PDA

View Full Version : Physics removed from entry criteria by the Big Red (Merged)


BubbaJ
15th Jun 2007, 05:53
Just checked the website, NO MORE YEAR 12 PHYSICS. Herd a rumour about this seems they do come true now and then!!! Open the gates!!!

Howard Hughes
15th Jun 2007, 07:12
Now let me see, that only leaves me English and Maths short now...;)

hoss
15th Jun 2007, 07:27
Excellent BubbaJ, now you can concentrate on your english in particular spelling(herd).

All the best;).

glekichi
15th Jun 2007, 09:25
Any body know if South Australian Chemisty + a foreign language from the late 90s counts as equivalent to yr.12 English?
At the time it was accepted to be equivalent for university entrance purposes, and the Airforce accepted it too.

zendj
15th Jun 2007, 09:45
hope the cadetship doesnt follow suit - I spent all last year studying yr 12 physics (and sitting the HSC) just to be eligibe......now they are saying its not required! arrrgh

spose no knowledge is wasted eh? :ugh:

Howard Hughes
15th Jun 2007, 09:48
Cadetship will not change!:ok:

Fonz121
15th Jun 2007, 14:26
Thats gold! Funny actually, only this afternoon was bitching to my g/f about still having to go do that course somewhere sometime soon.

distracted cockroach
16th Jun 2007, 03:47
Coz everyone knows you need year 12 physics and a university degree to multiply by 3 to work out a descent profile, add up a fuel order and check a load sheet:yuk:

Diffuser
16th Jun 2007, 06:31
I am just wondering if anyone has any idea as to why QANTAS has removed Physics as part of the educational criteria ?? :ugh:

ScottyDoo
16th Jun 2007, 07:47
Interesting. We'll soon have a crop of drivers in Australia who don't know what a vector diagram is!!

Could it be they want to slyly eradicate the disparity between the highly educated pure Rat drivers and the poorly or un-educated pseudo-Rat JefStar drivers.

Cynical, I know. If you can't get what you want, lower the bar.

English will be next.

Jet_A_Knight
16th Jun 2007, 08:41
Scotty - I really hope that you are being sarcastic.

If so, please add one of these - :rolleyes:.

If not - you've got to be kidding:suspect:

Howard Hughes
16th Jun 2007, 09:03
Coz everyone knows you need year 12 physics and a university degree to multiply by 3 to work out a descent profile,
I thought it was actually divide by 3!;):}
Interesting. We'll soon have a crop of drivers in Australia who don't know what a vector diagram is!!
What an absolute load of tosh, for the record HSC physics does not equal aviating god!:rolleyes:

neville_nobody
16th Jun 2007, 09:33
Steve Holding's going to spew!! :eek: How to kill a niche industry with a stroke of a pen.

However Physics should be part of the minimum requirements. Didn't see you guys bagging Ansett for having the same requirements a few years back.

Interesting to note than in the USA to fly for the majors you have to have a 4 year degree. It is also interesting to note that the academic level of alot of the year 12 subjects has also dropped in Australia in the last 10 years. The Uni's have been complaining that the levels of Maths and Science from year 12 are getting pretty bad and people are unable to handle some of the harder degrees.

Over and gout
16th Jun 2007, 09:45
Interesting. We'll soon have a crop of drivers in Australia who don't know what a vector diagram is!!


What is a vector diagram?

Blue-Footed Boobie
16th Jun 2007, 09:59
Anyone who can distinguish between a Neutron and a Proton after 8 pints of piss is natural born physicist anyway..:}

SOPS
16th Jun 2007, 10:17
During what part of the flight am I required to make use of a vector diagram?

mjbow2
16th Jun 2007, 11:21
neville_nobody

I can assure you that virtually every major airline in the US had dropped the degree requirement by 1999. AIRinc (http://www.jet-jobs.com/) can tell anyone wanting to know what each majors 'minimums' are in the US.

Clearly these rather random 'requirements' have in the past been a way to artificially reduce the number of applicants. This same system has been used at universities for years where entrance scores are varied every year based on supply of candidates Vs number of places available.

Either this is an obvious wind up or an unfortunate display of arrogance from a couple of mainline pilots.

