|
Oh, new thread! Maybe this will be more visible on the first page... few months ago I had an argument with someone about pitch vs. power control over airspeed, and that someone posted a several-page PDF about it. Do you know who you are, and do you still have the link? Thanks
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 12:03 |
|
|
I dunno, I wouldn't say to gently caress the system responsible for the succes, over many decades, of the most accurate and demanding type of landing there is. The first thing to understand (and this is true completely independent from any pilot technique or instructional doctrine) is that for any steady-state flight condition: Climb angle = arcsin ( (Thrust - Drag) / Weight ) ... meaning that for a particular weight, excess thrust determines climb angle. and Airspeed (equivalent) = 17.2 * sqrt( (Weight / wing area) / Lift coefficient) ... meaning that for a particular weight and wing area, airspeed depends on lift coefficient, which itself is a simple function of angle of attack. In other words, AOA determines airspeed. Like it or not, those equations are the hard physics and dictate how the airplane flies. While two skilled pilots who were taught the opposite "methods" would probably make barely-distinguishable control inputs to solve the same flight situation, I think it's vitally important that the process going on in someone's head is in accordance with the laws of aerodynamics. On a go-around, for example, it's not the pull-up that makes the airplane climb, it's the power. Without the power, it simply won't climb (as per the 1st equation). Without a pull-up, it will climb and eventually resume the original AOA on the way up (actually, in most planes, higher AOA and lower airspeed). Any pilot action on the elevator only sets the AOA more quickly and accurately than letting it lag, catch up, and then oscillate around the trim point. Our intuition for motion control, hard wired into our brains from a lifetime of controlling vehicles like cars, is to move it around by pointing the front in the direction you want to go. This is opposite of how airplanes fundamentally work, but the problem is that at high speeds, most of the time, they can also work by applying the same intuition (even more accurately for certain purposes!). This only further hard-wires a set of habits, that, when it comes to a stressful situation where things are falling apart, can lead to a pilot doing the wrong thing. When someone gets task-saturated, they get more focused on the flight-path (the more directly visible thing) and the airspeed falls off their radar. I see it every day with students, and we all saw it with Asiana 214. If the immediate go-to control for flight path is pitch, they of course pull on the stick, thus increasing AOA and therefore commanding a lower airspeed. That's why people need to understand the significance of the above equations, and really develop a gut-level understanding that thrust and only thrust will sustainably decrease a descent angle or establish a climb angle. And, that if they need to get away from the ground "now," a throttle increase needs to be the first thought. If the Asiana 214 crew had that understanding, that accident could have been avoided. Of course, their situation was made even worse by an acclimation to autothrottles, which further fostered the mentality that the airplane is controlled by pointing the nose (and the rest takes care of itself). In this case (like so many others with flying), intuition kills. Adapting to that intuition and channeling the student's ground-based aim/speed habits may be easier and faster way to teach, but is not the safest. We need to rip out and stomp on that intuition and teach how an airplane really flies. overdesigned posted:Just to be contrary, I'll pipe up and say the Navy taught me pitch for airspeed, power for sink rate (with notable exception of low-and-slow: solution don't get low and slow). LET THE ARGUMENTS BEGIN. Why would that be an exception? Low and slow is especially the time that power needs to be treated as the altitude control, and the nose needs to be left down until speed builds up. --- Any of y'all: Let's play a game. It requires: - a 172 - a suitcase of 100 dollar bills. It works like this: I use the first few bills to rent the 172, and we go flying. Then, I command you to set an airspeed of my choosing (could be anywhere from 1G stall to Vne). I give you a hundo as soon as you set it, and then give you another one for every 10 seconds you maintain it to an accuracy of a needle-width. This may last from a few seconds to a few minutes, at my whim. Then I think of a new airspeed and we rinse and repeat until the suitcase is empty. The only catch is that I tie one of your hands behind your back. Which hand would you rather have available? vessbot fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Sep 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
Rickety Cricket posted:Question for those more knowledgeable than myself: The requirements for logging PIC are governed by 61.51, and are different from the requirements for acting as PIC, which is governed by most of the rest of part 61. Point him to 61.51(e): quote:(e) Logging pilot-in-command flight time. (1) A sport, recreational, private, commercial, or airline transport pilot may log pilot in command flight time for flights-
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:Trim the yoke, right arm for throttle. You're getting around my catchy, cute, and hilarious way of saying that you're only allowed to touch the yoke (or yoke-related item like trim) OR throttle, for the entire flight.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
