Before I get started I am trying to be as objective as possible in the upcoming post. I mean no disrespect and have attempted to keep things relatively indirect. Keep in mind I am still presenting a case and doing so with conviction.

I call this a case because it a century old debate where I believe each side stands to benefit from a solution. Below you will find misunderstandings for those against using a singular ideas, an explained example, misunderstandings of those that are for a singular idea, and a conclusion with some final thoughts on human change.

Again, I am attempting to find a common ground. So please try to read this as it is intended: as an objective opinion on a compromise and not as a personal attack to anyone's beliefs.

Thank you: Here we go...


Misunderstanding(everything controls everything group) #1:


I know many of those on the "everything controls everything" side will say something similar to this regularly. In my opinion it demonstrates one of the two ways this group lacks understanding. Let me show you:

This group often will give an example that demonstrates their academic understanding of the topic. However, it is my belief that they take this knowledge for granted. Not in a bad way, just that it isn't something they think about. For instance, if you are taught to type on a keyboard do you still have to think about how to hit the "q" key?


This shows this pilot understands how this works. Furthermore, knowing that only few aircraft can perform this, this pilot is either military, NASA, aerobatic, or aerobatic instructor.

This was the knowledge I mentioned that is likely taken for granted. Now let us answer a couple questions using information taken from a military textbook, "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" without using formulas:


Question: What controls rate of climb?

Answer: "The above relationship states that, for a given weight airplane, the rate of climb (RC) depends on the difference between the power available and the power required (Pa - Pr), or excess power. Of course, when the excess power is zero (Pa - Pr = 0 or Pa = Pr), the rate of climb is zero and the airplane is in steady level flight.

Page 154.
Further information on Page 350: Read the section titled "Rate of Climb and Descent."

Question: What controls speed?

Answer: "This fact provides a fundamental concept of flying technique: Angle of attack is the primary control of airspeed in steady flight"

Page 27.
Further information on Page 350: Read the section titled "Angle of Attack Versus Airspeed."

For basic aerobatics, a man named Rich Stowell wrote a book "Emergency Maneuver Training." His responses to these questions, though not identical wording, speaks to the same theme military textbook.


Misunderstanding(everything controls everything group) #2:


On the flip side, the pilot that doesn't understand because they were not taught it, forgot it, or don't see its relevance/importance. These pilots make claims that are completely untrue and pass these claims onto the unknowing/unsure pilot. Such as (Name of quote author intentionally left out.):

Power is not required to gain airspeed. It is only required to maintain level flight or a constant rate of descent when airspeed is changed. A change in airspeed slides you left or right on the power required curve, changing the power needed to maintain a given condition. If that change in AOA is made in level flight, causing a change in airspeed, and not met by a subsequent change in power then a climb or descent will result.

You may think in your head, "pitch forward and add power gives me speed" and that is your application, your technique. However, you should know which action, the pitch or the power, gave you the change in speed.

This next statement shows the author of this quote knows two things are happening. He/she likely knows what is controlling which. What they don't understand is how this statement can screw up a student:

I underlined this because it is important in this next part. While this pilot might understand how all this works, there is no guarantee that regurgitation such a statement will result in the student having an equal or even proper understanding. Have anyone ever had someone tell you something and what you heard wasn't what was said?

This is both taught and discussed in the CFI course, the topic from the CFI text is communication. We also discover barriers to communication. Of the barriers the one cited as most prevalent is "lack of common experiences." In the example of regurgitating this statement to a student, you are exhibiting knowledge from experience (the resultant small pitch changes). There is no guarantee the student will receive that same experience or that they will draw the same conclusion as you or have matching perceptions.


An Example:


Imagine on the debrief you give them this statement verbatim as quoted. In the air you give a student the controls and say, "ok check the airspeed, now look at the horizon, and now add power..wait a few seconds. Now look at the airspeed again. What do you see?" and the student replies, "The airspeed went up."


Possible Outcomes:


Now the intuitive student will say something along the lines of having to add forward pressure. The savvy instructor would meet this topic on the ground with the debrief, ensuring the student understands why that action happened. The answer by this savvy instructor wouldn't be, "you had to pitch down because you added power" because he/she knows that statement is untrue.

The less intuitive student will likely not notice or mention the stick pressure. By not mentioning they quickly forget of its existence. The new CFI, any CFI unfamiliar with these dynamics, or the CFI who doesn't believe it to be important will be less likely to recognize this situation.

Did you catch the situation?

Student was told: "In cruise, power is the primary means of setting speed, with a very minor variation in pitch."

Student sees: "In cruise, power is the primary means of setting speed, with a very minor variation in pitch."

Unless the student & instructor debriefed the change in pitch experienced in this scenario, explaining the reality of what occurred, the student will act by what he saw and not by what was heard. For each flight after where it isn't addressed they make an action (in their head one action) to add power and see an increase in airspeed. They will continue to see this one cause giving one result and now power controls airspeed in their world, but not in reality.

Similar issues happen when pitch is taught for glide slope (altitude) and the control inputs are not addressed.

These students are deprived of a basic right to them as pilots, IMO. The right to know what each basic aircraft control will affect their aircraft.


The Rules Restated:


In my previous post I gave two rules and said, "How you apply it is up to you." Meaning, use your own technique but still explain what is happening and make sure they understand the reality. This is the reality (except in 0g flight ):

1. Excess power controls descent/climb. This happens in 2 ways:
   • Changing the power setting
   • Changing the speed resulting in a change in power required
2. AOA controls speed.

Misunderstanding (the absolute one rule group):


This group doesn't see the benefit to having multiple ways to do things. That or they do things multiple ways without realizing it. The result is, like their counterpart takes knowledge from their training for granted, this pilot takes for granted their knowledge of application (his/her experience).


Conclusions:


Desire for consistency (to settle) is the one human trait that makes compromise near impossible. If nobody will change because it means leaving a known for an unknown than nobody will ever expand beyond the knowledge they know today. Without a change in behavior, mental or physical, learning cannot exist.

On one side is the argument that we know what is happening, why don't we teach it? On the other side is the argument that everything is situational. My argument is why can't situations include simple control input understanding, using the rules listed above.

I believe that using these rules when explaining scenarios improves instructors/pilots on both sides of this argument. The instructors on "anything for anything" side can reaffirm their understanding of basic controls, likely improving their own application and teaching of basic controls. Conversely, the instructors stuck on "one way for all" can learn other ways to apply techniques. They can even learn to teach the various techniques while still keeping the truth of reality in their explanations, an experience that will likely better their application and teaching of basic controls.

So there it is, we aren't all that different after all. I for one would think that we can both benefit from learning how to accurately teach both techniques without degrading a students understanding of basic control input in the process. This requires teaching them these rules but allows the technique to be flexible in the process.

Help me find something that makes both sides change while keeping both sides happy. What do you think? Please, all criticism is welcome. You may send it here or to my gmail [email protected].


Thank you all for reading. A few weeks of thought and testing has gone in to the presentation you see here today. Help me perfect it and thank you again,

~Brian


***Disclaimer:*** My argument is no longer that pitch (AOA) for airspeed and power for altitude is the only way. My argument is that whichever technique is decided upon it should not be at the expense of a students understanding basic aircraft control.