AerocatS2A
16th Jun 2007, 11:46
Errr...Howard - Desc from FL300 is 30 X 3 = 90. Therefore commence descent from approx 90 miles (plus or minus wind or other considerations).
JT

FL300 / 3 = 100 is closer to a 3 degree profile than doing it the other way. At anyrate, we multiply height by 3 for a descent point (your way) but then transition to multiplying distance by 3 (Howard's way) closer in to the airport :ok:.

aircraft
16th Jun 2007, 12:57
Pilots without physics wouldn't be able to see the necessity of physics - a situation akin to "you don't know what you don't know".

Hands up all those that subscribe to the idea that, upon reaching top of climb, rather than just level out and allow the aircraft to accelerate, you climb a few hundred feet more, accelerate, then descend down to the cruising altitude so as to leave you with a higher cruising speed?

There are many, many pilots in Australia that subscribe to this idea. I have heard this "technique" referred to as "getting over the step". I have even heard pilots requesting a "climb overshoot" to ATC when about to conduct it.

If these pilots had done physics (and understood it) they wouldn't be doing that because they would know that there cannot be any benefits to it - and, they would also know that, in fact, doing so only prolongs the time it takes to get settled down in the cruise!

A pilot with an understanding of physics is a much more astute pilot than one without.

A great shame, but such are the commercial realities facing Qantas.

Jet_A_Knight
16th Jun 2007, 13:11
Aircraft - BOLLOCKS. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

You don't need physics to fly an aeroplane or follow SOPS.

Jeeez, some of you guys need to climb down out of your ivory towers.:mad:


Or I got sucker-punched by a pair of trolls.................:{

ScottyDoo
16th Jun 2007, 13:12
I wasn't going to bother but since aircraft made the effort... yeah a pretty good analogy there.

No, Jet A, you're right, you don't need a physics qual to fly an airplane but the Rat obviously liked to employ a standard of pilot who had a bit of a clue of something more than just how to calculate a profile or work the FMC.

Eventually we'll have a bunch of crew who can fly the 747 but have no technical idea how it manages to get into the air.

White man's magic?

Physics not important? Take a look at how many people think you can fly a 1 'G' barrel roll. (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=270231&highlight=barrel+roll)

Now there's a good use for a vector diagram... :p

Jet_A_Knight
16th Jun 2007, 13:15
Nahhhh, looks like I was wrong about the trolls.

" All those pilots without HSC level pass in Physics, bow down to the HSC 2unitA Physics I completed 20 years ago - high - priests - of - the - cockpit". :bored:

We're talking airline pilots here - not Test pilots - don't buy tickets on yourself.

ScottyDoo
16th Jun 2007, 13:19
Now you're talkin...... just fold the charts, dish out the pre-flight snacks and let those with the mighty Jethro Bodeen Year 12 edjewkashun do the tricky bits. Okay? :p

Jet_A_Knight
16th Jun 2007, 13:25
Scotty don't get me wrong - i value education - highly - but as appropriate.

So what - you understand the underlying physics in how an aeroplane gets airborne - big shite. It ain't gonna help you when one of the wing falls off to know the equation & and principles involved in why the aeroplane is now falling out of the sky.

In my opinion, pilots would be better off having a degree in 'Situational Awareness' (if there was one available) rather than physics.

Then again, what ever trips your trigger..:hmm:


BTW If Jethro Bodeen HAD got a Yr 12 education (he only got to 5th grade as i remember), he would have run the bank AND married Miss Jane - instead of trying to become an 'International Playboy'.:ok:

ScottyDoo
16th Jun 2007, 13:38
Sixth grade, mate. Sixth grade... obviously too many hours doing your physics homework and not enough quality hours after school watching the Hillbillies!! :p


I trust the Rat are guarding the standards through maintaining a requirement for a pass in year 12 English? :rolleyes:

Angle of Attack
16th Jun 2007, 14:59
Whats the big deal? Damn dont be so precious, after all it wasn't really that hard to get when it was a requirement with the 2 week courses anyway. Anyone would think you needed a Physics degree!!:E

Capt Claret
16th Jun 2007, 21:35
Coz everyone knows you need year 12 physics and a university degree to multiply by 3 to work out a descent profile, add up a fuel order and check a load sheet
Whilst I don't think physics per se is required to fly an aeroplane, I'm sure the discipline makes for a more able pilot.

