FAA Aerodynamics
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Eire
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by boogie-nicey
Oh dear, another example of how the centre of the aviation universe is the UK....
It's very true that the FAA system is far more practical and basic PPL students don't understand the concepts in such depth.
This is nothing more than UK ott arrogance of how they're teaching the world how to fly..... The US have a right to conduct their own training affairs based on vastly more research and a thankfully a lack of silly JAA style Aviation Science that seems to make the equation 'theory heavy'
By the way I have trained in the UK and US and like both systems but I don't like this silly "we#re superior than you" approach to training, we're all in it together no matter where we trained.
It's very true that the FAA system is far more practical and basic PPL students don't understand the concepts in such depth.
This is nothing more than UK ott arrogance of how they're teaching the world how to fly..... The US have a right to conduct their own training affairs based on vastly more research and a thankfully a lack of silly JAA style Aviation Science that seems to make the equation 'theory heavy'
By the way I have trained in the UK and US and like both systems but I don't like this silly "we#re superior than you" approach to training, we're all in it together no matter where we trained.
I'm not trying to get "heavy" on the theory, I just want it to be correct - not more complicated. Do you agree that an aeroplane flies because of the wind whacking into the underside of the wing? If not - would you tolerate it being taught?
As far as "We're superior to you" attitude, I think you have an unfortunate chip on your shoulder. In fact I think the FAA system as a whole is MUCH MUCH better than the JAA system. It IS far more practical - and enjoyable too. But if the theory is that unimportant - then why teach it all?
I could list a whole host of complaints against the JAA system - and their question banks, but that's not why I started this thread.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In that case I have misunderstood your original comments... please accept my apologies.
I feel that at the progressively higher rungs of the licencing/certification ladder we should indeed induce a greater depth of knowledge and training. Someplace between JAA and FAA would be ideal, best of both worlds means best system
Remember: we're all in it together too!
I feel that at the progressively higher rungs of the licencing/certification ladder we should indeed induce a greater depth of knowledge and training. Someplace between JAA and FAA would be ideal, best of both worlds means best system
Remember: we're all in it together too!
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LD Max
If there is one thing I admire and applaud it is somebody why does their best to ensure that student pilots are not taught incorrect theory. In that context I will live with simplified and incomplete (because that is necessary in the practical business of a attaining a PPL) but incorrect no.
So please allow me to start by saying a sincere ‘Well done you’.
The trouble is, when thinking and writing alone, it is very easy to make mistakes oneself which can degrade the value of your (however very well intentioned) output. I think this has happened in your first post, I honestly hope you can show I am wrong.
When dealing with Q240 you state (not suggest by the way) that answer C is correct. This is despite the fact that it seems to me answer C includes a really classic silly intended to flush out those that jump to conclusions about what they have read as opposed to carefully checking what is actually written. (…my word don’t we all do that from time to time - as examiners are only too well aware)
My problem with answer C is that it talks of larger and lower Centres of Pressure. A centre of pressure according to my education is a point. If I am correct a point cannot have magnitude - only position. In which case two different ‘positions’ of anything cannot give rise to a force.
Turning to the general issue of how flat plate and symmetrical aerofoils generate lift (as well as ‘conventional’ ones when flying inverted) I was taught that consideration of the position of the stagnation point provided the complete explanation of how the Bernoulli ‘notion’ was of equal value to pilots when applied to these cases. Since I do not want to teach granny to suck eggs I will not post diagrams regarding this unless requested.
So my bottom line is please keep up the good work – but be careful with the detail.
JF
If there is one thing I admire and applaud it is somebody why does their best to ensure that student pilots are not taught incorrect theory. In that context I will live with simplified and incomplete (because that is necessary in the practical business of a attaining a PPL) but incorrect no.
So please allow me to start by saying a sincere ‘Well done you’.
The trouble is, when thinking and writing alone, it is very easy to make mistakes oneself which can degrade the value of your (however very well intentioned) output. I think this has happened in your first post, I honestly hope you can show I am wrong.
When dealing with Q240 you state (not suggest by the way) that answer C is correct. This is despite the fact that it seems to me answer C includes a really classic silly intended to flush out those that jump to conclusions about what they have read as opposed to carefully checking what is actually written. (…my word don’t we all do that from time to time - as examiners are only too well aware)
My problem with answer C is that it talks of larger and lower Centres of Pressure. A centre of pressure according to my education is a point. If I am correct a point cannot have magnitude - only position. In which case two different ‘positions’ of anything cannot give rise to a force.
