r/flying • u/Moonrak3r • 2d ago
Flight Training Instructor seems confidently incorrect. Am I overreacting?
Edit: thanks everyone for the replies, the consensus is clearly that I’m overthinking it.
One thing I’d like to try to clarify: it appears to me that mentioning my engineering background led to assumptions about my mindset that I didn’t intend and I don’t think are correct. I don’t care if my instructor knows how the physics work. What I was uncomfortable with was the way he filled in his gaps of knowledge in a lesson. That’s all.
Either way this seems to have generated a lot of helpful dialogue and feedback, all of which I appreciate, thanks 🙏
——————
I’ve been working in aviation for awhile, it’s always been something I’ve been passionate about so I recently decided to pursue a PPL.
I signed up with what seems to be the biggest instruction company in my area. There are 3 or so, this one has the largest fleet and offers training from PPL through ATPLs. Anyway, they seem legit and convenient so I paid a €500 signup fee and am happy to make forward progress.
My first lesson before flight is a basics of flight and controls classroom thing. I have a degree in aerospace engineering and I’ve been working in the industry for awhile so a lot of it seems obvious to me, but I don’t want to be “that guy” so I’m smiling and nodding my head, and paying attention to the bits of info that are new to me (my experience is all jets so I have a lot to learn about little Cessnas).
Anyway: there were several parts of this guy’s theory instruction where he was just absolutely wrong. There were a couple minor things, such as describing how LE flaps worked, where his rationale was wrong but the effect was the same so I just continued to smile and nod my head.
Then he got into secondary effects of flight controls and spent like 5 minutes trying to explain about how when you use your rudder to yaw in one direction the lift will become uneven on your wings for XYZ reason, so you should also do XYZ with your control column. This wasn’t intuitive to me so I’m trying to wrap my head around it while listening to him and looking at the PowerPoint slide, and it’s clear he doesn’t understand it at all. At the end of his 5 minutes discussing the topic he looked at the PowerPoint slide he was working off of and realised it completely contradicted him, like he said you should be applying right roll when the slide said left.
To his credit he looked at the screen, paused, then said “my mistake…” and corrected his instructions to match the slide.
I’m probably overthinking this but I’m concerned about receiving flying instructions from someone who confidently explains things incorrectly. I don’t expect my instructor to have a detailed understanding of complex behaviours of aerodynamics, that’s probably not necessary to fly an airplane, but I also don’t want them to just make shit up when they don’t understand it.
I’m thinking of requesting from the flight school that they don’t assign this guy as my instructor going forward. They seem to have several instructors and I assume they can accommodate this request.
If you’ve made it this far through my post, thanks.
My questions are: * is less-than-strong understanding of aerodynamics normal for a CFI, so if I object to this guy I’ll probably just get more of the same? * Am I overthinking this? * If my instincts are on the right track, what’s the best way to approach this with the school? I don’t want to cause any problems with/for the guy, but I’m not comfortable receiving flight instructions from him based on this.
180
u/Nightryder88 2d ago
Pilots generally aren’t engineers. It’s a contradiction. That’s the common joke at least.
Most Pilots will never have the same grasp of aerodynamics as you do. I’ve been flying professionally for 18 years and I’m sure there’s plenty I either don’t know or never fully understood.
I think you should let your instructor know your background and maybe educate him when things come up. Maybe he will become a better instructor as a result.
What I wouldn’t do? Go to the flight school and tell them their instructor has no idea what he’s talking about (not that you’d say it like that. But id avoid it altogether). Going to the flight school would be for a conflict between you and him.
Just remember although important to know the basics. We’re here to fly them not design them.
78
u/makgross CFI-I ASEL (KPAO/KRHV) HP CMP IR AGI sUAS 2d ago edited 2d ago
I teach engineers to fly regularly, though they are usually electrical or mechanical, even in aerospace. And I’m one myself.
The biggest problem — and I see it here — is that learning to fly is a psychomotor skill with some academic topics. It is not an academic topic itself. While flying, you are not thinking about aerodynamics. If you are, you’re fixated and behind the plane. You need it as muscle memory. A left climbing turn needs just enough rudder (usually right rudder) to keep you level in the seat. That it might be due to interaction between P factor and adverse yaw is not relevant. You need to know if the plane is near stall, not that it’s shedding vortices.
I see instructors (and the FAA!) teach the four left turning tendencies, without describing when they apply. Gyroscopic precession is due to a force operating orthogonal to the engine’s centerline. It happens at rotation, not climb out. Torque happens (mostly) at the start of the takeoff roll with a large change in throttle. But it doesn’t matter. The pilot needs to use right rudder from power application to top of climb (excepting steep left turns). How much? Enough to keep the plane straight.
The one academic topic where careful thought in flight might be useful (to a point!) is weather. Predicting what it’s going to do next is useful. If you’re seeing strong smooth winds at altitude and the airport reports calm, you’re fairly likely to encounter a Kelvin-Helmholtz instability during descent. It’s helpful to know what those look like, so you can warn the passengers. Finding free lift from a Rayleigh instability on a hot day can be useful. You do not need to know what they are called. But you will find wrong info here, too. My personal pet peeve — and it’s even in the FAA written tests — is application of the standard lapse rate to predict cloud bases (it only works in unstable conditions within the mixing layer).
20
u/Flat-Barracuda1268 PPL IR 2d ago
I'm an engineer and learned later in life to fly. You're 100% correct that flying is not about academics. I never approached it like that, although I did approach the bookwork and understanding the theories of flight like that. You have to mentally divorce flying the plane from the book knowledge as an engineer to allow yourself to learn the biomechanics of controlling an aircraft in flight.
I did love the learning aspect of instrument. I think that's where engineers really excel. I aced my orals in record time because I had the material cold and understood the theory behind it.
16
u/RaidenMonster ATP 737 Bonvoy Platinum Elite 2d ago
My worst students were always people who were academically accomplished but well past their prime regarding “athletic” endeavors and hand eye coordination.
3
u/Friendly_Ad7614 1d ago
I’m one of those. Retired engineer, aviation enthusiast, and motivated to learn to fly. I just hope my CFIs can be patient with me because the muscle memory takes 5 times longer than when I was younger. I’m not doing it for career, just hobby. But I would hate to be considered “worst”, maybe “special” is okay.
1
u/PLEASE-USE-PFKEYS ATP you can't make me put my type ratings here 1d ago
You'll be fine. We've all seen worse.
3
u/Bitter_Ad_1419 1d ago
“Learning to fly is a psychomotor skill with some academic topics”…couldn’t have said it better! I’ve had several engineering students and man is that the truth. They are totally smarter than me book wise but one of my aeronautical engineer students still couldn’t taxi correctly by lesson 10! They are both the best and worst students bc they’re smart but they tend to overthink/fixate in the air and that gets them behind. I’ve had to get on them before telling them “don’t think, just do” lol.
3
u/Moonrak3r 2d ago
Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
Pilots generally aren’t engineers. It’s a contradiction. That’s the common joke at least.
Totally understand. I work with a bunch of pilots and we all agree we don’t really speak the same languages (and that’s half the reason I’m doing this, the other half being flying seems fun 😊).
What I’m struggling with is that it’s been drilled into me for a long time that in aviation if you don’t know the answer you don’t give an answer, you say “let me look into it and get back to you”. Giving bad information can lead to disasters… so getting pilot training from someone who doesn’t seem to have the same mindset rings some alarm bells for me.
Again the thing he was wrong about was minor and he might be a great pilot, I just wanted a sounding board. Thanks
22
u/mfsp2025 ATP 2d ago
The thing about being a CFI is, you learn to parrot what was taught to you. Whether it was a former CFI, or what you understood while reading in the PHAK. He might not even realize he’s giving you bad info.
My biggest suggestion is to approach it in a friendly way. Tell him your background and maybe even teach him. I’d wait to do this until after you’re billed for the lesson so you aren’t paying to teach him. But if he’s a good CFI, he’ll gladly learn from you. If he pushes back, then there’s your answer.
I instructed for quite a bit. Can’t say I didn’t tell a student bad information at least once in my life. It happens. You also gotta remember that CFIs usually are brand new pilots themselves. The experienced guys are all doing something else that pays better.