overdesigned posted:I should've been a little more exact in my wording: if I'm low AND slow, and my not-fully-thinking response is to (only) pitch for the airspeed I need, all of a sudden I'm low and going even lower and I'm probably gonna hit something (but hey, I'll be hitting it at approach speed!). In that situation you should maintain nose attitude and add a LOT of power in order to get your airspeed and your sink rate/altitude under control simultaneously. I agree with the first 2 paragraphs, except you left out, in the first sentence I bolded, that you'd have to also reduce AOA. Otherwise, that added energy will translate into a less-steep descent (or, in a more extreme case, climb) at the original airspeed. For the second bolded sentence, likewise increase AOA, or the dissiapted energy will steepen the descent. Remember that AOA determines airspeed for steady flight. I also agree that pitch/power/speed/sink rate are all related, but just leaving it as such doesn't shed any understanding on the nature of that relationship. And either way of thinking about it will work in normal situations, but any time the chips are down and someone is liable to forget something, I'm a firm believer that the Navy method will leave the pilot with a more survivable situation. If the Asiana 214 pilot had a gut-level need for more power at the first indication of a low position, rather than naively aiming the nose where he wanted to go, that accident wouldn't have happened. vessbot fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Sep 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
brendanwor posted:Right hand (if I'm in the left seat). Trim and power. More accurate speed control and my flight path won't be +-1000's of feet while doing so. vessbot posted:You're getting around my catchy, cute, and hilarious way of saying that you're only allowed to touch the yoke (or yoke-related item like trim) OR throttle, for the entire flight. Also I never said anything about flight path, just airspeed. I'm isolating the factors here so we can really see what controls what.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
overdesigned posted:Re: the game, in the T-6 I want my left hand because I can more easily switch between throttle and stick that way, the PCL's on the left side No screwing involved, you'd have fairly and squarely won your money by meeting the condition. Also I always get wigged out and confused any time someone calls the T-6 II the T-6. Takes me a second to figure out what plane they're talking about.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
What he said; put in other words, the surface is the reference frame.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Wrong. There is no such thing as absolute velocity. Oops! You're right. He should have said "relative to the inertial (or, non-rotating) frame of reference fixed to the center of the Earth." Going East, that's gonna be faster than the groundspeed, and going West, it's gonna be slower. Interestingly, the Space Shuttle, due to having to operate both as an aircraft near the surface, where Earth-based velocity information was relevant, and in space, where Inertial ("absolute," as it were) velocity information was relevant, had 2 bearing pointers on the DG, one for each... marked E and I respectively. On ascent, they'd fly the E pointer until a high enough altitude that most of the atmosphere was gone, then it would disappear and then they'd fly the I pointer.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
Two Kings posted:Also be careful taking on any debt to become a professional pilot. It could take you +10 years to achieve a livable income. Always pay as you go and leave yourself an out. It's pretty much impossible to avoid going into debt. (Do a back of the napkin for 250 hours of renting a bugsmasher and 100-150 hours of instructor time, plus checkrides, training materials, etc.) But absolutely never ever put more money down on account than you'd be willing to lose in a flight school bankruptcy... this has happened multiple times with 5 figures of students' prepaid money vanishing with the school.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
I took the "new" ATP written (I think? The Gleim book preface talked about how the question bank is no longer published and their practice questions were only representative) just before the deadline, but it had questions and figures referring to the "new airspace reclassification to match ICAO"  so that doesn't make sense.So now is there gonna be a new new one along with the rule change going into effect? vessbot fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
Just got a class date at Ameriflight 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Gonna fly in Texas? We talk to a few Amflights each day in Corpus. Nope. Gonna do ground school in Dallas but they don't have any PA-31s there, so I'll be flight-training most likely in ABQ and then station in Socal. I did get sorta close to you though a few years back picking up a Stearman from Galveston. Waiting out storms for a few days let me go to the space center. vessbot fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Nov 5, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
Butt Reactor posted:Got an interview for PSA coming up in a couple weeks Way to go!!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 01:22
|
|
Also had one for Air Whisky, but they never called me back. Still waiting on Skywest, and I haven't even applied to Horizon yet...