Turning to the general issue of how flat plate and symmetrical aerofoils generate lift (as well as ‘conventional’ ones when flying inverted) I was taught that consideration of the position of the stagnation point provided the complete explanation of how the Bernoulli ‘notion’ was of equal value to pilots when applied to these cases. Since I do not want to teach granny to suck eggs I will not post diagrams regarding this unless requested.
So my bottom line is please keep up the good work – but be careful with the detail.
JF
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Eire
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by John Farley
LD Max
When dealing with Q240 you state (not suggest by the way) that answer C is correct. This is despite the fact that it seems to me answer C includes a really classic silly intended to flush out those that jump to conclusions about what they have read as opposed to carefully checking what is actually written. (…my word don’t we all do that from time to time - as examiners are only too well aware)
My problem with answer C is that it talks of larger and lower Centres of Pressure. A centre of pressure according to my education is a point. If I am correct a point cannot have magnitude - only position. In which case two different ‘positions’ of anything cannot give rise to a force.
When dealing with Q240 you state (not suggest by the way) that answer C is correct. This is despite the fact that it seems to me answer C includes a really classic silly intended to flush out those that jump to conclusions about what they have read as opposed to carefully checking what is actually written. (…my word don’t we all do that from time to time - as examiners are only too well aware)
My problem with answer C is that it talks of larger and lower Centres of Pressure. A centre of pressure according to my education is a point. If I am correct a point cannot have magnitude - only position. In which case two different ‘positions’ of anything cannot give rise to a force.
You're quite right of course. I must apologise for my forthright approach to this. It is a character flaw I must confess, and when I originally wrote that piece - it was drafted as a rather indignant "pull yer finger out" type of message to the FAA. It was watered down a bit for posting on here. 
You will find by scrolling down to my later discussion with Bookworm that I discovered there was indeed an anomaly in this answer all by myself. But that of the two answers given I'd thought it more correct than the one the FAA said it was. In the end I was forced (reluctantly
) to revise that position. I hear what you're saying about the CP merely being a point... But I still stick by the CP being a point of FORCE though, since it is represented graphically by an arrow of variable magnitude and represents the net sum of all the pressure forces acting through that point.As far as Q240 is concerned, I also "sort of" agree with what you say about answer C (CP). It is, however, a point of Force - (as can be graphically represented), and therefore it is valid to refer to it in terms of "larger" or "smaller". However, the question refers to the CP above and below the wing. In fact there is only one CP, which represents the net sum of all the forces (both above and below).
Originally Posted by John Farley
Turning to the general issue of how flat plate and symmetrical aerofoils generate lift (as well as ‘conventional’ ones when flying inverted) I was taught that consideration of the position of the stagnation point provided the complete explanation of how the Bernoulli ‘notion’ was of equal value to pilots when applied to these cases.
In fact the FAA questions I've posted so far do not mention a flat plate - they all talk about "aerofoils" or "aircraft wings". This is why I took exception to so-called "correct" answers which would apply most correctly to a flat plate - but tell you little about how an aerofoil works.
Many thanks for your input.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"from the point of view of the student who has to learn all this stuff in order to get his/her licence in the first place"
The student doesn't have to learn it. The student needs only to pass the exam. As has been amply demonstrated here, the questions are often rubbish. The subject matter is rapidly forgotten. A working ATP will have a table of Vrefs versus loading and will look up the Vref to fly. He needs to know zilch about how the wing works. Just as well, since the exact way the wing of a modern jet transport works is pretty nontrivial.
The whole basis here is that the candidate is expected to have "grown up" in the same little universe in which the exam paper writers live, in which the standard textbook writers live, in which the FAA FAQ writers live.
Aviation is an incestuous little game where you queue up for a burger at the Fly show at Earls Court and in that queue you meet three people: one is a prolific aviation magazine journalist, another is a prolific aviation book publisher, one is the owner of an aviation magazine.
When you sit the exams you are expected to have lived among all this. Then and only then you will speak with the "correct terminology, young man"
If somebody who knew everything about everything came to Earth and sat the JAA exams, he would fail them all
Incidentally, lift comes from redirection of the airflow (downwards). This brings about the pressure difference between top and bottom. The pressure difference can't be created without changing the direction of the airflow. Chicken and egg. Both physical processes are the same thing! Can't have one without the other. Aerofoils etc are irrelevant (unless you want efficiency) - a barn door will work just fine.