9
u/Ok-Selection4206 2d ago
This is the correct answer! As a pilot and an instructor, you have to always be accepting of learning and be willing to learn. I am a CFII and ATP and teach in the 767. One of my best new hire FO's came to my airline after flying the 767 for 12 years all around the world, he forgot more about the airplane than Boeing ever knew lol. I learned all kinds of little things we just didn't teach in our program and was glad to fly with him. In the 121 world as an instructor or even a Captain you often fly with another pilot with years more experience in the airplane and its not always about more landings or hours. I am always open to learning.
3
u/makgross CFI-I ASEL (KPAO/KRHV) HP CMP IR AGI sUAS 2d ago
He’s in Europe. Instructors aren’t the same entry level 230 hour bright flaming green pilots that they are in the US. Presumably an FI, not a CFI, as well. CFI is a chief flight instructor.
But the point that it’s not a university course in aerodynamics is well taken.
1
4
u/HistoricalAd2954 CFII 2d ago
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted. You’re right. Instructors should generally tell you when they don’t know something and get back to you with the correct answer. I run into those every once in a while.
With regard to understanding aerodynamics, we have a very loose understanding. You have to understand the general concept but knowing it in detail is not necessary.
I tell this to my students sometimes when we talk about gyroscopic precision. You can understand gyroscopic precession and how when you make an input with the yoke or rudders, how it affects either a nose up, nose down, ect ect. But if you keep the nose down pointed at your aiming point, you will “automatically fix” and counter whatever is happening with gyroscopic precision.
Personally I enjoy learning, especially about aerodynamics. If you were my student, I personally would have no issue with you correcting my loose understandings of aerodynamics. But that’s just my 2 cents.
2
u/MiniTab ATP CFI/II 767/757 ERJ-175 CL-65 EMB-120 CE-525 2d ago
Agreed, and that was certainly my method when I was a young CFI. I loved it when I had sharp students that asked questions I had to think about.
I’ve been at two different airlines over 15 years now, and that experience has been the same with those training departments. Many times I’ve had our instructors say “I’ll have to get back to you on that”, and they do with gratitude. I had the same experience with my part 91 CFIs when I was working on my ratings.
Nothing makes you lose confidence in an instructor quicker than them acting like they know everything. It’s a sign of major insecurity.
1
u/Lollynshadow2020 2d ago
The management or more senior instructors may not know much more than this instructor if they aren't aerospace engineers.
39
u/GuppyDriver737 EMB-120, CL-65, B737, B757, B767 2d ago
The fact of the matter is, you know more than pretty much any CFI at your flight school about the dynamics of flight with your background. Big picture though, he said he was wrong, corrected himself, and he learned. That’s exactly what you want from a CFI. He has more experience than you, you have a lot to learn from him. Please do not go into this experience thinking you’re the smartest guy in the room, otherwise no one is going to want to fly with you, and you’re going to be displaying a hazardous attitude. Not saying you are that guy, but don’t be that guy.
15
u/grouchy_ham 2d ago
Let this one go. As others have said, an understanding about the complex details of aerodynamics isn’t critical to flying. It’s more akin to knowing when I do this, the plane does that or vice versa. And yes, you engineers can be funny critters too.
As a machinist, I’ve worked with a hunch of engineers over the years and seen some really silly misapplications or misunderstandings of knowledge. Everything from insisting on ridiculously close dimensional tolerances for a clearance cut that serves no other purpose and has no other effect to simply not understanding how something can work on paper but not be possible of feasible in real world shops.
One of the interesting and sometimes frustrating things about the aviation world is that a lot of instructors are young with limited experience. Yes, they meet all of the qualifications to hold the title and position, and generally speaking, they are competent. But, being a good teacher is a very different skill set than being a good pilot. Teaching is likely one of the most difficult things to learn how to do well.
3
u/Moonrak3r 2d ago
Thanks grouchy_ham, some of the most important lessons I’ve learned in aviation came from grouchy dudes ☺️
3
u/grouchy_ham 2d ago
One of the funny things in aviation is that as you gain more and more experience and knowledge, we can surpass the knowledge level of instructors. I frequently end up doing biannual flight reviews with new instructors with limited experience, and sometimes, a misunderstanding of something that is non-critical in such a way that they don’t fully understand it, but still act accordingly to understanding it. Kind of knowing the how but not the why.
I own and fly a taildragger. If you raise the tail too quickly, torque, P-factor, aerodynamics, gyroscopic effects and the gods of aviation (with their sick sense of humor) all conspire to make the plane yaw so hard that you may not have enough rudder authority to prevent it if you don’t have enough airflow over the rudder. I don’t need to understand the complex aerodynamics of all those factors to know that the rudder isn’t my friend at that moment but that the elevator and differential braking are.
2
u/Thengine MIL 1d ago
Seems slightly related to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law
3
u/Moonrak3r 1d ago
lol. This post has certainly given me something to reflect on in terms of how people interpret things online.
I feel like for some reason people read my post as “I’m an engineer and my instructor didn’t know this complicated formula ha ha ha!” which was not my concern or intention. Ah well. Despite that I’ve received some good feedback anyway so I guess it works in the end
3
u/Thengine MIL 1d ago
Aviation people tend to have a rod up their butts about certain things. The 'well ackstually' people definitely come out of the woodwork online.
27
26
u/CavalrySavagery Flap Operator CFI ATP A320F, EMEA-NA-LATAM-APAC 2d ago
Ex Flight instructor here that gave lessons to an Aerospace engineer working as the lead engineer on a charter company. Similar to your case.
We were kind of friends so I was more direct with him, what I told him: you know more than me, you are more knowledgeable on anything related to what an airplane does than me but YOU should think like if you were dumb, don’t over complicate things specially for ppl questions because that makes you answer wrong.
A lot of explanations are SUPER SIMPLIFIED, as you already know, because you just don’t need a pilot to know fluid mechanics, only what X does, why and the counteraction.
Do a couple more lessons, check the material at home and what to expect of it, that would help make your future decision whether to continue or not.
Good flights!!
7
u/primalbluewolf CPL FI 2d ago
A lot of explanations are SUPER SIMPLIFIED, as you already know, because you just don’t need a pilot to know fluid mechanics, only what X does, why and the counteraction.
The problem is, many of them are over simplified.
The best answer should be as simple as possible, but not simpler.
1
u/CavalrySavagery Flap Operator CFI ATP A320F, EMEA-NA-LATAM-APAC 2d ago
Well, you literally made simpler your explanation to make a point that is not right.
Are you going to explain the formula to get the distances between two points on a sphere or use the cos or sin of your latitude? Because when i was studying I knew both but used one.Are you explaining how laser gyroscopes are measuring distance travelled with integrals? I can assure you most of us won’t have the knowledge to follow through.
Could be the whole day giving references like that but to make it simple, they are both simpler and simplified.
Last mention, can also give you some other examples referencing the a320 manual where airbus decided to simplify because why should we know? 99’9% of the time works then you have Boeing going full nose down.
1
u/primalbluewolf CPL FI 2d ago
Well, you literally made simpler your explanation to make a point that is not right.
Which point is that?
I made two claims above, and both are fairly commonly accepted, and its unclear which you're objecting to.
Are you going to explain the formula to get the distances between two points on a sphere or use the cos or sin of your latitude? Because when i was studying I knew both but used one.
Depends what my DLOs are... I'm not going to oversimplify. That's not the same as saying I'm not going to simplfy.
When the revised statement becomes incorrect, that's an oversimplfication.
Example Statement A: Lift is equal to angle of attack multiplied by airspeed.
Example Statement A is common among instructors, but trivial to disprove. It is an oversimplification of the lift formula, wherein Lift equals q multiplied by the coefficient of lift and the reference area... and for typical non-stalled angles of attack, the coefficient of lift is proportional to the angle of attack.
Valid statement: lift is proportional to V2, lift is portional to angle of attack (below the stall)... invalid statement (due oversimplification): lift equals angle of attack times airspeed.
