Incompetent instructor?

mellow_pilot · Post by **mellow_pilot** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 9:43 pm

Cat, I think you're right to some extent that it is not necessary to get too complex in the initial stages of training. I would, however, point out that there are a lot of situations where better decisions can be made if one understands how and why things happen. For instance, why it is important to re-configure prior to taking off again on a touch and go. (see how I brought the thread full circle, I'm so clever

)

Justwannafly · Post by **Justwannafly** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:22 pm

accualy there is a nother reason not to bother....the guy doesn't want to listen...so why wast your breath?...or should I say your keyboard

Spokes · Post by **Spokes** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 7:19 pm

Cat Driver wrote:Spokes:

Don't waste your time arguing about things that do very little towards making a good pilot at the PPL level.

It is far more important to teach students how to fly the airplane under all conditions and configurations than it is to have students that are experts on theory, aerodynamics and physics.

What good is it if a student, or for that matter an instructor has a doctorate in these subjects but wrecks the fu.kin airplane because they can't fly the thing?

These discussinos get far to complicated in theory, why not consentrate on how to teach basic airplane handling skills?

Too right Cat. Sometimes its easy to get caught up in the threads here. I normally do not get this detailed with PPL or even CPL students. It's hard enough to get attitude flying through to someof these guys.

If someone does ask me a question though, I do like to have the right answer. I have seen many people simply parrot something thier favorite instructor said "so it must be right". I have been instructing in different aspects of flying off and on for 20ish years, and have found it useful to read alot of textbooks on the subjects being taugh rather than simply taking someones word for it.

Thanks for the reality check though.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:13 pm

No big deal Spokes, you must live near me?

We should get together sometime and B.S. about stuff.

Most of my students are high time airline pilots or pilots with bags of money and the most difficult thing about teaching them a new dicipline such as flying the big flying boats is giving them a mental enema and empting their craniums of all the SOP dependant rituals they live by.....and then teaching them the basics of manual airplane handling.

Cat

Spokes · Post by **Spokes** » Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:58 pm

Sure. I'm in Courtenay.

Most of my students are business men and professionals (i.e dentists doctors and the like). I do get the odd airline type who wants to fly a float plane though.

mcrit · Post by **mcrit** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:34 am

oops! My Bad. The book I was disagreeing with was "The Pilot's Illustrated Guide to Aerodynamics" in got the title mixed up with "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators".
As for the splitting theoretical hairs, yeah.... its not much use to the student, but it is fun to bat it around on here. Besides, its fun to be right (which I am

)

Spokes · Post by **Spokes** » Tue Sep 05, 2006 1:05 pm

I sure hope you are not an instructor.

mcrit · Post by **mcrit** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 2:00 pm

Hey Spokes, I was gonna let this subject be, but judging by your last post you'd like another round, so here goes.

Taking your reference Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators, p 66, figure 1.30. It states, "..the lift on the wing has a component of force parallel to the remote free stream. This component is the consequence of developing lift.... and is termed induced drag."

More lift = more induced drag.

Page 39 of the same reference also states, "..the deflection of flap produces .....a larger amount of chamber..."

Page 29 (left column, last paragraph) further states that an increase in chamber leads to an increase in lift. So..... more flaps = more lift = more induced drag.

The same book also talks about the effect of wingtip vortices as being a
component of induced drag, but not the sole cause of it. This is also the case with the NASA papers you referenced; nowhere do they say that tilting the lift vector back isn't a part of induced drag.

oh yeah.... PS
I am an instructor and if you want some tips on how to instruct properly I will be in Comox sometime this winter. So I could teach you, but I'd have to charge you.

mellow_pilot · Post by **mellow_pilot** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:19 pm

Ok boys, whip 'em out!

Spokes · Post by **Spokes** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 7:56 pm

mellow_pilot wrote:Ok boys, whip 'em out!

Yup, it certainly does seem to be getting this way.

Hey Spokes, I was gonna let this subject be, but judging by your last post you'd like another round, so here goes.

To the author of this, I will not be drawn any further into this. I might suggest though, that you read these chapters completely, with a goal of understanding rather than simply to find random snippets of info and draw conclusions from them. It is clear to me from your statements that you either still do not completely understand this, or are not very good at getting your point across.

mcrit · Post by **mcrit** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:53 pm

that you read these chapters completely, with a goal of understanding

Thanks, I have and I do. If you can come up with the cash, my offer of a proper education in physics and aviation still stands.

Aviatard · Post by **Aviatard** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 4:40 am

mcrit wrote: Page 39 of the same reference also states, "..the deflection of flap produces .....a larger amount of chamber..."

Page 29 (left column, last paragraph) further states that an increase in chamber leads to an increase in lift. So..... more flaps = more lift = more induced drag.

Camber. C-a-m-b-e-r.

cam‧ber /ˈkæmbər/
–verb (used with object), verb (used without object)
1. to arch slightly; bend or curve upward in the middle.
–noun
2. a slight arching, upward curve, or convexity, as of the deck of a ship.
3. a slightly arching piece of timber.
4. Aeronautics. the rise of the curve of an airfoil, usually expressed as the ratio of the rise to the length of the chord of the airfoil.

cham‧ber /ˈtʃeɪmbər/
–noun
1. a room, usually private, in a house or apartment, esp. a bedroom: She retired to her chamber.
2. a room in a palace or official residence.
3. the meeting hall of a legislative or other assembly.

