How to gain aviation, aircraft, and sim knowledge?

[SolidJewel23706]

I am not joking but you may try to pass real PPL courses - of course theory only if you don’t have much money. Speaking with real pilots and instructors and making acquaintances is priceless.

I did like so and even had a few hours practice and now I understand that was worth the money

[Fartoolong3532]

I think this was recommended so I might try to read a few pages before every flight although I am unsure if I will be able to find my determination enough to overcome the boringness of reading it via pdf.

I’ll try to finish the tutorials and then maybe do the flight academy and get back to reading this-

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/airplane_handbook/

[SCLINC]

That was going to be my recommendation. But you don’t have to read it all at once. Read a bit, practice in the sim, rinse and repeat. You’ll pick up a lot that way and you’re getting the info from a reputable source.

King Schools now has a YouTube channel with a lot of great material and they are the gold standard for ground school instruction. They’ve been around a long time.

[Fartoolong3532]

I know I’ve posted some videos on here, some I claimed to be proud of, and then later on realized how bad I was. I watched a yt video explaining the jerk movement of certain planes and it made sense. Made me realize just b/c I’m flying and staying in control, in real life I’d probably be knocked out.

This video-

Why do my airplane controls "bounce" in Microsoft Flight Simulator?!

[JWATTS0275]

Oh, from a non pilot…thats a bit concerning…listening to him think you would think he is right, from a non pilot point of view.

See when I hear pilots on forum and google…I believe everything . Thinking they wouldnt be silly enough to give false information. Gullible (or nieve I can be)

[CaptainRude91]

Yeah this is an excellent example of someone who can very confidently pass on wrong information. This guy lives in Disney Land, and like him there are more people who have developed wrong theories about how things work and try to educate others.

[JWATTS0275]

Excuse my ignorance isnt there an affiliation, like Drs in UK have GMC Nurses have NMC to report bad practice…sorry if this is a stupid question. Obviously pilots are regulated in every country…

[CaptainRude91]

Yes there is, for classroom training there isn’t really any hard rules, basically anybody is allowed to do that, don’t even have to be a pilot. The ATO has to make sure the classroom instructor is performing to the ATOs standard.

Then for practical training there is a Flight Instructor (FI) license, for bigger planes Type Rating Instructor license (TRI) then there are all sorts of additional endorsements like instrument rating, night qualification, multi-engine. A beginning FI is “restricted” so he can’t sign off first solo’s until he gained some experience.

Anybody can of course say he is an instructor and post some nonsense on Youtube.

[JWATTS0275]

Thanks for reply much appreciated. Ouch scary really, taking that theory into practice…but if you have a good teacher in practice and knock all that nonsensical theory out of your head.

[CaptainRude91]

At professional ATOs the standard of theoretical knowledge instruction is generally very good. Its mainly on the internet that people claim they are a pilot or an instructor and upload their pile of horse to YouTube.

[JWATTS0275]

Thats very true sure there are people on here claim they are pilots, giving bad advice…or different “schools of thought” like most professional industries.

[Fmgc320]

The “weathervaning” into the wind is a common misconception. As a certificated pilot, I myself made that same reference here on the forums some time ago and realized my mistake. On the ground? Yes. But In the air, no.

If you were to hold a straight heading in the air with a wind from the right, the plane wouldn’t “turn” into the wind. You’d just be blown off your course/track to the left happily flying the same heading. And the terms heading, is the magnetic heading you reference in the airplane, and where the nose is pointing, but course/track is your actual track across the ground. Course will change based on wind and I’m order for you to know what that is, it must be calculated.

To fly a specific course/track, you’d need to apply the appropriate wind correction to fly the appropriate heading to keep you on your intended course/track.

This is where ground reference maneuvers while flight training come into play. You also learn how to calculate the wind correction during cross-country flight planning. Today, modern avionics packages can display your course and/or heading. Many will allow you to orient your navigation display by either “North up” or “Track Up” for example.

Heading, Track, Bearing, and Course Explained | AirplaneAcademy.com

[CaptainRude91]

I always tried to make this as simple to understand as possible when I was a ground school instructor. And it is in fact easy to understand if you reference to a boat crossing a river for example or a fish in a fish bowl. If you imagine the water being the air and the fish or boat being the plane you are halfway there .

I wrote this post long time ago on this subject, probably not the best, need to re-write it at some point:

@anon50268670

On ground

The aircraft is stationary on the ground while the mass of air is moving around it, this is perceived as wind. If this mass of air is moving towards you at a 100 kts (headwind) the aircraft would perceive this as flying at 100 kts through the air. For an aerofoil there is no difference between moving through the air at 100 kts or being stationary while the air is moving around it at 100 kts (hence the principle of a windtunnel), aerodynamically this is exactly the same thing, the kinetic energy is the same. In the above example, although the airspeed indicator would indicate 100 kts and the aircraft performance being the same as flying through the air at 100 kts, the ground speed would be zero!

Using a less extreme example. If your aircraft needs 60 kts indicated airspeed to rotate, and there would not be any wind at all, the aircraft needs to accelerate 60 kts. In standard atmosphere (standard air density) and at sea level we can directly relate indicated airspeed (technically the calibrated airspeed) to groundspeed. So for the example above both airspeed and groundspeed at time of rotation would read the same (60 kts).

With a 20 kt headwind, otherwise same conditions, the groundspeed at rotation would be 40 kts. With a 20 kt tailwind the aircraft needs to accelerate to 80 kts groundspeed. Accelerating to 80 kts obviously requires more runway to achieve, in addition the aircraft would also experience more wheel drag at 80 kts compared to 60 or 40 kts. In all the above conditions the indicated airspeed would be 60 kts and unless looking outside and seeing the end of the runway approaching faster or timing the take-off roll you wouldn’t notice the difference, the aircraft in all three conditions would feel and perform the same way.