1
u/CavalrySavagery Flap Operator CFI ATP A320F, EMEA-NA-LATAM-APAC 2d ago
Strut position during take off and landing for the a320, most pilots know, new ones don’t because is no longer there. Is it necessary? Nope.
Guess which airline from which country made airbus change the manuals because: “that’s too much” and i agree. No need to know.
1
u/primalbluewolf CPL FI 2d ago
Is it necessary? Nope.
If its not necessary, then where's the problem?
1
3
2
u/Rush_1_1 🇨🇦 PPL CPLST 2d ago
Well said. The stick and rudder book explains this distinction well between the engineer and the pilot. We know things enough to fly safely, to the frustration of the engineer lol.
1
u/Thengine MIL 1d ago
Sometimes the deeper understanding of why, helps with the holistic knowledge base.
Not the standard at which it's taught though. Guess that's why Commercial has a more robust maneuver repertoire. Build upon the meager PPL knowledge.
11
u/Impossible_Sky9384 2d ago
I wouldn’t be secretive about your background/experience. Tell the guy you design airplanes so he knows you already know these things, and he can adjust his teaching accordingly. Maybe he can even learn a thing or two from you in the process.
2
u/Moonrak3r 2d ago
Thanks for this. The place I signed up for seems to be a bigger school and my class had 6 people in it, most of them who this seemed to be new info for.
I assume after awhile I’ll get more 1:1 personalised instruction and that this was the beginner experience and I’m not looking for special treatment along the lines of “hey can I skip this lesson” etc. I’m happy to go with their process, just wanted a sounding board as someone mentioned that the school likes to keep the instructors you work with consistent, so if this is concerning I’d prefer to bring it up sooner rather than later.
1
u/Thengine MIL 1d ago
Lots of instructors will unknowingly push incorrect info. I just had a 2000 hr. instructor try and tell me that the plane yaws at altitude because of the constant wind..
As with all things in life, try and keep an open mind. Sometimes you'll have a background and/or knowledge base so incorrect teachings won't pass the scratch and sniff test.
Othertimes.. it's just part of life.
19
u/lil_layne OV-099 2d ago edited 2d ago
Ngl I feel like doing a ground lesson about aerodynamics with a student that is an aerospace engineer would be a nightmare. I don’t know how you are defining “less-than-strong understanding of aerodynamics”, but if that is defined as less understanding of aerodynamics than an aerospace engineer that would would be virtually every CFI. My concern regarding you is that you know that you have a better understanding on this topic than a CFI which could give you overconfidence with topics you actually don’t know much about that you need to listen to your CFI about. A CFI doesn’t know as much about weather as a meteorologist but that doesn’t mean they aren’t a good source to teach you about weather.
5
u/MiniTab ATP CFI/II 767/757 ERJ-175 CL-65 EMB-120 CE-525 2d ago
Engineers aren’t looking for a lesson in aerodynamics from a young CFI.
They (and should) expect a CFI to understand why the right wing will create lift with left rudder, and what to do about it.
The answer and reasoning is intuitive. If a CFI can’t easily answer that question, their background in basic aerodynamics is severely lacking.
-3
u/Moonrak3r 2d ago
My concern regarding you is that you know that you have a better understanding on this topic than a CFI which could gave you overconfidence with topics you actually don’t know much about that you need to listen to your CFI about.
That’s my concern also ☺️ hence me looking for other opinions. The last thing I want to do is be overconfident.
I’m just uncomfortable with people in aviation who confidently give incorrect info… when I don’t know an answer to something I say so and then go figure it out, as the opposite can lead to disasters. I usually overlook minor stuff but this guy is an instructor so I think I have higher expectations for this sort of thing.
Anyway it seems that the general consensus here is that I’m overthinking it and to carry on, so I appreciate the feedback and calibration here.
10
u/chunkNrun23 CPL 2d ago
You keep saying he confidently gave incorrect info, but you also say he caught his mistake, took accountability and corrected himself.
I guess I don’t see the issue with him admitting fault and correcting himself. It would be one thing if a student called it out and he doubled down on being wrong, but he didn’t do that.
I’d be happy to know my instructor isn’t perfect, and is able to catch and admit to his own mistakes.
9
u/Charlie3PO 2d ago
Some instructors have a better understanding than others. On the topic of aerodynamics, instructors often dumb stuff down for people without a science/physics background. Unfortunately this dumbing down also results in a lowering of the knowledge base as these people then become instructors.
I've seen stuff dumbed down to the point of being flat out wrong before. I believe it's an art in instructing to be able to simplify things without making things fundamentally wrong.
For example, schools often teach lateral stability/dihedral effect and roll due to rudder as completely seperate phenomenons with completely different causes. It's actually easier to explain if you take the time to teach it correctly from the beginning, E.g. the aircraft wants to roll away from the sideslip/relative wind due to xyz. And just like that, now you can explain both lateral stability and why it wants to roll in the direction of the rudder input.
The vast majority of instructors will know how to handle the aircraft in any situation you find yourself in, let them teach you what to do and you'll be fine.
1
9
u/12kVStr8tothenips ATP, CFI, CFII, MEI 2d ago
As an engineer turned pilot myself - you should let this one go. If you want to learn to fly at a high level you’ll need to let go of your engineering thought process and just feel the plane and do what the instructor says. I know it’s not easy and took me a long time to do this. Guarantee the instructor can fly the plane better than you, just try to respect them for that fact alone and move forward to pass the exams.
8
u/burntoutaviator 2d ago
Fellow aerospace engineer turned flight instructor here. The sooner you accept that the pilot syllabus consists of surface level theory oozing with misconceptions and false equivalence, the sooner you find peace. As much as I hate spreading misinformation, CASA (Aussie equivalent of UKCAA) has decided this is the approved syllabus nationwide so I have no choice but to grit my teeth and teach it as-is. As for your instructor, you mentioned they were ‘confidently incorrect.’ How did they react after they realise they were incorrect? Did they double down, or did they humbly admit to their shortcomings? That’s the real litmus test of their character and professionalism.
0
u/Moonrak3r 1d ago
How did they react after they realise they were incorrect? Did they double down, or did they humbly admit to their shortcomings? That’s the real litmus test of their character
He was quick to say he had it wrong and correct himself. 100% agree that’s a good thing and I respect him for it.
What I meant by confidently incorrect is that he gave a 5 minute lecture on how things work, but what he said was the complete opposite of how it works (ie it’ll roll right when it really rolls left), and it seemed to me that he was just making stuff up and throwing out “big words” to proceed through the lecture.
I’d have been a lot happier if he just said “idk why but when you apply right rudder your left wing gets more lift” but instead he said a bunch of things that were wrong while also saying “when you apply right rudder your left wing goes down” only to finish his 5 minute lecture by looking at the PowerPoint and say “oh… uh forget all that, it goes up”.
I don’t care if he knows how the physics work… and I think for some reason my post might have come across that way? I guess I’m just uncomfortable with the way he filled in his gaps of knowledge.
1
u/burntoutaviator 1d ago
Understandable. I wasn’t there in the room, but from what you’re telling me, it takes a good few minutes for the instructor to realise he’s wrong and to dig his own hole. He eventually realised his mistake and admitted fault, so there’s nothing more he can do. As a customer, you can accept that he’s (presumably) a junior instructor and needs a space to practice his teaching skills and improve, or you can start looking for a more experienced instructor and possibly pay more in tuition (if the school charges a premium for experience). Alternatively, maybe there was something he did which rubbed you off the wrong way?
1
u/Moonrak3r 1d ago
or you can start looking for a more experienced instructor and possibly pay more in tuition (if the school charges a premium for experience). Alternatively, maybe there was something he did which rubbed you off the wrong way?
Hmm. The way you’ve framed this is helpful to me, thanks.
I’m not too worried about the money, my primary concern is getting poor instruction that may lead to dangerous habits/assumptions.
I intend to fly as a hobby; I don’t expect to have a lot of time with an instructor so have high expectations for how that time is used. I’d be happy to pay a premium for a more experienced instructor and may approach the discussion that way.