That is all.. resume penis size argument.

mellow_pilot · Post by **mellow_pilot** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 11:03 am

LOL

Run! It's the spelling police!

That was classic. Made my morning.

laticsdave · Post by **laticsdave** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:01 pm

Aviatard wrote:
mcrit wrote: Page 39 of the same reference also states, "..the deflection of flap produces .....a larger amount of chamber..."

Page 29 (left column, last paragraph) further states that an increase in chamber leads to an increase in lift. So..... more flaps = more lift = more induced drag.

Camber. C-a-m-b-e-r.

cam‧ber /ˈkæmbər/
–verb (used with object), verb (used without object)
1. to arch slightly; bend or curve upward in the middle.
–noun
2. a slight arching, upward curve, or convexity, as of the deck of a ship.
3. a slightly arching piece of timber.
4. Aeronautics. the rise of the curve of an airfoil, usually expressed as the ratio of the rise to the length of the chord of the airfoil.

cham‧ber /ˈtʃeɪmbər/
–noun
1. a room, usually private, in a house or apartment, esp. a bedroom: She retired to her chamber.
2. a room in a palace or official residence.
3. the meeting hall of a legislative or other assembly.

That is all.. resume penis size argument.

How do you pronounce those little squares??????????

. ._ · Post by **. ._** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 6:39 pm

What little squares?

BTW

-istp

hoptwoit · Post by **hoptwoit** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:22 am

groupboard Somehow it lookes like this thing got outta hand and since you are going to keep flying no matter what is said here you may as well do it in safety

I think a review here is in order first things first.

bitching at me. Incompetent instructor.

A word about phrasology here. Language of this sort tends to get peoples backs up and after that well all people hear is purple monkey dishwasher.

I had an interesting experience yesterday when doing a checkout in a PA28 warrior.

In looking at the original post and I believe the original question was asked about the 2 notches of flap used on the warrior.

Personally I prefer to apply full power before retracting flaps, as this is what I was taught to do, and it makes sense to get the power on as soon as possible. But it's not a major issue, and if he wants me to retract flaps first of all that's not a problem.

Power first is an excellent practice for a go around while the aircraft is in the air.
However when the aircraft is rolling down the runway during a touch and go the aircraft should be in a configuation acceptabe for take off before adding power.

PA28 warrior cessna 172

These are two different aircraft each use different flap settings for take off and with good reason. The aircraft do not share the same wing they do not share the same flap sysem nor do the share the same method of flap activation.
Acceptable flap setting for take off in a 172 is (1 notch) 10 degrees or 0 degrees
Acceptable flap setting for take off ina warrior is (2 notches) or 25 degrees or 0 degrees
If the the time to return the aircaft to one of these configuations before adding power is not available use a longer runway for touch and goes.

Also, the cessna 172 POH specifies only retracting 1 stage of flap on the runway for a touch-and-go.

This is not correct I looked for some data here and yes I know it's not a POH but is a pretty good resource and would be a good read for you http://www.usau.com/USAU.nsf/Doc/Cessna ... kyhawk.pdf at the bottom of page 7 you will see the use of flaps during a go around or missed approach> It mandates that the flaps must be raised to a maximum setting of 20 degrees that means you could raise the flaps further in stages of course but they must at least be raised to 20 degrees. The 40 degree setting is no longer used on the new 172s or those with a gross weight increase to 2550 because the aircrafts climb is so impeded @ flaps 40.

the warrior handbook specifies 2 stages of flap for short-field takeoff, so clearly leaving two stages of flap during a touch-and-go isn't dangerous and will generate sufficient lift

Correct 25 degrees of flap in a pa 28 is the ticket for a short or soft. Where I learned to fly on cherokees my instructors did not have us dump all the flap on a touch and go we went to two noches and poured the coals to it but that was a while ago. There is however one thing I would like to point out. If you look at the accident stats for pa 28s you will see alot of crashes have to do with the incorrect selection of flap and trying to climb out of ground effect too soon. After landing at flaps 40 rather than droping the handle 1 notch to get flaps 25 I was taught to go all the way to the floor with the handle then count the clicks on the way back up this solved 2 potential problems missing the second notch and getting flaps 10 and improper latching of the flap handle and having the flaps snap up from 25 to 10 degrees just after rotation it hapened once its a real eye opener.

I don't think there is much use arguing with the instructor - he probably isn't going to listen to me (he didn't during the flight).

Unless you are in danger don't have discutions of this nature in the aircraft. Several reasons
1 You pay by the hour it costs money to agrure with the hobbs running wait till your on the ground and only have to pay for the instructors time..
2 The instructor has a job to do and he or she is focused on doing it well. If instuctors are challenged to many times on things they can get flustered. Be patient and bring it up later on the ground when things have slowed down for everyone.

Hope this helps