|
New Year's Eve in a hotel room studying flows #pilotlife e: posting about studying flows #goonlife vessbot fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Jan 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
Rickety Cricket posted:Finally took my IFR written. Studied my rear end off and got a loving 100% Simply put, you turn the shortest way from wherever you are to the outbound course and then intercept it outbound. The airspace protection is designed in accordance with the fact that your turning flight path will take a bulbous route away from the thick black comforting line until you intercept it. Congrats on the 100! vessbot fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Jan 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Rickety Cricket posted:So in this case am I doing something like this? Yup! What e.pilot posted (above and below) is valid too, but this is the "default" and is my personal preference under the KISS principle, especially valuable under high-workload situations. This way, there's no different procedure to perform under varying circumstances. You always simply turn to, and intercept, the outbound course, and that's it. If you're coming in from the Northwest, it so happens that there is no (or very small ) turn. If you come in from the North, there's a moderate left turn that takes a slight "bulb" out before you establish outbound. If you come in from the South, then what you drew in yellow over the plate happens, and we get a large bulb. In all three cases, what then follows is the same. KISS. vessbot fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Jan 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Animal posted:So, the ATR crash in Taipei. One engine auto-feathered, and the crew reacted by immediately shutting down the good engine. Even worse than that. They didn't "immediately" shut down the good engine, they spent 40-50 seconds dicking around with it doing partial power reductions, and then shut it down ??
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Not sure you're stating the question right. To figure out the pounds of thrust of the bypass flow, you'd simply multiply the pounds of thrust of the engine by .85 edit: Are you saying you're not sure if 85% of thrust comes from the bypass, or 85% of the mass flow goes through the bypass? vessbot fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Feb 8, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
Butt Reactor posted:Airline guys, what are some study tips you've used for Sim? I've had a hell of a time getting flows and call outs memorized during my first couple days this week. I spend a couple hours yesterday and today going over stuff in the paper tiger, but when I sit in the cockpit I freeze and can't think of a drat thing. brendanwor posted:When you aren't at a trainer, get a big scan of the cockpit up on your iPad or laptop or whatever and practice the flows over and over again. Every time e: But more seriously... here's something I wrote in another forum: (the bit about the checklists is company-specific though) Learn the flows. And here's how it worked for me: 1. First, compartmentalize each group of switches (let's say lights, ice protection, throttle quadrant, etc.) as their own units so you can plug each one (call it an "item group") into its step of the flow. So the approach flow becomes lights; pumps; power; yaw damp; cowl flaps). 5 items, very simple, don't even worry yet about what you do with the items. They're just there and you do "something" with them. You learn the actual spatial flow of their "spots" in the cockpit, and your hand goes flying to those 5 spots as you do it. Do this until you can rattle it off without thinking. 2. Then, get more specific: lights-which ones-and do what with them?; pumps-ON; power- mixtures-THIS and props THAT; yaw damp OFF; cowl flaps DO THIS. You'll notice it'll set you back some, and you'll have to start thinking about what you're saying again. But these specific items now have the geographic "spots" already there to plug into. Do THIS until you can rattle it off without thinking. 3. Now, act out the PF and PM parts. P-what and P-who?! I thought this was single pilot! Well, you actually get fully trained in 2-pilot CRM in ALL of the airplanes. Like step 2, it'll set you back some, but again: do it until you can rattle it off without thinking. Oh, and here's a tricky part that I really wish someone had told me before I had developed so much inertia. Don't just say "and now the PM does this." There's a tricky procedure, and this is how it's done. Let's say it's a 5 item flow: "Chemtrail initiation" PF: Agent tank - SELECTED PF: Main pump - ON PF: GIS database - SELECTED/INITIALIZED PM: Boom valve - ON PM: Timer - HACKED The PF does his 3 items, then calls for "Chemtrail initiation checklist," then the PM does his 2 items, and THEN starts the written checklist. (Keep in mind the flows and checklists for each equivalent event aren't necessarily the