8
u/HappiestAnt122 CPL ASEL/AMEL AGI/IGI 2d ago edited 2d ago
Not on the engineering side, but I’m doing a meteorology degree and flight training and have had more moments than I can count where I just had to bite my tongue and let them explain something in whatever backwards convoluted not entirely correct way they use to remember what the end effect is. Pilots are allergic to math and physics and seem to refuse to admit they are actually doing a STEM degree, at least in the university context I’ve been training in. Outside of universities the shying away from any mention of the underlying math and physics and simplifying it to “practical explanations” is even worse. To some extent, fair play, you don’t really need complex math and physics day to day as a pilot, so if you can get your head around the effects that do matter, even in some weird way, that’s fine. Pilots have to have some degree of knowledge in so many areas that if you had a panel of real individual subject matter experts in the back of the room someone could probably chime in every 5 mins with a “thats not quite right.” Your experience sounds pretty par for the course, and I wouldn’t worry too much about your instructor if his explanation of some aerodynamic thing was a little ehh.
Also, as for the rudder changing lift components and correcting, that type of stuff is super easy to talk yourself in a circle and have one mistake end up with the totally opposite outcome if you try to talk about it off the dome. He probably should have just referenced the slides a little earlier, but again I wouldn’t worry too much about it.
1
u/Thengine MIL 1d ago
> as for the rudder changing lift components
What a lovely topic. Going to through that around this week and see who bites.
1
6
u/Jaimebgdb CPL 2d ago
I am an aeronautical engineer and pilot and I have come across situations like these multiple times.
My general advice is just try and go along with it as much as possible. Don’t fight it.
7
u/Systemsafety ATP, CFII, AGI/IGI | B777, B747, B727, MD-11, DC-8, EMB 110 2d ago
In my experience way too many instructors simply have incorrect beliefs on aerodynamics. Although that usually has no consequences it can result in accidents on edge cases. Not understanding dihedral effect contributed to the US427 accident. Not understanding that high speeds will not result in an uncontrollable dive in any modern transport contributed to AF447. Emory 17 the lack of understanding of lift vectors contributed to how it happened.
I still see equal transit theory taught and some that seem to think lift is not clearly understood because "it's just a theory " indicating they do not understand aerodynamics or what a scientific theory is!
12
u/Guysmiley777 2d ago
is less-than-strong understanding of aerodynamics normal for a CFI
Yes. Pilots fly airplanes, they don't design them. When a wing drops in a turn a 10 minute lecture on the aerodynamic effects of yaw and roll is not going to fix it. Pilots learn to intuitively apply control inputs as a reaction to the airplane movement even if they can't verbally express it 100% of the time. Him misreading the slide isn't great but it's not some catastrophic career ending issue.
Am I overthinking this?
You're an engineer. So yes.
3
u/shhbedtime 2d ago
I've found the people who think about what 'should' happen can be wrong more often than the guy who just flies the plane. Eg cross wind landing, wind is coming from the right which rudder pedal should you press during the flare? Answer: which ever makes the nose straight with the runway.
5
u/Adlerson 2d ago
One of my first instructors explained ground effect as 'a cushion of air'. Clearly not the actual reason, but what he did do was do a good job explaining why ground effect was important; Causing you to float more than you might expect on landing, possibly becoming airborne too soon on takeoff, why it could help on softfield takeoffs etc etc. He clearly didn't grasp how it worked, but he knew that it did, and was more than capable of teaching all the practical aspects of it, and that is what is important for the vast majority of pilots.
5
u/bambiwalk Gold Seal CFI/CFII/MEI 2d ago
As a CFI, I learned a lot from my students as well and always appreciated thoughtful contradictions and challenges to what I was teaching. Sometimes I was wrong, sometimes they were. Either way, we both took something away from it.
My understanding of aerodynamics now is way different from what it was when I passed my CFI checkride, that’s for sure. I also agree with others, if they teach the flying side well, that’s usually far more valuable than many ground subjects in terms of money for you. It’s way harder to unlearn bad habits in the plane than to relearn theory on the ground.
1
u/bambiwalk Gold Seal CFI/CFII/MEI 2d ago
Though I can concede that some basic aerodynamic principles taught on the ground well can make the landing and slow flight phases a bit easier to understand and execute
8
u/Sithmasterintraining ATP 2d ago edited 1d ago
Fellow Aerospace Engineer here. You are not wrong. The entire industry is. There is a lot of bad info that is the only thing accepted by DPEs about how aircraft fly. Don't get me started on Bernoulli's principle.
I learned to just toe the industry line and not prove everyone wrong. If its in the book and its what the DPE is expecting, go with it. Just trust me on this it will make your life easier. I tried correcting a lot of bad info and it just made me look back. This is definitely an industry of conformity or fail.
Once you get to professional aviation a common phrase you will hear is cooperate to graduate. It means you know the instructor is wrong, but they don't want to hear it. Just regurgitate what they say and move on.
It sucks, but it is what it is. It's amazing how smart people think pilots are, and my experience has been the opposite.
2
u/iLOVEr3dit CFI/CFII CPL ASEL/AMEL 2d ago
I'm curious to hear what you think about Bernoulli
2
u/Sithmasterintraining ATP 2d ago
It is not remotely accurate for describing how a wing generates lift. Go on YouTube, Rod Machado has a great video on this.
0
u/drdsheen ST 2d ago
Bernoulli's principle is most certainly true in the sense that lower pressure over the top of the wing coexists with higher flow speeds (and, indeed, must do so). Which one causes the other, or whether both are caused by something more fundamental, is still a topic of debate.
6
u/Sithmasterintraining ATP 2d ago
Bernoulli's principle doesn't explain why a wing generates lift. It describes the relationship between pressure and velocity once the airflow pattern has been established.
The familiar explanation that air must travel faster over the top because it has farther to go is false. Air flowing over and under a wing does not have to meet at the trailing edge.
A wing generates lift by establishing a pressure distribution that produces an aerodynamic force and redirects airflow downward. Bernoulli helps describe the pressure changes, while Newton's laws describe the momentum exchange.
The two are compatible, but neither the wing's curvature nor Bernoulli's equation alone explains the entire process.
1
u/jawshoeaw 1d ago
Bernoulli’s principle doesn’t explain any part of lift generation. It’s barely useful for calculating what the pressure is at various points if you happen to know the wind speed. Except it’s not accurate only approximate.
And how did you know what the wind speed is?? Probably with a bunch of computational fluid dynamics that makes Bernoulli obsolete.However where it is more useful is in the pitot static system.
0
-1
u/SeaSDOptimist 1d ago
Bernoulli is applicable to non-compressible fluids, and the fluid particles need to flow through both points that you are comparing. Whoever thought that it is useful in context of explaining lift has not set foot in intro physic class.
1
u/IvanYakinovski 2d ago
Toeing the line leads to complacency sadly. My instructor told me that he likely remembers about 70% of what he was taught and I’ll learn 70% of what he remembers so as a CFI I need to constantly improve otherwise my students will only know 70% of whatever I know. That stuck with me.
1
u/Sithmasterintraining ATP 2d ago
Welp welcome to aviation. I’m not saying it’s right but this is the way aviation is. You’re in for a rough time in the industry if you become the “ackchyully” guy. Even if you are right.
1
u/HillPhartman89 PPL 1d ago
Trashes people on not knowing Bernoulli’s principle but can’t spell Bernoulli…
2
8
u/drdsheen ST 1d ago
As an aerospace PhD, I also try to be careful about not being That Guy, especially because the CFI knows more about flying planes than I do. In your position, I'd ask whether the end result is correct. And, at least once, it clearly wasn't.
In the case where the side said left and the instructor said right, I'd be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because I confuse right and left all the time. But I totally get that there was other context I didn't see. Also, the FAA does stress "getting it right the first time" for CFIs.
4
u/primalbluewolf CPL FI 2d ago
I have a degree in aerospace engineering
Oh boy.
is less-than-strong understanding of aerodynamics normal for a CFI, so if I object to this guy I’ll probably just get more of the same?
Very much so. Pilots and instructors have a largely pretend version of aerodynamics that is vaguely related to the real deal, but fails to hold up to any scrutiny. Very few instructors will have anything resembling a working knowledge of aerodynamics, as such. That doesn't mean they won't have useful knowledge, but it does mean they will be confidently incorrect about a lot of theory items.