It's kind of sad to fly with (mostly) youngsters who can't work out a 3 times profile because they can't manipulate basic maths. Can't add up the flight times in the trip log for the day. Who when asked by ATC, can you make FLxyy by time zz, have to reach for a calculator but, then have no idea if the answer is correct because they believe implicitly what it tells them and don't understand the concept of SISO. :uhoh:

Capt Fathom
16th Jun 2007, 23:24
Clarrie is on to it!
Best to have your FMS permanently installed and powered by coffee, with a backup in your shirt pocket.

dodgybrothers
16th Jun 2007, 23:43
cant do basic maths eh clarrie, let me see how many overspeeds are you up to now, 1 plus 5 equals about 10 or dozen

Shagtastic
17th Jun 2007, 00:43
Capt. Claret.. why don't you teach them you wise ways then?

Shags

Wicked shimmy
17th Jun 2007, 01:23
Question. How many incidents/accidents are caused because a member of the flight crew had not completed year 12 physics?

Answer. None

To suggest that only a year 12 physics graduate is able to obtain the required level of skill necessary to be a competent and valuable member of a flight crew is ridiculous and flies in the face of contemporary flight training principles. The purpose of such requirements is merely to screen, and reduce the very large number of applicants to an acceptable level. The theory goes, if you can pass year 12 physics, then you wonít have any trouble with the ATPLís (if a cadet) and HR can rest easy about selecting you.

To suggest it is anything else is a delusion. In fact, from a human factors perspective, the last thing you need in a flight crew member is a guy who completed year 12 physics a couple of years ago thinking through a situation and coming up with his own theory based on degraded high school knowledge.

If future airline pilots what to study something that would actually be useful to their flying career, may I suggest business management and psychology. Both will sever you far better in this business than physics!

M.25
17th Jun 2007, 03:32
There are many skills that are much more relevant to flying an aircraft than yr 12 physics - most of which could not be taught by any school or uni. Some people need to get over themselves.

People are suggesting that someone without yr 12 physics would have no idea why their aircraft is flying. What a load of crap. Last time I looked there was a subject dedicated to this at BAK, CPL and ATPL levels called aerodynamics.

Someone without Physics still has to pass the skills testing and an interview where plenty of technical questions will be thrown at them. The subjects were only there to cull applicants. How much would someone who did the subject 20 years ago remember anyway? Not much. I have yr 12 physics to by the way.

neville_nobody
17th Jun 2007, 03:40
I can assure you that virtually every major airline in the US had dropped the degree requirement by 1999. AIRinc can tell anyone wanting to know what each majors 'minimums' are in the US.

Well it seems that Alaskan requires a 4 year degree, Jet Blue says you will not be competitive without one, Fedex requires one, Continental says it's highly desirable and the rest are not recruiting.

M.25
17th Jun 2007, 07:19
I donít think they are lowering the bar - although at first glance it might seem that way. I think they have made the change to prevent lowering the bar.

They are now allowing people to apply with bachelor degrees who may not have done physics at yr 12. It will also allow more people with industry experience to apply. If they donít make a change they will lose this experience to Cathay, Virgin, and Jetstar etc.

Would you rather they kept the requirement and were forced to hire from a small number of less than ideal 500hr hopefuls who hold the bare minimum Maths, Physics and English - or drop the requirement and asses a larger number of applicants on a case by case basis (many of whom may hold degrees and/or have a significant amount of industry experience)?

They simply need a larger pool of applicants to choose from. Just because they dropped the physics requirement doesnít mean that you will get in with just 500hrs, maths and English!

KRUSTY 34
18th Jun 2007, 03:31
Some years ago a mate of mine did some icus on the bank runs for a grade 2 from Bankstown. No pressure, no check at the end, just lets go out and fly and learn the ropes.

After a week, he was left in total amazement as said individual was not, even after all that time, able to sucesssfuly calculate a descent profile in the Baron! I know it sounds unbeleivable, but true story.

Less than 3 months later this "pilot" was accepted by Qantas, and is now a serving 400 F/O!