In-flight

It is important to understand is that an aircraft in flight is moving in relation to the air around it (hence airspeed) and not in relation to the ground. In flight an aircraft does technically not experience wind as the aircraft is flying within a mass of air taking it somewhere, although we generally keep calling it headwind if the mass of air with you inside is moving in opposite direction, vice versa for tailwind or moving sideways along the ground is called crosswind, I’m also using these terms in my examples below but technically not correct. There might be sudden changes of direction and/or speed within this airmass perceived as turbulence or even windshear. Compare this to a log of wood floating in a river, the log of wood itself does not move in relation to the water, the mass of water with the log of wood floating on top is going somewhere.

When airborne the aircraft flies in relation to the air around it. In other words if the aircraft is climbing in a 100 kt “headwind” (technically the aircraft does not experience wind) the aircraft is not gonna “feel” any difference. It takes the same power, the rate of climb is the same etc. If climbing at 100 kts AIRSPEED with a 100 kt headwind the ground speed is gonna be 0 kts and the aircraft is climbing straight up like a helicopter according to an observer on the ground. Not that this is very practical in real life as a 100 kt wind is probably gonna be extremely turbulent.

To explain it completely the mickey mouse way. Imagine a fish in a fishing bowl swimming from one end to the other end of the fishing bowl. This fish is not gonna notice anything, does not have to swim faster etc. if you pick-up the bowl in the mean time and move it somewhere else. This fish would not notice anything at all unless looking outside and noticing moving in a different direction in relation to the table, in relation to the water in the fishing bowl nothing has changed. Hope that makes sense. I have flown backwards this way in small single engine piston aircraft (in relation to the ground). Having an airspeed of lets say 50 kts while the mass of air with your airplane inside is moving in the opposite direction with > 50 kts, in relation to the ground the aircraft is flying backwards.

Wind does not have any affect on an aircraft performance in relation to the air. In relation to the ground it does have an effect, an observer on the ground will see an aircraft climb-out steeper with a headwind and more shallow with a tailwind, when flying from A to B with a headwind it takes longer so more fuel is required. When there is X-wind you have to apply a wind correction angle to fly the correct ground track.

Examples

I created a little example below, the square is a mass of air, 1000 ft high. The blue arrow represents an aircraft flying from one end of the airmass (point A) to the other end (point B) in one minute (1000 ft / min rate of climb) with 100 kts indicated airspeed. If there is no wind the blue line is both the air vector and the ground vector, it is the path the aircraft travels in relation to both the air and the ground.

If we now assume the airmass itself with the aircraft inside it is moving in the opposite direction with 100 kts while the aircraft is flying from point A to point B with 100 kts, we will have the situation as illustrated below.

• Blue is the air vector (the path the aircraft travels through the air),
• Red is the wind vector (the direction and speed the air mass is moving),
• Green is the ground vector (the aircraft movement in relation to the ground).

In other words the aircraft does exactly the same in relation to the surrounding air no matter the wind, same airspeed, same rate of climb etc. the pilot would not notice anything as long as he doesn’t look outside the window. the aircraft behaves the same and performs the same. Assuming the wind is 100 kts steady. An observer on the ground would see the aircraft climb vertically like a helicopter . The way to look at this is as follows: the aircraft is flying from A to B, but whilst it is doing that, point B is shifting in opposite direction.

If we take this example even further and assume the windspeed is higher than the aircraft speed through the air we can even fly backwards. Backwards in relation to the ground to be clear, in relation to the air we are still going 100 kts, kinetic energy is still the same:

If there are sudden changes in speed or direction within the airmass you will feel this as turbulence or even windshear and this will obviously influence performance.

To add to this when you are on the runway on the brakes with lets say 20 kts of headwind, this is 20 kts of airspeed you have to accelerate less. Also the groundspeed at which you rotate is 20 kts lower so the overall ground distance is shorter. Same is true when landing. Still in relation to the air nothing has changed, the aircraft rotates at the same airspeed, has the same kinetic energy as if there was no wind (okay drag from the wheels is lower due to the lower ground speed so this is also positive).

Another fun example: as you know a glider has no engine and to overcome the drag and keep flying it needs to descent continuously. This way part of the weight is acting as thrust (like rolling a shopping cart down a ramp). As soon as a glider pulls the nose up in order to climb this weight acting as thrust reduces and does not compensate for the drag anymore, the airspeed reduces and the plane eventually stalls.

So if a glider has to descent continuously in order to keep flying, how does a glider stay in the air? As soon as the air mass with the glider inside is climbing faster than the glider is descending, the glider climbs in relation to the ground. A glider is however ALWAYS descending in relation to the air:

If you would take the examples above into the horizontal plane (top down view) and draw the same triangle you can figure out what will happen with the ground track. If the mass of air with the aircraft inside is moving to the left (crosswind) the aircraft will need to correct for that by flying to the right within the airmass to cancel out the “wind” and fly the correct ground track. Looking outside you will notice the aircraft flying over the ground in a “crab”, i.e. the nose not pointing in the direction the aircraft is traveling over the ground.

Hope that makes sense…

[ZephyrvonBobo]

Ground school. The only text book I ever loved.

[Catnip5120]

I reach my today’s level after many, many years of experience. In my opinion the best way to learn something new (almost anything) is to do more reading, expose yourself into the topic, and practice, practice, practice. Don’t worry, everyone starts from nothing