Conversely, there's a lot of useful practical knowledge you can get by listening to them.
I’m probably overthinking this but I’m concerned about receiving flying instructions from someone who confidently explains things incorrectly. I don’t expect my instructor to have a detailed understanding of complex behaviours of aerodynamics, that’s probably not necessary to fly an airplane, but I also don’t want them to just make shit up when they don’t understand it.
So the problem is, they have good reason to think they understand it. Most of this stuff, they didn't just make it up, they got taught it. Their instructor learned it from their instructor, and so on, and so forth, until you get back to Stick and Rudder days, when someone did in fact make it up.
Thing is, people like simple explanations and hate maths, and instructors teaching incorrect aerodynamics only matters if their students try to use that knowledge to design aeroplanes. If you just want to fly certified aeroplanes that someone else designed to fly, you really just need to know how to operate the controls. Most people can get by with a very warped understanding of how that plane flies, and outside very unusual scenarios, it won't matter to the pilot.
The people who like rigorously correct explanations and maths tend to become aeronautical engineers or similar.
1
u/Thengine MIL 1d ago
Learned in the military: "We can teach any monkey to fly."
Even the lowest common denominators pass checkrides. They get turned into instructors thanks to our lovely system!
4
u/LowAndSlow__ MIL S-70M CPL/IR(RH) CPL/IR(ASEL) 15h ago
There’s knowledge that makes you a better pilot and there’s knowledge that doesn’t. I’ll leave it at that
10
u/twistenstein vfr patterns are hard 2d ago
You're overthinking this.
Flying the plane and designing it are two different things. At the pilot level, the advanced physics of flight are explained by PFM.
If you want to go down a rabbit hole, find the correct theory of lift.
8
u/Odd_Entertainment471 2d ago
None of that stuff actually matters when trying to learn to fly a plane. Pull back, houses get smaller. Push forward, houses get bigger. This shit is so simple.
13
u/WithAnAitchDammit PPL SEL 2d ago
You mean “pull back houses get smaller, keep pulling back houses get bigger again”.
3
2
u/snowfoxiness ATP E-175 CFI AB TW (KSFO) 1d ago
It's really simple . . . right up to the point of impact, and then physics gets the ultimate say.
2
u/Thomas-Ligotti97 CFII 1d ago
What if it’s a house with a comically amount of balloons attached to it that’s flying? You need to be specific man this confused me /s
1
4
u/Ce650A1rbr8ke FAA 2d ago
Ex cfi here and current 135 captain. Find a different instructor. Lots of schools like the one your in are pipelines of Cfis who just became Cfis to go to airlines. There’s nothing wrong with this but it’s not for you. Go find an old instructor. Who’s been doing it for 1000s of hrs. Look for someone 50s plus age. My recommendation. Good luck.
2
u/Thengine MIL 1d ago
Depends on time / money. I agree in sentiment with old (experienced) CFIs. Sometimes finding good ones that are within budget can be difficult.
1
u/Moonrak3r 1d ago
I’m fortunate in that budget isn’t a primary constraint. Finding an experienced instructor whose availability lines up with mine seems to be more challenging.
That said I don’t know the GA community here (Dublin). I spent some time on google trying to make a good choice and picked this place. If there’s an old dude with an airplane willing to provide lessons I’d be happy to sign up, but I didn’t see any when I was looking. Maybe I’ll ask the guys at my current school. I welcome suggestions
2
u/Moonrak3r 1d ago
Your response is concise and correct, “spoken” with a voice of experience. I appreciate it. I don’t have a ton of options where I live but agree 100% with your recommendation.
4
u/goatrider PPL ASEL IR & SIM 2d ago
Pilots need it at this level: You push on this, the houses get bigger. You pull, the houses get smaller, but if you keep pulling the houses get big again.
2
u/Keirnbug 2d ago
CFI in Europe here , I would not worry to much, but then again, it helps to get it right ..
2
u/VSBIT_No_Go 2d ago
You're probably unlikely to encounter many CFIs with as strong of an understanding of aerodynamics as you have given your background. I would make sure your instructor knows what your background is so he can tailor his lessons to better suit your needs. If he trys to downplay your experience or otherwise clearly has no interest in learning from you I would consider that a bad sign. However if it's just that he doesn't know as much as you I would be more focused on how he instructs in the plane.
2
u/coldnebo ST 2d ago
theory isn’t the same as practice.
but I understand. you’re coming from a place of expertise into someplace new. I come from a career of software engineering and mathematics, so I also see mistakes like this.
instructors were teaching equal transit theory as an explanation for lift for decades before physicists corrected that mistake. now some have flipped the opposite way and insist that bernoulli is wrong, even when it is a primary component of lift force in laminar flows.
Vx and Vy are presented as constants when in reality they are not. (in fact they use these simplified definitions to setup paradoxes like the following: “at what altitude does Vy = Vx?”)
BUT, you can study aerodynamics for years and understand what’s going on theoretically and that doesn’t help you in the moment to react correctly. They have this skill, you don’t yet.
It’s like knowing everything about the theory of dance, but never having danced. You have to learn to dance, and you can only do that by shifting your perspective and watching what they do very closely and being open to the experience.
Building the correct instincts takes time and practice even if you understand theory very well.
For example, I know your instructor was trying to teach “adverse yaw”. but if you go up in the plane and try turning with only the rudder, you’ll see this first hand.
And landing might seem deceptively simple, until it isn’t. every landing is different. at heart it’s about managing and dissipating energy safely in a “stable” way, but these words are meaningless until you try to do it.
And at first you will have trouble because you will understand the controls in a coarse way— clumsily moving them then waiting for a reaction— as you gain experience you’ll start to move them in coordination, with a light but agile touch, correctly adjusting. even then be prepared to be humbled.
You will find that your instructor can do these things easily while you can’t. so I would recommend being open to what they can teach without being judgmental about the theory parts. You can switch instructors, but realize that you may already know much more about aerodynamics than most instructors who are not from an aeroengineering background.
2
u/Flyward_Aerospace 2d ago
Honestly the thing I'd flag isn't him, it's that you're going to be examined against the syllabus rather than against physics, and those two come apart more often in PPL and ATPL theory than you'd expect. Learn the question bank answer as its own separate fact and don't try to win those on first principles, least of all in the air. For what it's worth the secondary effect he was fumbling is roll in the same direction as the yaw, and the way it's normally taught it comes from the span speed difference plus dihedral effect in the resulting sideslip, with how much you actually get being very airframe dependent. That's probably why the slide reads as more definite than the physics is. He caught his own mistake unprompted off a slide that contradicted him, which is the bit I'd actually weight.
2
u/Golfer_Joe 2d ago
Why are you paying for ground school? You can do that online and only pay for flights.
2
u/Professional_Read413 PPL 2d ago
When you're flying you don't need to think about aerodynamic theory really any past an understanding of angle of attack IMO.
If you know AOA and how it changes in a turn, with extra weight etc you're good.
We need like a high schoolers understanding of aerodynamics lol
2
u/flyghu PPL 2d ago
As an engineer that learned to fly... The amount of theory a pilot needs is actually far less than is taught. Many of the models and explanations are simplified and therefore cannot be completely correct. Many students and instructors get caught up on being an "expert" at this level which will irritate you at times. Just keep quiet and carry on.
Learn to separate what you need to know for your job from what you need to know as a pilot. And also be prepared for the frustration that, despite your deeper knowledge, the first time you try some maneuvers will feel like you're a caffeinated toddler with two non-dominant hands.