The student doesn't have to learn it. The student needs only to pass the exam. As has been amply demonstrated here, the questions are often rubbish. The subject matter is rapidly forgotten. A working ATP will have a table of Vrefs versus loading and will look up the Vref to fly. He needs to know zilch about how the wing works. Just as well, since the exact way the wing of a modern jet transport works is pretty nontrivial.
The whole basis here is that the candidate is expected to have "grown up" in the same little universe in which the exam paper writers live, in which the standard textbook writers live, in which the FAA FAQ writers live.
Aviation is an incestuous little game where you queue up for a burger at the Fly show at Earls Court and in that queue you meet three people: one is a prolific aviation magazine journalist, another is a prolific aviation book publisher, one is the owner of an aviation magazine.
When you sit the exams you are expected to have lived among all this. Then and only then you will speak with the "correct terminology, young man"
If somebody who knew everything about everything came to Earth and sat the JAA exams, he would fail them all
Incidentally, lift comes from redirection of the airflow (downwards). This brings about the pressure difference between top and bottom. The pressure difference can't be created without changing the direction of the airflow. Chicken and egg. Both physical processes are the same thing! Can't have one without the other. Aerofoils etc are irrelevant (unless you want efficiency) - a barn door will work just fine.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 716
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with a lot of what you are saying, threadstarter.
However, let's think about it for awhile; the level you are analyzing this at is far beyond what would be expected for a PPL or CPL candidate, at least in the US. By all means; we must all seek to increase our knowledege, but let's keep in mind to whom we will be teaching this.
Lift and other aerodynamic principles can be very hard to visualize, especially for beginning students. It is important for us as CFIs to be able to make the students learn something sensible - and although we need to be conscious about not teaching something that's blatanty wrong - imho we are allowed to, and need to, make simplifications.
Also, as far as effective questioning goes, it's not written in stone anywhere that one answer has to be 100% correct, and the distractors 100% wrong. It is sufficient to have one answer better than, more complete than, or more appropriate than the distractors. This adds a certain level of discrimination to the test. Our primary focus when developing such tests are to make sure that any knowledgeable person will pick the correct answer, whilst making the distractors a feasible choice for the ignorant.
Let's give an example:
Answer C talks about "larger" and "lower" center of pressures. At least to me, that does not make any sense. It sounds very scientifical, but to my knowledge, the CP is the point at where the total aerodynamic force can be said to be accumulated. While as incorrect as saying that all mass of an aircraft is located in is center of gravity, it does serve a purpose. To look beyond the scientific details, however, if we look at the big picture, lift is primarily created by a pressure differential between the upper and lower surface of the wing; correct? While none of the answers are a complete and correct explanation, answer B is the most correct. Mind you also, the question stem specifies "an aircraft wing", which is not a flat plate.
---
As far as professional development is concerned, this is excellent reading for a ATPL student, CFI or whoever is beyond the basics. Let's just keep in mind that most students will be entirely satisfied with just keeping the blue side up, and we must be take great care in not scaring them away by theoretisizing too much about something which is really beyond our, and their, control, anyway.
Just my two cents.
However, let's think about it for awhile; the level you are analyzing this at is far beyond what would be expected for a PPL or CPL candidate, at least in the US. By all means; we must all seek to increase our knowledege, but let's keep in mind to whom we will be teaching this.
Lift and other aerodynamic principles can be very hard to visualize, especially for beginning students. It is important for us as CFIs to be able to make the students learn something sensible - and although we need to be conscious about not teaching something that's blatanty wrong - imho we are allowed to, and need to, make simplifications.
Also, as far as effective questioning goes, it's not written in stone anywhere that one answer has to be 100% correct, and the distractors 100% wrong. It is sufficient to have one answer better than, more complete than, or more appropriate than the distractors. This adds a certain level of discrimination to the test. Our primary focus when developing such tests are to make sure that any knowledgeable person will pick the correct answer, whilst making the distractors a feasible choice for the ignorant.
Let's give an example:
An aircraft wing is designed to produce lift resulting from:
A) negative air pressure below the wing's surface and positive air pressure above the wing's surface;
B) positive air pressure below the wing's surface and negative air pressure above the wing's surface;
C) a larger center of pressure above the wing's surface and a lower center of pressure below the wing's surface.