Had the right credentials though, Nepotism, Cronyism, HSC physics, but surprisingly no ASIR's. (That I am aware of)

poteroo
18th Jun 2007, 09:21
We really need to get over this physics issue!

What's needed is some mental dexterity with simple maths...as Capt Claret suggested.

Chuck out all these overly complex educational systems such as OBE,and CBT......and bring back times tables and mental arithmetic at Kindy and Year 1 levels.

Yup, shows my age, but I can still add up the restaurant bill from upside down and get half close....even after a few reds !!

Wish some of my students could get that close on a flight plan...ha, ha

happy days,

Dagger
19th Jun 2007, 00:16
Understanding of vector diagrams is a must, otherwise I just can't see how filling out the decklog to within the required 5 minute tolerance can be achieved, I just can't see any other way. Gotta say I go through a hell of a lot of yellow pads.

Mr. Hat
19th Jun 2007, 00:56
Right on the money poteroo. It stands out to me that my dad, who finished school in year 10 in the 50's will put numbers together in his head quicker than I can punch them into the calculator. This is true not only for me but others of my same age. The system at some point changed and mental arithmetic became less important. I personally think itís related to introduction of calculators. And the even younger than I struggle with spelling and that one I think is thanks to spell check.

I've done high school and university level physics. I'd swap both any day for the mental arithmetic skills that my dad has.

Bug Smasher Smasher
19th Jun 2007, 01:25
Cute Hostie A is standing 1.7m directly in front of Cute Hostie B. Protective Male Flight Attendant C is standing 1.3m from Cute Hostie B at an angle of 45* from Cute Hostie A. Use a vector diagram to determine at what angle Drunk Pilot D should approach Cute Hostie B to minimise my chances of getting slugged by Protective Male Flight Attendant C. :}

All jokes aside, for now, I think the reason behind this is twofold:
1) There simply isn't the supply of pilots that there has been in the past so yep, when you can't fill the quota based on the current requirements lower the requirements.
and
2) my cynical suspicion - another step in the dumbing down of the industry, "Geez, these pilot types don't even have to know high school physics! How hard can the job be?"

:hmm:

ScottyDoo
19th Jun 2007, 14:08
Yes, yes, you are all quite correct: of course physics does not really come into it when actually flying an airplane, even a Qwantas jumbo which requires near god-like powers.

However when as previously stated a significant number of professional pilots think it is possible to perform a 1'G' barrel roll then there is something wrong.

If I was the Qwantas recruitment guru, I'd simply replace the blanket physics requirement with a question on the above topic and let the applicant talk himself into or out of the job based on what kind of answer he dreams up to that quantum physics brain-buster.


A 1'G' barrel roll - Jesus wept. :rolleyes:



PS: Notice how we're all carefully avoiding the topic of spelling, grammar and punctuation which would see even more pilots excluded from the running...

plainmaker
20th Jun 2007, 02:14
I just wonder how the Cessna ferry captain who was 'rescued' by the Air NZ DC-10 would have fared in todays environment then.

Seems Gordon's skills as a navigator, establishing vectors, angles etc may have some basic foundation in maths and physics.

What is the conjecture if the scenario were repeated in a few years time with a 'non-physical' flight crew.:ouch:

Or does simple maths and a University degree in Arts cover all the bases?:uhoh:

Plainmaker

Junior Jet
20th Jun 2007, 04:36
Ok, I'm new to this and thought I might put my two cents worth in...

Rumour has it the aviation industry in Oz is in a bit of strife because it can't find the new up and coming pilots it needs... No wonder Qantas and others are going to lower their standards. They need pilots and this is how they are going to find them.

Now, I imagine there are aspiring young pilots like myself out there who are thinking 'terrific, I won't have to go back and do physics'! However, this only makes the job easier to get, it doesn't make us better pilots. I concede that physics alone will not make us great pilots but it gives us knowledge and after growing up with my old man as a pilot I have come to understand that knowledge, intelligence, confidence not cockiness and a certain humility are neccessary to command an aircraft.

It is all well and good for us to welcome this lower of standards and the consequent easier recruitment but at the end of the day the standards need to be upheld and if the companies won't do it, we need to do it. Physics was there for a reason; for pilots to understand basic principles and to cement the thought processes required. If we dump physics, what will follow? How far will the standards fall?

