, twelve minutes after takeoff killing all 189 passengers and crew. Five months later, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crashed six minutes after takeoff killing all 157 people aboard.
Both aircraft were Boeing 737 Max 8s with a Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS). MCAS is activated without the pilot’s input, which has led to some frustration among pilots of the 737 Max jet. Both jets crashed because MCAS responded to faulty inputs.
The FAA pilot transition into the Max 8 didn’t involve any flight training (simulator or otherwise). Pilots instead simply learned about the 737’s new features on an iPad. Pilots at United Airlines had a 13-page guide to learn the 737 Max. They didn’t mention the MCAS.
MCAS was deemed unnecessary information by Boeing and hence the FAA and EASA.
Knowledge beyond what the FAA/EASA requires isn’t worthless and extraneous book facts. And experience isn’t just a learned skill a pilot pulls out at a suitable time like a parroted bit of rote memorization.
Some of what I read here is disconcerting and downright idiotic. The best pilots I’ve met are the ones who thirst for knowledge beyond the required, think and then apply it up there.
Both aircraft were Boeing 737 Max 8s with a Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS). MCAS is activated without the pilot’s input, which has led to some frustration among pilots of the 737 Max jet. Both jets crashed because MCAS responded to faulty inputs.
The FAA pilot transition into the Max 8 didn’t involve any flight training (simulator or otherwise). Pilots instead simply learned about the 737’s new features on an iPad. Pilots at United Airlines had a 13-page guide to learn the 737 Max. They didn’t mention the MCAS.
MCAS was deemed unnecessary information by Boeing and hence the FAA and EASA.
Knowledge beyond what the FAA/EASA requires isn’t worthless and extraneous book facts. And experience isn’t just a learned skill a pilot pulls out at a suitable time like a parroted bit of rote memorization.
Some of what I read here is disconcerting and downright idiotic. The best pilots I’ve met are the ones who thirst for knowledge beyond the required, think and then apply it up there.
Some of what I read here is disconcerting and downright idiotic. The best pilots I’ve met are the ones who thirst for knowledge beyond the required, think and then apply it up there
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
I just read this thread again after a few days away. It seems to have suffered from terminal precession because what I missed has nothing to do with the title.