FAA Answer (according to Gleim) = B
Correct answer = C. Newtonian (Impact) Lift theory is the only case in which a net positive air pressure (i.e. greater than atmospheric) can exist below a flat plate wing. An aircraft wing (aerofoil) develops negative air pressure above AND below the wing.
A) negative air pressure below the wing's surface and positive air pressure above the wing's surface;
B) positive air pressure below the wing's surface and negative air pressure above the wing's surface;
C) a larger center of pressure above the wing's surface and a lower center of pressure below the wing's surface.
FAA Answer (according to Gleim) = B
Correct answer = C. Newtonian (Impact) Lift theory is the only case in which a net positive air pressure (i.e. greater than atmospheric) can exist below a flat plate wing. An aircraft wing (aerofoil) develops negative air pressure above AND below the wing.
---
As far as professional development is concerned, this is excellent reading for a ATPL student, CFI or whoever is beyond the basics. Let's just keep in mind that most students will be entirely satisfied with just keeping the blue side up, and we must be take great care in not scaring them away by theoretisizing too much about something which is really beyond our, and their, control, anyway.
Just my two cents.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Eire
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bfisk
Ithe level you are analyzing this at is far beyond what would be expected for a PPL or CPL candidate, at least in the US.
Originally Posted by bfisk
...although we need to be conscious about not teaching something that's blatanty wrong - imho we are allowed to, and need to, make simplifications.
Originally Posted by bfisk
it's not written in stone anywhere that one answer has to be 100% correct, and the distractors 100% wrong. It is sufficient to have one answer better than, more complete than, or more appropriate than the distractors. This adds a certain level of discrimination to the test....
Originally Posted by bfisk
Answer C talks about "larger" and "lower" center of pressures... to my knowledge, the CP is the point at where the total aerodynamic force can be said to be accumulated.... lift is primarily created by a pressure differential between the upper and lower surface of the wing; correct? While none of the answers are a complete and correct explanation, answer B is the most correct. Mind you also, the question stem specifies "an aircraft wing", which is not a flat plate.
Originally Posted by bfisk
As far as professional development is concerned, this is excellent reading for a ATPL student, CFI or whoever is beyond the basics. Let's just keep in mind that most students will be entirely satisfied with just keeping the blue side up, and we must be take great care in not scaring them away by theoretisizing too much about something which is really beyond our, and their, control, anyway.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Eire
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IO540
The student doesn't have to learn it. The student needs only to pass the exam. As has been amply demonstrated here, the questions are often rubbish.
Yes the questions are often misleading... and as other correspondents here have pointed out, that's not necessarily a bad thing. The purpose, after all, is to test the student's thinking and the model they've been taught.
My real gripe is about the model itself which appears in the "FAA Handbook for Pilots". I put the link to it in my original post, but here it is again for anyone who would like to read through pages 2.1 to 2.8 of the PDF file.
The questions are pretty good on the basis of this theory!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In a house
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although slightly off topic, it seems that a common problem is occuring both sides of the pond...........
S**t questions being written by so called experts in the examinations department in both the JAA & FAA.
I must admit thoughout any training I have done in the states, its been a case of breezing through the theory and learning the questions/answers to simply pass the exam. The only exam I really paid any attention to was the CFI. During my JAA ATPL's was a different story, you need a firm understanding in my opinion to pass these exams. Although every ATPL ground instructor I had, constantly reminded us of extremely poor questions that have been coming up from the ATP question bank. "If this one comes up, then let us know and we'll appeal it" was a frequent saying at the brush up courses.
S**t questions being written by so called experts in the examinations department in both the JAA & FAA.
I must admit thoughout any training I have done in the states, its been a case of breezing through the theory and learning the questions/answers to simply pass the exam. The only exam I really paid any attention to was the CFI. During my JAA ATPL's was a different story, you need a firm understanding in my opinion to pass these exams. Although every ATPL ground instructor I had, constantly reminded us of extremely poor questions that have been coming up from the ATP question bank. "If this one comes up, then let us know and we'll appeal it" was a frequent saying at the brush up courses.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA Exams
It's been years since I took an FAA written exam, but I remember the frustration of goofy questions and less-than-correct answers.