same. There are items in the flow and not the checklist, there are items in the checklist and not the flow, and there items in both that are in different order. Still think you can catch up on your flows "on the fly?") It really tripped me up since I had been practicing with a simple "and now, PM" mental marker, but now that a "checklist" started getting called with items of the flow still remaining before the actual checklist started, it kept throwing me into the wrong spot and my mind would do a ground loop each time. So practice them with the full sequence, and delineate when you're playing each character separately. All the while, any time you add a new element, performance suffers and you speed back up as the flow gets re-burned into your brain in the new environment. First, I did it all just by visualizing the cockpit and putting my hand in the right spot. The benefit is that with this, you can do it in lots of environments with new distractions. You can do it while driving, while making GBS threads, while walking down the sidewalk, while carrying moving boxes down the stairs... Every new one would make me take a bit of a hit but then I enjoyed catching back up and knowing that I have it that much more solidly. But then, I started doing it in front of the paper tiger they sent in the mail and instead of getting easier, it got a bit harder. Then I caught up. Then, instead of doing the flows in the correct sequence for a normal flight, I did them out of order. I learned to get away from the dependence on the reminder from the previous flow, and having to come into each one "fresh." Then, to increase the startle/distraction factor, I gave the flashcards (which I'd stopped using long ago, pretty much by the time I'd finished making them) to my girlfriend and had her mix them up and surprise me with one or two randomly, on the spot, throughout the day. I slowed down, then I caught up. vessbot fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Mar 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 20:56
|
|
how do I fix this before my sim partner and instructor kill me?
|
Rickety Cricket posted:For whatever reason this approach isn't in the G1000. All our other approaches into MTN are there, but you can't select VOR/DME 15. Am I right in tuning Nav1 & 2 to BAL vor, then using the tail of NAV 2 to watch for my step down cross radials. Then what do I do with Nav 1? I'm completely blanking on how to fly the 'arc' part You only need one nav to fly a DME arc. You keep updating your position (radial) and flying a heading 90 degrees to it. When you get to a stepdown radial, you step down. Is your nav 1 a HSI or a standard VOR head?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Stall prevention and recovery is already something that every pilot has practiced prior to their first solo, and then been tested on (presumably) at every level thereafter. Yeahh, not really. Maybe recovering from getting slow and hearing the stall horn yeah, but actual stall recovery not so much. When the wing is actually stalled and the nose drops on its own terms, that presents a completely different scenario (physically and mentally) to the pilot. But you're right that the amount of experience doesn't really help the issue.... type of experience does. I'd trust my fiance's life to a 200 hour pilot who learned in a glider and converted to airplanes under an old salt who does stalls to a full break (where the nose drops on its own terms and not yours) as well as spins over a 2000 or even a 20,000 hour pilot with nothing but the puppy mill checkride-script passing type of so-called stall experience. On top of all that, some operators still haven't reprioritized unstalling the goddamn wing over minimizing altitude loss, after many started to see the light after Colgan 3407. In a recent checkride event, on a power-on stall I dropped the nose only a tiny bit (after being briefed on how little drop they want to see) but it turned out to be too little as the stall horn beeped again. I dropped it a tiny bit more, and the check pilot reflexively barked at me to minimize altitude loss. Yessir! 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
I prostrate myself before the ghost of Charles Taylor in atonement for having the temerity to write a squawk on a Friday night... in the end I guess the reliability of my localizer indication is not that important in the face of you going home early. So sorry for sprinkling frivolous squawks like that all over the maintenance log while laughing in your face for having to stay at work to do your job while I waltz home from my plush-rear end banker's hours flying feeder freight.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
I'm still flabbergasted (and sometimes red hot mad) that the world is such that it is possible for Pinnacle 3701 to have happened.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
AWSEFT posted:however one being defered doesn't mean you can't use the working one, it is just uncomfortable. Just learned something new... huh.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
