Originally Posted by fullrich
LD
A bit of common sense is alot more important in many respects than overdosing on theorums.
I never said pilots are dumb but that alot of them will learn for the exams and forget the gory details a few months later. It happens in all walks of life and to suggest that pilots might be different is just arrogamce.
Firstly, it is not arrogance for me to say that pilots are not dumb... Pilots have a lot to learn in order to qualify and have an aptitude which renders them capable of doing so. I know you never said they were dumb, but you implied in your first post that this was all a bit beyond the average pilot.
Pilots dont understand this theory to this level and are only trained(especially in FAA) to understand the practical principles of flight, not theory, as it is just too broad a subject to cover in detail
Your statement is, of course, the nub of the problem. Common sense -vs- theory. The things we DO remember from our training tend to be the First Things we were taught (the law of primacy). The majority of pilots will tell you that lift occurs because of faster airflow over the top of the wing causing a drop in pressure. This is close enough - even if not strictly true.
Now, "Common sense" kicks in and tells us this must be because the airflow has to travel further over the curved top surface of an aerofoil in the same amount of time that it travels over the relatively flat lower surface of the wing. But this is completely untrue, even though it is supported by the FAA texts and those schools and instructors who refer to it. It immediately fails to explain inverted flight or symmetrical aerofoils and the detrimental effects of even tiny amounts of contamination on the wing surface.
These little nuggets of infomation then get taught as "add-ons" and indeed many students will then struggle with, a) Trying to make it fit with the incorrect model they were given in the first place and, b) Remembering what they've been taught subsequently.
Common sense might tell us that if we have a dripping fuel drain, we're going to lose fuel - but hey... I've gotta fly... it's only dripping at 5 or 6 drips a minute, that's hardly anything. It'll probably dry up in the air when I get some air pressure under it...
I'm sure you appreciate the problem. A case of a little knowledge being dangerous - especially when it's wrong!
It is no harder for instructors to teach (and for student pilots to retain) the correct model. In fact I would say it is somewhat easier for students to retain the correct model, because they will find less contradictions arising in subsequent theory.
What is the value? Well of course it depends on the exams being in accordance with the truth too. After all, we've all got to pass exams - and there's little point in leaving blank answers against those we do not agree with.
So I have also forwarded my concerns to the FAA. But in the meantime as an instructor, I am uncomfortable teaching a syllabus which is flawed to this extent. But I am also obliged to ensure my students pass their exams regardless and will therefore continue to do so. Hopefully, I can also convey some aspects of the truth at the same time without confusing the hell out of them!