One day it will be us in command. Will we have what it takes?

smiling monkey
20th Jun 2007, 05:08
Didn't it used to be chemistry as well at one point in time? As for the HSC Physcis requirement, I don't think they meant it as a pre-requisite to being able to understand the concepts of aerodynamics (which is probably only Year 9 or 10 Science anyway), but a way of saying "we want our pilots to have finished secondary school". Thus the requirement for English since if you failed English, then you failed your HSC (well, that was the case during my time, anyway).

AerocatS2A
21st Jun 2007, 09:02
However when as previously stated a significant number of professional pilots think it is possible to perform a 1'G' barrel roll then there is something wrong.

Year 12 physics doesn't cure general ignorance. Sorry.

Jedi
21st Jun 2007, 10:09
Physics I can understand, there are alot of aviation principles involved that I believe are only covered in physics. Chemistry on the other hand... What do you mean exothermic!?:}
Or maybe my T-shirt covers it: thermonuclear bulls*#t.

As for english my teacher left that many red marks on my work she may aswell have written it for me.

At this point may I add, 7 out of every 5 pilot are dislexic!:E

Use the force.

404 Titan
21st Jun 2007, 15:34
Iím sorry but year 12 physics is irrelevant to whether one can do the job of an airline pilot. It is like asking me as an accountant (in my previous life) that I should have done economics or commerce in high school. I learnt what I needed to be an accountant at uni and then on the job just as a pilot learnt what he needed to do his job at flying school and then on the job. All this huffing and puffing by some that think having year 12 physics makes one a better and more knowledgeable pilot are living in Koo Koo land. It is a filtering tool used by the airlines to control the supply and demand curve relationship. Nothing more nothing less. Just because some if not most pilots in Qantas did or had to do year 12 physics doesnít mean that it is essential to do the job. It just means that at that point in time Qantas used it as a filtering tool just like some airlines today use the ability of someone to pay for their endorsement as a filtering tool. And yes I have worked in the recruitment department of a mojor international airline and know what I am talking about.

Curvature
21st Jun 2007, 17:50
Thought I would add my two cents worth at the risk of being flamed!

I have to agree with Junior Jet and others, that the lowering of educational pre-requisites can, unfortunately, have repercusions.

Nevertheless, any intelligent pilot can see that there is obviously no direct correlation with passing year 12 physics and being able to safely fly an aircraft. However, in my experience, the people who staunchly defend this view are the ones who have never done year twelve physics.

As 404 Titan rightly points out, the dynamics of supply and demand rule the marketplace and as such Qantas obviously requires pilots. The lack of a pass in Year 12 Physics is a simple barrier the management is happy to remove, and will no doubt be reinstated as soon as they fill their required quota.

:):)

Jedi
22nd Jun 2007, 00:50
404,
You are absolutely correct saying that physics is a filter. But an endorsement has never been (with exception to some GA/executive companies). In relation to vrigin, jet*, easterns etc, it was proposed as a money making/cost cutting scheme, with emphasis on the money making part.

Its a sad reality, but that is what our industry has been reduced to.:suspect:

404 Titan
22nd Jun 2007, 02:38
Jedi

"Pay for your own endorsement". Money making exercise? Absolutely. Filter? Absolutely as well as it effectively reduces the potential pilot pool by around 50%. A very large proportion of pilots, who would have been considered acceptable to most airlines that provide the endorsement, canít get a job at these airlines that require you to pay for the endorsement because they can't afford the endorsement cost. There are a number of reasons why they canít but the main ones are:

1. They donít have the cash.
2. Canít get the finance.
3. Are already up to their eye balls in debt because they borrowed to learn to fly in the first place or to buy a house, car etc etc.
4. Parents donít have the coin.

These airlines may not have intended pay for your endorsement to be a filter in the beginning but it sure has ended up being one which they have used to their advantage in the past but is now hindering their growth plans. Why do you thing DJ and J* have or are about to get rid of it???

Seabreeze
22nd Jun 2007, 03:12
I would like to add some different ideas to this debate.