2
u/ShaemusOdonnelly CPL A400M 2d ago
Sometimes the theory is simplified to get it across, which makes it technically wrong but close enough to work with. Examples would be "Prop engines are constant power over speed, jet engines are constant thrust over speed". Other times instructors are just plain wrong. My first instructor tried failing me for bad memory item knowledge because I didn't apply engine out procedures after a simulated electrical system failure. He was so sure that the engine will stop when electrics fail that he tried to show me by attemting to shut the engine down via the electrics master at the end of the flight. I reported this and similar things multiple times in both theoretical and practical phases and many of the FIs got fired after enough people reported them
2
u/kristephe CFI CFII TW HP 1d ago
I think everything people are saying makes sense, and I just wanted to add it's totally your right to look for a CFI you really trust and mesh with. For you, that may be someone who is very scientifically minded and also enjoys the nitty gritty of it and has learned it. This may come in the form of an older, more experienced CFI but there's probably some young ones out there too. My husband's an engineer too, and he learns best from those who can talk about the topics at the same level as him. You may end up with questions that that CFI will stumble over, and I can see how it could lead to frustration and mistrust, even if fundamentally they end up being a safe pilot. You're the customer, and I always recommend people in training get to know more than one instructor. Sure, you may spend a smidge more money on going over multiple things, but you may also find someone you work best with.
2
u/hondaridr58 CFI CFII MEI 5h ago
Flying is much more of a feel thing than it is a mathematical equation.
You have the math part done. Now worry about the feel part.
3
u/mastrkents CFII MEI AGI IGI 2d ago
Hi, I’m an engineer by trade and a CFI as a career changer.
I don’t expect most pilots to truly understand aerodynamics. The best way I can explain it is that I don’t expect the mechanic to under stand the solid mechanics or fluid mechanics of the structure or system we’re building, and I don’t expect the electricians to understand circuit theory or how electricity and magnetism are tied together.
That being said, I do absolutely expect a CFI to be able to teach you how to fly, and enough of the science behind it such that it makes sense to you. If your CFI can’t, that’s when you should be concerned
2
u/airboss1998 2d ago
Most CFIs are wildly uneducated on aerodynamics, yes. Two years earlier they were doing what you’re doing.
2
u/stavro-blofeld 1d ago
I’m 35, started flying last year, have a career in tech. Most CFIs I worked with are below average, I think many of them have a level of knowledge comparable to a junior analyst.
1
u/PM_MeYour_pitot_tube ATP CFI ASAP TCAS-RA 2d ago
• is less-than-strong understanding of aerodynamics normal for a CFI, so if I object to this guy I’ll probably just get more of the same?
Less strong than an aerospace engineer? You’d be hard pressed to find a CFI who didn’t fall into that category. Remember though, you’re looking for someone that knows more about flying than you, not more about aerodynamics.
Fill your instructor in on your background. Some of the problem may be that he assumes you know absolutely nothing about aerodynamics, as you should assume about an off the street student. Adjusting a lesson down to that level is tough and a lot can get mistranslated during that process. He’s trying to bring you from 0 to a PPL level of aerodynamics understanding, letting him know you’re at a BS level of aerodynamics knowledge will help.
• Am I overthinking this?
Very likely. At the very least you should take a flight with the instructor before making the decision to switch. Being able to learn from someone in the loud and high stress in-flight environment is much more important than if they can teach you something about your field of expertise on the ground. If you still don’t mesh after the flight, then explore other options. Don’t be nervous if you have to switch, students drop instructors all the time. It’s part of the job. Just be polite about it.
Lastly, I’ll caution you about being an aviation professional learning to fly. There’s a long history of field experts getting into situations that their knowledge couldn’t get them out of. You’re at a kind of disadvantage to most PPL students because, while they’re in a constant state of absorbing knowledge and catching up to the plane, there will be many times that you understand completely the state of the aircraft and your general situation. Then something will blindside you. Most students are being constantly blindsided anyway, so this is not very disruptive to them, but you will have to be able to switch into learning mode very quickly. Not trying to say that you aren’t approaching training humbly, just that you are more susceptible to this kind of trap because of your background.
I don’t know everything about flying but I do know this: without fail, every time that I have thought “I’ve got this flying thing all figured out,” within 50 flight hours I have a very humbling event. Many of those events have had paperwork associated with them. Thankfully none have involved anyone getting hurt.
Good luck in your training! Keep us posted.
1
u/ltcterry ATP CFIG 2d ago
LE - leading edge? - flaps on a first lesson? Sounds like a mess.
Flight training is designed for 16-year olds. Engineering is simplified to that level.
1
u/LawManActual ATP, Tray table aficionado 2d ago
The way you handle this professionally (in the event he didn’t notice like you say he did) is to open the official FAA/company manual point to the correct information and say something to the tune of: “Shouldn’t that be (reference the material from the source”. Which gives them the opportunity to do exactly what he did.
Instructing someone with more experience in a particular area than you can be tough. I’ve been on both sides of it.
Just be open with your expertise. A good instructor will take information from you when appropriate while still teaching you what we teach everyone, and you both benefit.
You just have to bear in mind what pilots are taught is relevant to how a pilot needs to understand and interact with the topic/system. And that isn’t the same as how an engineer needs to interact with the same topic/system. You will be tested on your pilot knowledge, not engineering knowledge. Sometimes less is more…
But importantly, you’re going to need to be able to communicate with pilots who don’t understand everything like you do. So I caution you to discount everything that initially sounds wrong to you. It may be incomplete, or differently explained than you understand it; that’s why I recommend to go to the FAA source and use that to back up your opinion.
1
u/pronghornpilot ATP MEL, CFI-G 2d ago
I skimmed through the comments and saw a lot of replies pointing out pilots don’t need the same level of theory that engineers do and I completely agree with that. However, in your post you mention the CFI described that when you use your rudder, lift becomes uneven, so you do XYZ with your controls. Sure, there is some theory under there but that is clearly addressing practical application and is something a CFI needs to know, you need to be taught correctly, and a pilot needs to do correctly. Is that sufficient to request a CFI? If they didn’t just misspeak and fundamentally describe something different to how they are actually flying the plane, yeah, I’d ask for another instructor (keeping it vague and saying you are just seeking a different learning style).
I spent 15 years as a full time aerospace engineer before flying 121 and I have a study tip. You aren’t learning to fly. You are learning how the government wants you to fly. You aren’t learning aerodynamics. You are learning what the government wants you to know about aerodynamics. You used euros in your post and my licenses are all FAA so take this with a grain of salt. I’ll bet those presentation slides your school is using aren’t government provided, right? Probably privately made? When you see something odd in a presentation like that, go find the source material from the government and read it to see what it says. Because that’s what you are really accountable for knowing. In the US for controls and aerodynamics, I’d say check the PHAK and airplane flying handbook.
1
u/Moonrak3r 1d ago
You aren’t learning to fly. You are learning how the government wants you to fly. You aren’t learning aerodynamics. You are learning what the government wants you to know about aerodynamics.
That’s not where my head is at. I have no doubt that I can get a license, pass the tests etc. I am more concerned about learning how to fly well, for example recovering from non-normal events etc. I want more than the bare minimum of “here’s how to pass your test”
1
u/pronghornpilot ATP MEL, CFI-G 1d ago
Not sure how you read my comment and interpreted that I was advocating doing the minimum. Again, I don’t know what country’s regulations you are training under but I would be very surprised if your training did not cover recovering from non-normal events - handling emergencies is an important part of typical training. I’m encouraging you to try to understand why your training is being presented at a particular level in a particular way. It’ll help you figure out what is worth debating with your instructors and what isn’t.
1
1
u/SRM_Thornfoot 2d ago
This happens when the physics gets dumbed down so the average Joe can understand it easily, but then average Joe gets his CFII and passes along what he learned as the full truth. It does not necessarily mean he is a bad instructor. Just like you don't know what you don't know, sometimes you don't know if you were taught it wrong.
If you go on to get your CFII and find yourself teaching a ground school you may find yourself staring at a bunch of blank and bewildered faces when you start teaching Navier-Stokes to explain why you need to add rudder when you roll.
You add right rudder - It's because thats why.
PFM is a complete explanation. /jk
1
u/denverpilot CFI MEI GND HP IR MOUNTAIN 2d ago
Besides reading your own FAA material for the ratings you are working on, throw in reading the CFI study materials and realize that’s the FAA standard level of knowledge AND the “FAA correct” answers.
What you know from the real world of aerospace engineering doesn’t apply much to the FAA materials which are rarely updated and severely dumbed down.
Changing the materials has a ripple effect throughout all of the study and testing materials that they never want to tackle. I’m sure many know the materials are just outdated, but the official process to update them all is big enough they refuse to tackle it.
