Physics removed from entry criteria by the Big Red (Merged)

[plainmaker]

Physics - whats that

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.

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

Plainmaker

[Junior Jet]

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]

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]

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]

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!

Use the force.

[404 Titan]

I’m 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 doesn’t 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]

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]

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.

[404 Titan]

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, can’t 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 can’t but the main ones are:

1. They don’t have the cash.
2. Can’t 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 don’t 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]

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]

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]

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]

Physics 101

"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!!!!!

[smokey2]

What you need

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]

Seabreeze,
You are right, I forgot to add. Pilots also need to be backstabbers.Glad I'm retired.

[fender]

OOPS, I meant 14% of pilots.

[aircraft]

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]

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]

aircraft
As typical you are talking through you’re 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 don’t 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 wasn’t what he learnt in year 12 physics. He was desperately trying to execute a required manoeuvre that wasn’t 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]

Oh aircraft!, you're too much! You really are. How ever did you accumulate such a monstrous reserve of utter garbage to draw upon.

He He

Jokestar Asia remember?

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