WWI pilots got chosen on the basis of their ability to ride a horse.

I don't think there were any Battle of Britain pilots with degrees (certainly not a requirement) and many figher pilots would not even have had 1000 hrs command on completion of BoB action. Survivors could obviously fly well but probably never new what the word physics meant!

We know that there are many capable airline captains doing excellent work, and who do not have degrees and maybe never did hSc physics.

But lets think more broadly, and look to the future. For those of you that argue that you still don't need to know any physics or maths (or even much english, and no chemistry or electronics or....) to fly today's and tomorow's well equipped aircraft; then I would ask you to state what you think actually is the minimum. Maybe you don't need schooling, probably just the ability to follow procedures and memorise signs. This is what a bus driver does.

In saying that any additional academic and technical background (ie above CASA minimums) is unnecessary for pilots, I suggest that you are degrading the profession of pilot, and implicitly advocating a culture of educational minimalism (ie that you don't learn anything unless it is absolutely compulsory). With this atitude, how do you expect anyone (including recruiting personnel) to respect you? How can you articulate a case for better pay or even a case for maintenence of conditions, if you are inarticulate and don't know anything above the basic minimum required knowledge?

The CASA exam system which requires no essay answers, sketches or explanation of complex ideas also indirectly encourages minimalism.

The RAAF introduced a BTech (Aviation) because it was having too many problems with ADFA arts graduates training to become pilots. This course includes additional maths and physics above HSC level. So are they wrong, or only doing it because they can for image reasons?

Obviously there is a shortage of pilots looming, so the dropping of physics by some airlines is simply a current supply and demand matter; I don't think airlines drop academic entry standards as a matter of principle.

But this is no reason for aspiring pilots to now ignore doing HSC physics or ignore the opportunities that additional education can provide in not only giving a higher technical knowledge, but in improving mental capabilities. Development of a personal culture of life-time inquiry and research into the matters which are directly relevant to your profession is one of the marks of a professional. Ignoring such matters puts you in the ranks of the labourers of this world, perhaps technically skilled in a narrow area, but with no breadth of knowledge beyond daily requirements.

PPruners will chose their own personal way of life according to their own philosophies. But degrading your profession by arguing lower and lower academic entry requirements seems to be a very unlikely method to achieve an increased respect for your employee group or to maintain industrial strength. The fact that some of you probably won't recognise this just further emphasises my point.

Then there is the financial self-preservation matter. It might be nice for your family budget to have a broader education if you lose your Class one medical cert.

I look forward to comments!

fender
22nd Jun 2007, 03:27
A good pilot physics does not make. I know of many, many geeky!!! friends who would put any of us to shame in the academic department, but would be crappy pilots.
Go back to 101, what makes a good pilot.
A touch of extrovert, a splash of academia, good dexterity and dashing good looks.
So stick physics up your ass.

Seabreeze
22nd Jun 2007, 03:37
Lots of bravado on Pprune; but I bet you wouldn't be game to say " stick physics up your.....: in a job interview with a major carrier!

maggotdriver
22nd Jun 2007, 04:19
"Centrifugal force", I rest my case. (almost)
P.S. If you turn downwind at low altitude what happens?
Another goodie "the plane gets on the step"
"It flies more efficiently at cost index 60 compared to 40"
Bla,Bla,Bla,Bla and Bla!!!!!:{:{:eek:

smokey2
22nd Jun 2007, 04:27
On todays modern aircraft you need an IT degree. What else can help you when your LCD flight deck screens go to the blue screen of death care of Bill Gates. Modern GA aircraft eg Cirrus and Diamond are a computer nerds paradise. Helps if you can fly as well.

fender
22nd Jun 2007, 05:14
Seabreeze,
You are right, I forgot to add. Pilots also need to be backstabbers.Glad I'm retired.

fender
22nd Jun 2007, 05:17
OOPS, I meant 14% of pilots.

aircraft
25th Jun 2007, 14:32
Well, I did say that those that haven't done physics (or did, but can't remember any of it, or just don't understand it) will not appreciate the necessity of it, and since I said that (back at post #20), there have been plenty lining up to express their ignorance.

As I said then, this inability to appreciate the benefits of the subject is akin to the "you don't know what you don't know" philosophy.