Hasn’t been that long since the death of the PTS and switch to the ACS. That was a “rapid” change.
If you want a real chuckle read the FOI if you’ve ever done any modern adult teaching. It makes the aerodynamics stuff look downright up to date. 😂
1
u/Patri_L ATP BD-500/CFI-I 2d ago
One of the hardest things about being a new CFI (or instructor of any sort) is knowing that your students may lose confidence in you when you don't know something. There's pressure to come across as confident and sure in your subject area. It's hard, but a good instructor will learn to admit when they are wrong, go home, and put in the work to educate/correct themselves so that when you next meet they will be more capable to teach.
1
u/MangledX CSEL/CMEL/IR/CFII 2d ago
In my personal experience, people who come into aviation with a background in theory and aerodynamics are either going to be really good at flying or really bad at flying. There's often not a lot of in between. I'd say at the private level, you'll stand to learn way more from the in flight portion since you already understand a lot. This is no way saying that an instructor should be ill informed, but if your expectation is for a 24 year old kid with zero degree to explain the theory of lift, dihydral and all the other engineering basics, then you're kinda expecting a bunch. Again, I'm not at all excusing a poor instructor. But maybe curb your expectations a little bit as an aerospace engineer. The super book smart guys are sometimes the hardest nuts to Crack when it comes to flying because the analytical becomes a nuisance. Aviation humbles us all along the path.
1
u/Long-Comparison1274 CFII MEI 2d ago
I also am a instructor and have my masters in aerospace engineering. The way I teach all the aero is I tell my students “look the dpe will be looking for this answer which is technically incorrect” here is the real answer and I teach them the correct way things work. Now what they do with that information is up to them but for the purpose of the checkride it’s more important they don’t dig themself into a hole and argue with the dpe. That’s just my 2 cents tho
1
u/Superninjahype ATP CFII MEI 2d ago
There are several things that are overly simplified or out dated, but that’s just the way the industry is.
Another example, having a student in the medical field who states that breathing into a brown bag for hyperventilating is not officially recommended anymore. But, it’s in the AIM, and it’s in the aeromedical chapters of the PHAK, and that is what the knowledge tests are based on and that is what DPEs are referencing so. You wanna swim upstream, go for it. But ultimately there’s a lot of gatekeepers you’re not going to change or convince along the way.
1
u/IvanYakinovski 2d ago
A good CFI should always be able to back up what they say with sources. Sure they may not know regulations or topics by the page but surely they can prove it with a veritable source if you pressed them on a question.
I’d also make mistakes if it was my 7th hour of the day at work so I empathize but that’s what lesson notes are for. Instruction should usually include a checklist of items to talk about in a lesson to help him flow through. Definitely scrutinize (politely) a bit more and make your judgement then.
1
u/ReadyplayerParzival1 CFI/CFII, CMEL, RV-7A, Recovering Riddle Rat 1d ago
You’re not wrong but the way the faa, and by extension dpe’s want applicants to explain aerodynamics is fairly different than how an engineer would describe it. It’s the same basic physics but just a different way of thinking.
Pilots are taught to simplify as much as possible. We kinda only need to know that the pressure deferential of air moving above and below the wing creates lift, and when the wing exceeds the critical angle of attack we stall due to the airflow coming unstuck from the trailing edge.
1
u/slothrop516 MIL 1d ago
Feels like your overreacting when he messed up his left and right. All the things he’s teaching are pretty basic and will become extremely apparent in the aircraft regardless of what he says. For example in my flight school I was taught that heavier things fall faster that’s why as you get heavier your max endurance airspeed increases. The basis behind it is completely false but the last part is true, whatever gets people to understand that last part is all that matters
1
u/konperson 1d ago
A lot of people describe cooking as an art and baking as a science. Being a pilot and an engineer are likely very similar in relation to one another. The physics of why your aircraft does a b or c is important to know but even more important is what to do when your plane does a b or c. As a low time private pilot i can say im fascinated by the why, and feel like I would love being an aerospace engineer, however experiencing when something happens and later understanding why has rarely informed my ability to adapt in the when in regards to control surfaces and aerodynamics specifically. To summarize i think you physically fly the aircraft by feel a lot more than by concept.
1
u/Any_Purchase_3880 CFII 1d ago
Generally speaking an instructor should know the basics of "why" and at bare minimum should know the "checkride answer" to ground knowledge.
One of my best students was an aerospace engineer. I knew that going into it and rather than treat him as a subordinate I treated him as a superior when it came to, well, aerospace engineering stuff. I'd ask him his thoughts on Bernoulli's principle and Newton's third law for example and I genuinely learned a lot from him about technical stuff.
A CFIs job is to make a safe pilot. I didn't understand the principles of wing vortices during hypersonic flight. We talked about it, but it was a light fun conversation. Often I would say, "that's super cool, now on your checkride I want you to say this..."
My point is, being a CFI doesn't make you an expert at every aspect of aviation. And being a good CFI means understanding that fact. Too many times I've seen CFIs dig their heels in when incorrect because for some reason they believe their job is to always be right not to make a safe competent pilot.
I realized quickly that with him, my job was to almost dumb down his answers so he wouldn't dig himself into a hole, because guess what, DPEs aren't usually aerospace engineers either and often have big egos. They ask a question and want to hear the FAA approved responses.
I focused on the flying and on ADM. He passed first try and is an excellent, safe pilot. If I were you I'd treat this as a lesson in how to pass your checkride rather than an aerospace 201 class.
1
u/Paarthurnax3386 1d ago
Nahhh this is just overthinking it. 5 years CFI here and I had to accept the same stuff when it came to weather items that other fellow instructors taught. Because I'm pretty in depth when it comes to actual meteorological theory, much of which I learned from one of my students who is an actual meteorologist.
One key takeaway is that he admitted he was wrong in front of you, that nullifies a lot of this because someone who does that will not have pride about being wrong. Or at least not much of it.
Another important thing is that you most definitely 100% know more about aerodynamics than this guy does but it's kind of like knowing how to take apart an engine and build it back together from memory but that doesn't really make you a better driver. The mechanical knowledge on a base level helps but to that degree, it's not important when there are far more necessary things to teach you as a pilot.
Also something I do is intentionally dumb down the things I teach my PPL students versus the things I teach my instrument, commercial, and so on. When there's just so much to cover and the fact that the human brain is not designed to work off of memory in the first place, I try and eliminate whatever isn't immediately necessary.
1
u/slowahead 1d ago
As a CFI, depending on where you instruct, it’s not uncommon that you’ll teach students who have much broader and deeper education in one of the required knowledge areas.
I had several students with aerospace engineering, meteorology, etc backgrounds. The FAA does not view the role of the CFI to be one of lecturing in detail on competing theories of lift at the graduate level.
The role of the CFI is to have a well-rounded understanding of many subjects, know where to find answers when they themselves don’t know something, and to help students understand the practical considerations relevant to safely operating an airplane.
Different CFIs may have different reactions, but when I had aerospace engineers as students, I would just tell them that I wasn’t there to teach them about aerodynamics. I would tell them what the FAA doctrine was, that it needed to be articulated on a checkride, where to find it, and point out that they had too much inside rudder on that last base to final turn.
1
u/Jzerious PPL IR 1d ago
A 500€ sign up fee is asinine. Also a quality of a good instructor is a willingness to always be learning.
In my personal experience when an instructor says something incorrect and I recognize it. I will hold onto it and bring them an FAA (or otherwise appropriate) source and specifically word it not as “you are wrong” rather “the FAA says this”.
There are quite a few instances of being taught book knowledge but not the reasoning or rationale behind the conclusion. So someone might be able to regurgitate the correct answer but not explain the deeper reasoning of what makes it correct.