https://vimeo.com/8511733 717 recovering from an inverted attitude due to wake turbulence encounter (planned, as part of flight test) incorrectly and losing 9000 feet in the process. Argh.... E: the wake encounter was planned, not the inverted attitude...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:I find something emotionally moving in professionals calmly handling their poo poo. Well no, these professionals grossly mishandled their poo poo though. Repost of what I wrote about this on Facebook: This video is horrifying to watch, and these guys are lucky to be alive. As others have noted, (both on Vimeo and on here) the correct response would have been to roll the airplane to wings-level. The pilot here did the wrongest thing possible, which is to pull around through the bottom. Because he did that, he lost 9000 feet, (you can see by counting the 500ft. marks on the PFD) gained too much speed (I assume he oversped the airplane; maybe someone more familiar with Boeing/Douglas aural alarms can say) and if he didn't over stress the airframe, it was still subjected to many more G's than it had to. Though I can't blame him too much, since reflexively pulling back on the stick/yoke is the natural response to most sudden and/or scary situations (especially this one), if training pilots in acrobatics and upset recovery for years has taught me anything. While developing the skill and reaction to do the right thing (and the fortitude to actually do it in the face of the overwhelming natural urge to do the wrong thing, after a split second presentation) takes a lot of rigorous training, that training was probably paid a box-checking lip service, as it is with most pilots. I have seen many of my students struggle with this situation after doing it over many repetitions over many flight, in actual airplanes, from the full range of attitudes. (I.e., much more meaningful training than a handful of times in a sim, from 60 degrees bank, every 6 months). If they would have trouble after that type of training, unfortunately we have no reason to expect better from non-aerobaric trained pilots, and these are the results. What's even more horrifying is that this was a presumably better-qualified crew than your average line pilot, seeing that they were assigned to an actual wake turbulence flight test program; so from them you would expect to see a better response. Therefore, either: a) someone assigned a random crew to conduct a test with an obvious risk of an unusual attitude, but without the qualification to be able to handle it, or b) the crew did have such a qualification (like a flight test background) but even that training was lacking for the situation that was faced.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Supersonic posted:Sadly a friend of mine passed away yesterday in a crash while doing survey work for a canal being built in Nicaragua. From what I've read on Nicaraguan news sites, the weather was clear that day and the plane was checked in the morning for any mechanical issues, so I have no idea what went wrong. I noticed in the article that "curiously, a deployed parachute was found among the wreckage" which I found odd because to my knowledge (as well as another friend who is also a pilot), parachutes aren't generally found in most cockpits, and flying low for survey work makes the likelihood of a successful deployment really low. Does anyone have any ideas on what may have happened here? He's leaving behind two young boys Sorry for your personal loss.  All I can say is that in some places (no idea if Nicaragua is one of them) it's common for parachutes to be worn in all GA flying instead of just for aerobatics.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
hjp766 posted:Not having flown the 717 but having flown other jets. Lateral Gs are not created from coordinated rolling, so that is not a factor. They are created from rudder application and its resultant side slip. (Rolling while pulling a.k.a. asymmetrical G, however, is a huge factor in this situation and is to be avoided.) Just to be clear, if you didn't watch the video carefully enough, after the initial upset the airplane was in an inverted roll attitude (upside down) with the pitch only slightly nose-down at 15 degrees below the horizon. Any source you find on the subject will say that the appropriate course of action from here is to roll the airplane to wings-level, and for good reason: to pull around the bottom is to lose tremendously more altitude than is necessary, gain too much speed (after a few more viewings, I can unsurprisingly hear an aural "overspeed" alarm) and, in turn, necessitate more G than necessary to pull out of the ensuing dive. If you think otherwise, then you really need to rethink this and I would highly recommend an unusual attitude recovery course (I actually would recommend this to everyone regardless of the situation). You