This post from 404 Titan is typical:
All this huffing and puffing by some that think having year 12 physics makes one a better and more knowledgeable pilot are living in Koo Koo land.

But for sheer breathtaking ignorance, you just can't go past this post, by Wicked shimmy:
Question. How many incidents/accidents are caused because a member of the flight crew had not completed year 12 physics?
Answer. None
And just where did that answer come from?

In his delusion, this poster has expressed the answer that he wishes was true. In fact, I believe that, almost every day, somewhere in the world, an aircraft comes to grief when it may not have done so had the pilot been more aware of the flight or motion physics.

The area where this connection is strongest, I believe, is in assymetric flight.

Pilots just seem to be blissfully unaware of how expensive it is to turn an aircraft when assymetric. The cost is the same when on all engines of course, but the all engines performance effectively masks this cost.

A few years ago, a C404 suffered an engine failure during the takeoff from Jandakot (on or immediately following rotation, according to the witnesses). The raw data from the various Radar sensors around Perth was combined with the actual meteorological data to derive an account of the aircraft's IAS for the 30-40 seconds it remained airborne.

This account showed that the aircraft had performance sufficient to maintain altitude and possibly even climb. The Radar track showed the aircraft, for a short time, flying wings level at an airspeed in the vicinity of the blue line. All witnesses reported that the aircraft was maintaining altitude during this straight line phase ("just above the treetops").

Unfortunately, the pilot attempted a turn back towards the aerodrome. He had earlier successfully turned the aircraft through about 70 degrees but that earlier turn, according to the Radar track, was more gentle. The aircraft lost too much airspeed during this second turn and was unable to continue to maintain altitude. Several passengers were killed.

If the cost of assymetric turning was drummed into multiengine pilots as effectively as the warning to single engine pilots against turning back then the occurrence rate of those accidents that share these circumstances may well be insignificant.

In other words, if the education was better, the need for the physics appreciation would be less.

The student of physics knows that, irrespective of whether you are talking about boats, cars, rockets or skateboards, the turns don't come without cost and he uses this knowledge to fill in this and other gaps that exist in his aeronautical knowledge/experience.

In that earlier post I gave an example of how a pilot with an appreciation of physics will tend to fly an aircraft more efficiently than one without. There would be many more examples than the one I gave. Now I have given an example of how an appreciation of the physics of motion can save more than just dollars.

Nobody is saying that you need to have physics to fly an aircraft. Monkeys have demonstrated that they could be taught to fly an aircraft, but how well would those monkeys fare when they find themselves in a situation not covered by their "pilot training"?

Seabreeze and Junior Jet, your posts were excellent.

AerocatS2A
25th Jun 2007, 15:40
In that earlier post I gave an example of how a pilot with an appreciation of physics will tend to fly an aircraft more efficiently than one without. There would be many more examples than the one I gave. Now I have given an example of how an appreciation of the physics of motion can save more than just dollars.
Your example is wishful thinking.

I'll preface this by saying that I did high school physics and there is nothing I learned then that I didn't relearn during flight training that is of any benefit to how I fly an aeroplane.

You say an appreciation of physics would've prevented someone from turning to steeply on one engine? Crap. Two things will stop someone from trying to exceed the performance capabilities of their aircraft. One, the ability, learned during flight training, to monitor the flight instruments (and/or the real horizon when available) and correct unwanted deviations, combined with the ability to feel when you're getting slow. Two, paying some attention when your instructor taught you about the lift vector and the additional requirements for lift when in a turn, the affect that has on loading, and the subsequent affect that has on drag and stall speed.

Actually, now that I've written that, I do agree. An appreciation of physics does make a better pilot. The problem you have is that you assume doing high school physics will give someone an appreciation of the subject. It might for those who are interested, for the rest it's just in one ear, slosh around in the brain till exam time, then out the other ear, to be forever forgotten.

There are some supposedly well educated pilots who come out with the most ignorant crap about flying that you wonder how they ever survive. They live in fear of the stall, of low flying (watch that airspeed turning downwind!), of aerobatics, and anything else that actually requires them to fly the plane.

It aint rocket science, it's not even high school physics. It's a few very basic principles that any old dunce can learn.