If I recall correctly, it all started around the early seventies, when the U.S. government (in its infinite wisdom) decided to involve PhDs in psychology to help write these written exams. Not so much involvement in the PPL...but, an extreme involvement in the CFI written exam...especially in the 'Fundamentals of Instruction' (or whatever they called it then...whatever they call it now). Needless to say, the questions (and what the FAA called the correct answers) were quite a PantLoad! :> :> :> :>
I also recall writing (on a separate sheet of paper) protests...statements of disagreement...to specific questions and the answer choices. In some cases, believe it or not, the FAA gave me credit for my answers, despite my answers differing from, what they claimed, were the correct responses. (Which told me that the FAA knew the tests were a mess.)
Apparently, things haven't changed much. But, I want to assure everyone, that professional pilots in America are aware of these inaccuracies. It's the FAA...what can you do!?!?!?!?!
PantLoad
If I recall correctly, it all started around the early seventies, when the U.S. government (in its infinite wisdom) decided to involve PhDs in psychology to help write these written exams. Not so much involvement in the PPL...but, an extreme involvement in the CFI written exam...especially in the 'Fundamentals of Instruction' (or whatever they called it then...whatever they call it now). Needless to say, the questions (and what the FAA called the correct answers) were quite a PantLoad! :> :> :> :>
I also recall writing (on a separate sheet of paper) protests...statements of disagreement...to specific questions and the answer choices. In some cases, believe it or not, the FAA gave me credit for my answers, despite my answers differing from, what they claimed, were the correct responses. (Which told me that the FAA knew the tests were a mess.)
Apparently, things haven't changed much. But, I want to assure everyone, that professional pilots in America are aware of these inaccuracies. It's the FAA...what can you do!?!?!?!?!
PantLoad
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Eire
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PantLoad
Apparently, things haven't changed much. But, I want to assure everyone, that professional pilots in America are aware of these inaccuracies. It's the FAA...what can you do!?!?!?!?!
[email protected]
As I've said before, it's not just the questions which bother me, (though they do of course) - it's the theory being taught in publications such as the FAA Handbook for Pilots. See my last post for the link to download the PDF.
Last edited by LD Max; 9th Aug 2006 at 09:13.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another thought provoking thread.
From what I remember, most people who walk through the flying school door and announce they want to learn how to fly couldn't tell you how a wing works ten minutes after you had spent an hour explaining it to them. Most people do not have the mind of an engineer, and IMO you need that to properly understand lift. Most of these people become quite safe pilots, some of them even become very competent airline pilots.
It is extremely hard to examine whether you know how a wing works using a blunt tool like a multiple guess question, unless you want 20 questions to be on wings. Given todays desire to get peoples their PPL in minimum time, this would leave no time to teach them how to work out important stuff like much usuable fuel is left in their tanks.
If you are going to examine on how a wing works better to have a short answer, or do it in the oral, but then I would need to know in advance what examiner believed in so I could teach that one to the poor student. That would become confusing.
So, as I think teaching duff info is worse than not teaching anything at all, I reckon it should be taken out of the syllabus - all the way to ATP. Save this stuff for test pilot school or Embry Riddle students.
Those students who do have the mind of an engineer and want to know how it works should be sent to denkers web site. WHen they come back they can explain it to their instructor.
From what I remember, most people who walk through the flying school door and announce they want to learn how to fly couldn't tell you how a wing works ten minutes after you had spent an hour explaining it to them. Most people do not have the mind of an engineer, and IMO you need that to properly understand lift. Most of these people become quite safe pilots, some of them even become very competent airline pilots.
It is extremely hard to examine whether you know how a wing works using a blunt tool like a multiple guess question, unless you want 20 questions to be on wings. Given todays desire to get peoples their PPL in minimum time, this would leave no time to teach them how to work out important stuff like much usuable fuel is left in their tanks.
If you are going to examine on how a wing works better to have a short answer, or do it in the oral, but then I would need to know in advance what examiner believed in so I could teach that one to the poor student. That would become confusing.
So, as I think teaching duff info is worse than not teaching anything at all, I reckon it should be taken out of the syllabus - all the way to ATP. Save this stuff for test pilot school or Embry Riddle students.
Those students who do have the mind of an engineer and want to know how it works should be sent to denkers web site. WHen they come back they can explain it to their instructor.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Eire
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by slim_slag
So, as I think teaching duff info is worse than not teaching anything at all, I reckon it should be taken out of the syllabus - all the way to ATP.
Do you not think that any pilot - even PPL Students - need to appreciate the 4 forces and basic aerodynamics? Avoiding the stall, especially, make a lot more sense in the context of AoA when different speeds equate to different weights or Load Factors.
