PPL Maths Questions
Just for the avoidance of confusion, the square root of 2 is 1.41 not 1.44.
Surely basic algebra and trigonmetry is still taught at schools? I must have been about 9 or 10 when first introduced to algebra....and at the age of 12 was answering 'elementary mathematics' exam questions such as
1. Solve 3(2x+7)² - 4(2x+7) - 15 = 0
2. A reservoir has an area of 6.6 acres and has an average depth of 8 ft. Calculate the number of gallons of water in the reservoir when it is full. If all the water can be put into a tank shaped like a cube, how long is one side of the cube?
2. A reservoir has an area of 6.6 acres and has an average depth of 8 ft. Calculate the number of gallons of water in the reservoir when it is full. If all the water can be put into a tank shaped like a cube, how long is one side of the cube?
The current 'maths isn't necessary' nonsense is driven by those too stupid to bother to study anything which requires effort and discipline.
Finishing school in '98, we did simultaneous equations aged 12. Quadratics came a bit later - maybe 14 or 15. We did some elementary calculus at 16, but didn't study it properly until A-level.
I studied for my physics S-level using old A-level papers. In my GCSE year, only two kids in my county got straight-As at GCSE. Fast forward a few years and most schools seem to get at least that number of straight-A candidates each year.
Going back to the original question... I don't think you need to be a whizz at maths in order to understand all the concepts for the PPL, but you do need to be able to solve (relatively) simple problems accurately and quickly. I think an intuitive grasp of physics is important too, but it doesn't need to be too formal - I doubt many people work out stall speed equations in their head whilst they're flying - most of us just avoid extremes of bank at low speed, and keep the speed up when it's bumpy.
Speaking personally, I tend to find things simpler when they have an obvious application - as in working out piloting problems. A good motivation like wanting to learn to fly will help a lot too.
I studied for my physics S-level using old A-level papers. In my GCSE year, only two kids in my county got straight-As at GCSE. Fast forward a few years and most schools seem to get at least that number of straight-A candidates each year.
Going back to the original question... I don't think you need to be a whizz at maths in order to understand all the concepts for the PPL, but you do need to be able to solve (relatively) simple problems accurately and quickly. I think an intuitive grasp of physics is important too, but it doesn't need to be too formal - I doubt many people work out stall speed equations in their head whilst they're flying - most of us just avoid extremes of bank at low speed, and keep the speed up when it's bumpy.
Speaking personally, I tend to find things simpler when they have an obvious application - as in working out piloting problems. A good motivation like wanting to learn to fly will help a lot too.
For the *real* pedant, root 2 is a surd. Round at your peril.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
keep the speed up when it's bumpy
IMC lesson. We fly into a cloud. It gets rather bumpy. After a while:
Instructor: "It's a bit bumpy in here, isn't it."
Me: "Yes".
Instructor: "Are you actually happy and comfortable with it being this bumpy?"
Me: "Well, I'm not frightened, but it's hardly comfortable."
Instructor: "So what are you going to do about it then?"
Pause.
Me: "Slow down a bit?"
After I had slowed down (and this is where the maths comes in) he reminds me of some stuff I'd probably read years earlier about the bumpiness going as the square of the speed.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely basic algebra and trigonmetry is still taught at schools? I must have been about 9 or 10 when first introduced to algebra....
When I went to Biggin I remember there being 6 of us in a room and they asked us to write down how long it would take to travel 150 miles at 90mph, when we had written it down we had to hold the paper up in our hand. I calculated it before he'd finished asking the question and scribbled it down before sticking my paw up expecting to be outrun by the other candidates who were somewhat younger than me. I was gobsmacked when some of them took literally minutes to figure it out.
Point taken about maneuvering speed in turbulence... But that's something different. I was referring to the perils of maneuvering close to stalling speed, which is not a situation where you would want to slow down for a smoother ride.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: UK
Age: 29
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if you have the brains to put food on a fork and not miss your mouth then you have the brains to be a pilot
I like how everyone's talking about the good old days at school and that sort of stuff haha! Some good tips here though, for example, I will try and do some some mental calculations while driving, that sounds good.
FirstDorhnPilot,
Someone has mentioned the 1 in 60 rule earlier, which is useful for in-flight nav computations, but one trick that I don't think has been mentioned yet, and is REALLY useful, is how to calculate a reciprocal bearing.
If the bearing is less than 200, add 200 and subtract 20.
If the bearing is 200 or more, subtract 200 and add 20.
For example, if the runway in use is say 24 and you need to know the downwind leg heading, you could scrabble around looking for the airfield plate to find the runway number for the other end of 24 or you could mentally do this:
Runway 24 = 240. 240 - 200 = 040. 040 + 20 = 060
Note: this method will give numbers larger than 360 for headings in the range 180 to 199, so then you need to make an adjustment.
Alternatively, use 180 as the break between adding and subtracting 200. Use whichever method you find easier.
Good luck. As everyone has said, not much mathematics is required. Just remember that your first priority is to fly the aeroplane. When you're moving at two miles per minute, it is easy to get mentally "behind the aeroplane" if you are concentrating on doing maths.
I've often found that when I notice I'm off track (and not flying with an instructor or examiner
), "left a bit" or "right a bit" works very well.
Someone has mentioned the 1 in 60 rule earlier, which is useful for in-flight nav computations, but one trick that I don't think has been mentioned yet, and is REALLY useful, is how to calculate a reciprocal bearing.
If the bearing is less than 200, add 200 and subtract 20.
If the bearing is 200 or more, subtract 200 and add 20.
For example, if the runway in use is say 24 and you need to know the downwind leg heading, you could scrabble around looking for the airfield plate to find the runway number for the other end of 24 or you could mentally do this:
Runway 24 = 240. 240 - 200 = 040. 040 + 20 = 060
Note: this method will give numbers larger than 360 for headings in the range 180 to 199, so then you need to make an adjustment.
Alternatively, use 180 as the break between adding and subtracting 200. Use whichever method you find easier.
Good luck. As everyone has said, not much mathematics is required. Just remember that your first priority is to fly the aeroplane. When you're moving at two miles per minute, it is easy to get mentally "behind the aeroplane" if you are concentrating on doing maths.
I've often found that when I notice I'm off track (and not flying with an instructor or examiner
), "left a bit" or "right a bit" works very well.
Last edited by India Four Two; 2nd Jan 2013 at 05:22.
