HOW TO FLY?
 

Mark Twain said something decades ago that will live forever - "It ain't what we don't know that gets us into trouble, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so."

Just for the fun of it, let's imagine the possibilities if we thought differently, and therefore, did things differently.

To begin, let's assume that the way we've all been taught is fatally flawed, that all accidents are preventable, and the only reason they happen is because pilots lose control. We could argue that some accidents are not due to pilot error, but the deeper I've look into the root causes of accidents, the more convinced I became that there was always something the pilot could have done to avert disaster, at least if the accident wasn't prevented, any damage could have been minimized.

It seems to me that the key to achieving ultimate safety stems from taking responsibility for everything that happens, which then enables the pilot to take command and change things in his favour.

To teach someone how to fly, it's important that the instructor knows how to fly themselves. But what if how we're taught was, and still is flawed, which leads us to teach others the same way, because it's all we know? What if there's at least something we think we know for sure, that just ain't so, and that's why pilots still allow accidents to happen?

To correct any potential flaws in our training, it's necessary to first forget everything we thought we knew, and prove everything from first principles.

Before we launch into a potentially risky exercise, we'll do some checks to make sure we've considered every risk. First, we're on the ground and only talking about flying, so there's no risk there. Next, what's the worst that can happen? We might learn something that makes us less safe... Possible, but not likely unless we're incapable of discerning potential risk. Pilots should have well-developed skills in that regard. What's the best that can happen? We might learn something useful. Unlikely, I'm sure, but what's the risk of that happening?

Okay. Checks complete. Anyone interested in hopping aboard? I guarantee it will be a ride you'll never forget... ;)

"Going back to first principles" ..... does that include reading text books?

Because the FAA text on flying helicopters is riddled with errors and misleading statements. Huge numbers of FAA-trained pilots emerge from their licence test with totally the wrong concept of what is keeping them in the air. Then they immediately get their instructor rating and teach the same errors to the next generation.

Your blurb is well-intentioned but is a little bit of pie floating around in the sky, looking for somewhere to crash. As you said, the safest place is on the ground, talking about flying.

In the entire history of aviation, nobody has ever sat down and worked out what a pilot needs to know! Regardless of whether it is right or wrong.

Take a look at the current theoretical exams for a commercial pilot, mostly junk. I recall one school recently complaing that a PPL student, who was exempt the Theoretical Knowledge because he had passed the ATPL exams, didn't have enough knowledge to pass the school's aural test!

i thought a PPL was required before the ATPL writtens could be taken?

So did I but it seems some have managed to take the exams without a PPL
Dyslexic moment Oral

I've flown with over 30 different instructors and I couldn't say there is a 'standard way' to fly based what they have taught me and the knowledge imparted.

In my simple mind, flight = power + pitch. Every else can vary. Of course there are a myraid of checks and procedures depending on what machine you are flying and what you are using it for. But get power & pitch right and you won't go far wrong.

Performance = Power + Pitch. Flight is more about Lift equalling or exceeding weight.

The science/mechanics of flight does but I thought the question was to 'how to fly', not 'how an aircraft flies'.

I was referring to your statement that flight = power + pitch
Flying an aircraft is the easy bit, your power and pitch if you like. The hard bit, that where there needs to be much more improvement, is operating the aircraft - planning, navigating, situational awareness, communicating, decision making, good old fashioned airmanship as well as TEM.

I'd suggest that it's not a case of how right he got it, but that no-one has been allowed to challenge established thinking foxmoth. Training standards are universally accepted by every country, and none dare to change them because that's the nature of bureaucracies. They're there for a long time, not a good time, and wouldn't risk changing things that might do them out of a job. In fact, their goal is usually to justify more jobs for bureaucrats, not less.

In response to BN2, the proportion of accidents resulting from pilot error is no less than 100%. Whether it's a maintenance fault or something else that initiated the failure, the buck stops with the captain, and he either should have identified the fault pre-flight or in flight before it failed, or had prepared skills and knowledge to handle any unexpected, unannounced, unpredictable failures, of which there are very few.

In response to rarely and others, the equation I learned was Power + Attitude = Performance. There it is in a nutshell. How to Fly. Control Power & Attitude - and I do mean control. Total control of attitude mostly is the key. Control of pitch, roll, and yaw, even when adjusting power from idle to max. That's all there is to it. But it's not as simple as it seems... Very few know how to fly because they never learned how to control attitude to the extent that they could never lose control.

Dunno why this thread has split in two.

Manwell, your statement is absolute horsefeathers. Please enlighten us on the very few failures for which a captain is allowed to be unprepared. Then we can re-work the syllabus.

AC, my statement is the only way for a Pilot in Command to think. Didn't you read what I said? 100% responsibility means there are no known failures for which a captain is allowed to be unprepared. He'd be excused for not preparing for unknown failures, but if he knows his aircraft and knows himself, he has nothing to fear. Failing to know himself is the main causal factor. Otherwise known as folly, delusion, arrogance, ignorance, etc.

So we need to train people so they can handle every feasible contingency, without error? And we need to teach sound skills in the "power + attude = performance" framework and you contend that is not something current training does? Am I understanding your philosophy correctly?

Just explain how a bubble bee fly's that's all I need to know:{

So, in Manwell's flying school, nobody goes solo until they have mastered every unexpected, unannounced and unpredictable failure, because that's what he reckons a captain must be able to do. Somewhere around 10,000 hours by the look of it, as a lot of failures are totally unpredictable. That only leaves the "unknown" failures that might catch him out.

Horsefeathers.

Not quite jonkster. It's obviously not practical to cover every possible contingency, but it is practical and possible to teach people how to control power and attitude, and instil in them a passion for knowledge about their machine, and themselves. Yes, the contention is that currently, training doesn't teach the basics properly. By overloading the student with too much information during initial training that doesn't demonstrably contribute to either safety or efficiency, both safety and efficiency are compromised. The classic example of this is when a pilot forgets to fly the aircraft in an emergency, focusing instead on a wide variety of compelling distractions that would have been drummed into him by his instructor.

I do appreciate your scepticism AC. If you can't win an argument with logic nowadays, it's commonplace for people to resort to ad hominem attacks, or reductio ad absurdum rhetoric. Both are an expression of fear, and fear is just one emotion that must be controlled by anyone who dares to tempt the hunter - fate. By that response, I take it you aren't in command of either your aircraft, or your self, and that is definitely cause for alarm. The idea that "a lot of failures are totally unpredictable" is a comforting excuse for pilots as they walk away from a smoking wreck, but it's simply not true. Maybe it is in your mind, but if that's the case your mind isn't aligned with reality. Modern aircraft have made it easier for deluded pilots to survive, and pretty soon they'll be able to throw any damn fool in a cockpit and let the automatics "fly" instead. And they will call it progress...