When I say Basic aerodynamics, I do mean exactly that. Simplified - but not WRONG. It can get more complex at the CPL / ATP levels, but then it would build upon a solid foundation given in early training, without commercial students having to "unlearn" the incorrect bits.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, well I concentrated on how a wing works, as that was the subject you brought up in your first post. How does a wing work, Denker gives a summary and I don't think that is basic, and I find it hard to see how that can be made basic.
Now what you mention, the four forces, is very important. Knowing about the drag curve is very important as getting that wrong can kill you quite easily. Not knowing about circulation is neither here nor there, and you cannot explain lift without bringing that up. IMO
A very good thread.
Had another thought. When an airliner computer decides what angle of attack to fly at, does it do this using a fundamental understanding of how all the air molecules are reacting against the wing? Or does it just know that at this temp/pressure/aoa/velocity/power/whatever I will get this performance? If the autopilot doesn't need to know how lift works at an engineering level, why does a student pilot or even an ATP???
Now what you mention, the four forces, is very important. Knowing about the drag curve is very important as getting that wrong can kill you quite easily. Not knowing about circulation is neither here nor there, and you cannot explain lift without bringing that up. IMO
A very good thread.
Had another thought. When an airliner computer decides what angle of attack to fly at, does it do this using a fundamental understanding of how all the air molecules are reacting against the wing? Or does it just know that at this temp/pressure/aoa/velocity/power/whatever I will get this performance? If the autopilot doesn't need to know how lift works at an engineering level, why does a student pilot or even an ATP???
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Eire
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect those airliners which can fly at a specific AoA, have an AoA vane sensor on the side of the fuselage. No calculation required. So if I pull the stick all the way back, the computer will give me all it's got without stalling the plane. The AoA sensor has been a recommended item for all aircraft by the AAIB for years, even if it is just another channel on the FDR for the subsequent board of enquiry!
Sadly, I doubt we'll be seeing one of those in a cessna for a while (even a G1000 equipped cessna), so giving the pilot a good model of what affects AoA is as good as we can get. At least his eyes can take in what's on his 6-pack, and his brain can make a pretty good estimation of how to keep the aircraft flying. There's no Math involved if the mental model is a good one!
Sadly, I doubt we'll be seeing one of those in a cessna for a while (even a G1000 equipped cessna), so giving the pilot a good model of what affects AoA is as good as we can get. At least his eyes can take in what's on his 6-pack, and his brain can make a pretty good estimation of how to keep the aircraft flying. There's no Math involved if the mental model is a good one!
Originally Posted by slim_slag
Had another thought. When an airliner computer decides what angle of attack to fly at, does it do this using a fundamental understanding of how all the air molecules are reacting against the wing? Or does it just know that at this temp/pressure/aoa/velocity/power/whatever I will get this performance? If the autopilot doesn't need to know how lift works at an engineering level, why does a student pilot or even an ATP???
I do think that anyone being introduced to lift should have it introduced empirically first. Like any other area of physics, it's tempting to descend into all sorts of profound theories about how it works, losing sight of the mere fact that the predictions of that theory bear no resemblance to real-life observations.
As a pilot, is it more useful to be abole to answer Q 96, H912 CFI
"Which statement relates to Bernoulli's principle?" than:
What is a typical maximum lift coefficient for an unflapped aerofoil?
A) 0.1
B) 1
C) 10
Yet if you try the latter around the flying club, you'll get 99% blank faces.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 716
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a good idea to blur the lines to test the candidate's thinking, but I'd disagree that the correct answer can be (say) 60% correct. What about 30% correct? What about 90% correct? Just where is this line drawn? What chance does a candidate have in picking the "most correct answer" if the candidate's thinking has been skewed by an incorrect model?
I did look to the FAA-published PHAK and AFH, and they support the theories to support the questions. Might I suggest that that is where the problem lies?
As far as the rest of the post goes, I think we agree to the same principles
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Eire
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bfisk
I did look to the FAA-published PHAK and AFH, and they support the theories to support the questions.
As far as the rest of the post goes, I think we agree to the same principles
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 716
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LD Max
Might I ask if these are online, like the FAA Pilot's Handbook? If so, would you mind posting a link?
http://www.faa.gov/pilots/training/handbook/
AFH = Airplane Flying Handbook (flying stuff)
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/a...lane_handbook/