404 Titan
25th Jun 2007, 15:55
aircraft
As typical you are talking through youíre a**e sunshine. Better training makes better pilots, not whether one has done physics 20+ years ago. All the physics you will ever need to know in this job is in the syllabus of training that is required to get your licence in the first place.

Regarding the C404 accident in Perth a few years ago, apart from the fact that he was eventually going to have to make a turn back to the airport anyway, your point is? You donít need to have done year 12 physics to know that any turn on one engine in a light twin is going to be extremely costly in performance and must be executed with extreme care. This accident is more a reflection of the training standards in GA generally than anything else. I have no idea whether the said pilot had year 12 physics or not because at the end of the day the outcome would have been exactly the same. The last thing that was going through his mind as his sphincter was clenching his seat wasnít what he learnt in year 12 physics. He was desperately trying to execute a required manoeuvre that wasnít properly and thoroughly taught to him in the first place. Improve the training standards required by the operators of these types of aircraft and you will greatly reduce this type of accident. Unfortunately this type of training costs serious money. Money unfortunately only the major airlines can afford.

Fliegenmong
26th Jun 2007, 04:49
Oh aircraft!, you're too much! You really are. How ever did you accumulate such a monstrous reserve of utter garbage to draw upon.:D

He He

Jokestar Asia remember?:E

Keep it coming though, I've grown to admire your bravado at posting some of the things you post, I just couldn't do it:ugh:

MBA747
9th Sep 2007, 05:03
I love this topic. Perhaps the airlines should stipulate one should know how to calculate Sine, Cos and Tan and then for the physics requirement one should be able to recall Newtonís first and third law of motion.
With those requirements in place the minimum requirements could be a Year 9 standard of education. This would then allow the uneducated to qualify for the airlines. Of course the airlines should then pay over 250K for an uneducated Capt. to fly from A to B.
You guys should look around you, all American airlines require a degree, most airline cadet courses require their cadets to have a tertiary education. I would say QANTAS is the exception. The average pilot in the UK would have as a minimum ĎAí levels in English; Mathís and Physics a standard higher than our HSC.
Although there are, or were pilots flying in QF and CX ex WW11 types with an Intermediate Level of education there is little justification for maintaining that standard.
Times have changed; most industries require a higher level of education, the only exception being aviation in Australia. Little wonder that management has such little respect for our profession or should I say trade?

max autobrakes
9th Sep 2007, 05:58
I know a lot of "Tradies" who earn sh!t loads more than a lot of my "Professional" friends!
Go figure?

Crossbleed
9th Sep 2007, 07:58
Righto, first:
Vector Diagram: Crosswind on takeoff? Angle and velocity is it not?
Yeah I know everyone memorises 30, 45 and 60 degress but I'm playing devil's advocate.
Secondly: What's this about no such thing as step-flying or getting on the front of the curve. Been a while since I hung around GA instrucors (or was one), wot's being taught these days?
I always thought it was an accurate description of drag vs. pwr avail curves, is this not the conventional wisdom? :confused:
Always FELT like the truth in a heavy old Chieftain or the like...
Got yr 12 Physics? yep
Think it's NECESSARY? nope.

Seabreeze
9th Sep 2007, 08:05
Can't help myself so will say it again, this time more simply!.

The attitudes of people like Mr TOS degrade the profession of pilot. Poorly educated employees with few aspirations of improving their mental capabilities have a lower understanding of the way the world works, and a lower ability to organise themselves into an effective employee group.

Mr TOS, I wouldn't employ you as a pilot (or in any other position) with that attitude.

There may be a current shortage of pilots, but if you are not prepared to open your mind and continue learning, you may not ever get that first airline job, let alone that command.

MBA747 you are right! Pilots need to act like professionals and be professionals to earn respect (and decent pay and conditions).

Seabreeze

mr.tos
10th Sep 2007, 11:44
I am sorry that i don't meet your IQ level Seabreeze. This thread was created for aspiring airline pilots like myself. I was just passing on a rumor that i heard. The message i was trying to get across was that if you didn't study physics during your HSC it certantly will not limit you in terms of becoming an airline pilot. It's not the end of the world and there are plenty of other airlines out there.