also correctly list "wings are levelled" as the first step besides the power reduction, so I think that you have some confusion over what you saw in the video, as that is not what happened: the nose dropped from 15 to about 50-60 degrees nearly straight down before a very half-hearted roll (the wrong way) was begun, and the lowest pitch attitude was 70 degrees nose-down. The pilot also knew the right thing to do: the first thing out of his mouth after "stabilize, stabilize, stabilize" is "easy roll to the horizon" the nearest of which was to the left though. He probably remembered the initial left-rolling entry and, not entertaining the possibility he had gone 180 degrees, assumed he should return the way he came. Had he processed the information from the view outside, along with the artificial horizon, he would have recognized his attitude. So all the signs point to a delay in recognition and response due to wide-eyed shock and its resultant reduction of the capacity to process information. Every split second with the lift vector pointing at the ground is time spent making the situation worse. Bob A Feet posted:So watching that, he immediately chops power and looks like he pulls flaps too. He didn't completely pull through the bottom but he got drat close. Either way, I've always learned roll level and pull to the nearest horizon. Not the farthest like he did haha He pulled the speed brake. Flaps are on the right of the throttles.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:Dear Vessbot, I just might, if I can arse myself to. I was literally gonna do this years ago (along with a tailwheel post) but never got around to it. Bob A Feet posted:Who was sitting right seat? This is exactly something CRM is meant to fix. Not really. With the necessary response time, there's no time for collaborative decision making, or any type of discussion in a case like this. An unusual attitude recovery is a single-pilot procedure. The only exception is if the FO loudly yells "I have the controls" and takes over. (The nuclear option)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
And overriding the stick pusher to get it into a stall because you don't know how airplanes work
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Yeah, so this was seriously a question in the computer-based indoc I'm taking for a 135 company. Right now.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Well holy poo poo. Turns out the State of Montana still maintains some of these in service!quote:Night-time Lighted Airway Beacons
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Rolo posted:The "notes" section for an upcoming 135 trip states that the client wants to be addressed as "sir." I wonder what other kind of joys I have to look forward to as I move from flying boxes to big wigs...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
My first CFI renewal, I decided to go to an in-person class instead of online, since I figured that it would be a little more engaging with discussions, etc. Holy poo poo was I wrong. We got a binder full of material, and literally for the entire 2 days the instructor read through the binder straight through, like some sort of mediaeval monk university. Never again. Now I do American Flyers online (lifetime deal) which seems to be the standard among the people I know.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
I'm in training for a new job, so I haven't flown for a couple of weeks, i.e., since the Living the Dream videos came out. Are you guys saying that people are quoting them on guard? Jesus Christ how loving thick do you have to be to be doing that without realizing that you're the idiot being made fun of in them?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:Attacking the personality of the people arguing against the topic or problem is called a straw man fallacy. No, that's the ad hominem fallacy. A strawman is when you attack a position that the person doesn't hold.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:What I foresee happening with my students is just pushing all the solo stuff to the end of the whole program. Pushing on to cross country stuff and knocking out the rest of the requirements without soloing. Then doing one big push of solo stuff at the end. To me, that would be a welcome change. No more rush to solo at the expense of inadequate training in the "how to fly an airplane" maneuvers. But the negative unintended consequence would probably be a rush to cross country at the same expense.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
KodiakRS posted:%95 of the people on APC are pretty chill and are generally good posters. The problem is that it's the other %5 that makes %95 of the posts. I think the highest I saw at my home airport during my 5 years there was something G68
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 12:03 |
|
|
So I guess there's a contingent of us at PPW.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2016 20:01
|
|