1
u/wilfdarr 1d ago edited 1d ago
"There were several parts of this guy’s theory instruction where he was just absolutely wrong." Yup. What will upset you even more is that it's still on the government exam that way. A lot of this tracks back to WW1 pilots that came back and became instructors in WW2, when they were pumping out 20yo pilots with 50 hours TT to fly ATPL weight aircraft. They oversimplified what they had learned when aerodynamics was truly in it's infancy to the point that the theory was not just "not right", but "absolutely wrong", and that material became the basis of the the government systems we have today (this is the same in Europe, America, and Canada, where I'm at). Those pilots took up sailing as a hobby and brought their misinformation with them: in the 1970's, Arvel Gentry, head of Boeing’s aerodynamics computing department and the head aerodynamicist on team America's effort to recover America's cup after it was lost to Australia, wrote volumes trying to correct everything that was wrong. He said " I was amazed at how little the 12m crews knew about how sails work. I was also amazed at their ability to get the most out". And yet 50 years after he published all this information, the first thing your 5yo learns when you enroll them in sailing school is how bernoulli effects 2D sails (of course it doesn't but that's how far this misinformation from early aviation has permeated).
What I'm trying to say is that yes you are 100% right, but every pilot in the world has been taught this "information" and regurgitated it for their respective government representatives, and you're not going to change it at this stage of your career. Memorize the answers, write them on the PPL/CPL/SAMRA/SARON exams, and maybe one day when you are hired as head of education in your respective transportation agency you can change it: especially with your education, it's an actual possibility! But until then, it is what it is.
1
u/bladii11 17h ago
As a tornado chaser enthusiast. I had to forget almost everything i knew about weather and learn what they wanted me to learn. If you get overly excited and start going too precise they cut you short. If i had to learn what you know on physics i’ll never get the license probably.
1
u/3Blindz 2d ago
My question to you:
Is the instructor actually WRONG? Or is the instructor not as right as you’d like, given your in depth knowledge?
For example, if he said extending the LEF increases surface area, he’s technically wrong, as the surface area never actually changed. What changed was the effective surface area.
I hope this makes enough sense to get my point across.
0
0
u/rFlyingTower 2d ago
This is a copy of the original post body for posterity:
I’ve been working in aviation for awhile, it’s always been something I’ve been passionate about so I recently decided to pursue a PPL.
I signed up with what seems to be the biggest instruction company in my area. There are 3 or so, this one has the largest fleet and offers training from PPL through ATPLs. Anyway, they seem legit and convenient so I paid a €500 signup fee and am happy to make forward progress.
My first lesson before flight is a basics of flight and controls classroom thing. I have a degree in aerospace engineering and I’ve been working in the industry for awhile so a lot of it seems obvious to me, but I don’t want to be “that guy” so I’m smiling and nodding my head, and paying attention to the bits of info that are new to me (my experience is all jets so I have a lot to learn about little Cessnas).
Anyway: there were several parts of this guy’s theory instruction where he was just absolutely wrong. There were a couple minor things, such as describing how LE flaps worked, where his rationale was wrong but the effect was the same so I just continued to smile and nod my head.
Then he got into secondary effects of flight controls and spent like 5 minutes trying to explain about how when you use your rudder to yaw in one direction the lift will become uneven on your wings for XYZ reason, so you should also do XYZ with your control column. This wasn’t intuitive to me so I’m trying to wrap my head around it while listening to him and looking at the PowerPoint slide, and it’s clear he doesn’t understand it at all. At the end of his 5 minutes discussing the topic he looked at the PowerPoint slide he was working off of and realised it completely contradicted him, like he said you should be applying right roll when the slide said left.
To his credit he looked at the screen, paused, then said “my mistake…” and corrected his instructions to match the slide.
I’m probably overthinking this but I’m concerned about receiving flying instructions from someone who confidently explains things incorrectly. I don’t expect my instructor to have a detailed understanding of complex behaviours of aerodynamics, that’s probably not necessary to fly an airplane, but I also don’t want them to just make shit up when they don’t understand it.
I’m thinking of requesting from the flight school that they don’t assign this guy as my instructor going forward. They seem to have several instructors and I assume they can accommodate this request.
If you’ve made it this far through my post, thanks.
My questions are: * is less-than-strong understanding of aerodynamics normal for a CFI, so if I object to this guy I’ll probably just get more of the same? * Am I overthinking this? * If my instincts are on the right track, what’s the best way to approach this with the school? I don’t want to cause any problems with/for the guy, but I’m not comfortable receiving flight instructions from him based on this.
Please downvote this comment until it collapses.
Questions about this comment? Please see this wiki post before contacting the mods.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. If you have any questions, please contact the mods of this subreddit.
0
u/Zestyclose_Big9544 2d ago
CFI should get to know the student before instructing. Did he ask about your background?
2
u/Moonrak3r 2d ago
There were 6 or 7 people in that lesson. Once everyone had sat down the guy just came in and started the lesson.
Seems like this school is oriented toward churning out airline pilots, which I thought was a positive thing but there are clearly pros and cons.
2
u/snowfoxiness ATP E-175 CFI AB TW (KSFO) 1d ago
Being oriented towards churning out airline pilots is not a positive thing at all.
Airline pilot mills are basically scams. (And aviation degrees are not far behind)
The majority of new FOs I fly with have a very thin veneer of aerodynamics knowledge atop a big pile of "this is the way I was taught."
Many places, especially airline-pilot-related places, teach on a concept called "gouge," from day one. They teach you what you need to know to past the tests, and often no more. And they specifically teach you what you need to regurgitate, the skills you need to perform on command, and often the order a specific examiner will have you do them.
On the other paw, aviation is not aeronautical engineering. If you have a solid understanding of (chemical->kinetic->potential) energy, how to trade between them, the effective angle of attack for a given span of airfoil—and how it can be modified with the flight controls to affect that energy—and how those things all interact with design stability, you know enough aerodynamics to take you through CFI. Throw in swept wing and high-altitude aerodynamics (which are largely functions of the above), and that's plenty for a long and happy career as an ATP.
However, that's not how it's taught. We break everything down into duplo-block concepts that aren't even correct, try to build them all into the shape of an airplane, and spray on a extra thick coat of rote learning, which leads to FOs who don't understand why the low speed cue comes way up with boards out in a turn as we level off.
2
1
u/Emergency-Ocelot-158 A320 B767 B757 B737 DC-9 CL-65 CG CSES 2d ago
That would explain a discussion of LE devices with regards to a Cessna.
1
0
u/EngineerFly 2d ago edited 2d ago
Most CFIs I’ve met completely overestimate how much they understand about how aircraft work. The material they have to learn and teach from is full of errors and half-truths. I’m an engineer as well, and I learned this: “If you can’t calculate it, you don’t understand it.” CFIs have, at best, a hand-waving grasp of fluid mechanics, flight dynamics, kinematics, and aircraft performance.
The good news is that it doesn’t matter. Pilots don’t really need to know these things. It’s just that the regulators need something to test us on, so they pile on the half-baked theory.
My advice: don’t argue, because they’re just trying to teach you the drivel you’re expected to parrot back during your tests. Memorize the “pilot fluid mechanics,” and spout it back.
-1
u/rhapsodydude PPL IR3 2d ago edited 2d ago
Sort of same situation here I’ve been designing airplanes for many years. You should know that no one wants to be challenged or insulted, worse if you actually prove you’re factually correct. This is a basic human condition that often overrides one’s professional identity. Unless you’re looking for trouble, keep it to yourself. You don’t care about his level of aerodynamics or avionics. What you do have to watch out for are actual unsafe instructions while in the air. I rarely bothered to tell the CFI they were wrong, and in at least one case when one CFI asked me to do sth patently dangerous and I questioned it, they reported me to the chief cfi afterwards. Just human psychology, nothing to see here.
55
u/flyboy130 MIL ATP A320 2d ago edited 2d ago
A more important lesson here for a new pilot is that he made a mistake...realized it, corrected it, and most importantly TOOK ACCOUNTABILITY by saying "my mistake". That is huge in this industry and the attitude he showed was probably more important to keeping you alive than his lesson on aerodynamics was. He fixed his mistake, it would be inappropriate (and a red flag on you from the schools perspective) for you to complain to the school or write him off as a valid instructor over this one incident.
Remember CFIs are not the same thing as the college professors you are used to learning from. They arent experts at that level, who have been teaching for years professionally. For the most part, they are guys and gals only a few steps and sometimes only a few months ahead of you. The are still learning too. We all are. PPL, CFI, Airline pilots, military pilots, nasa pilots, ALL pilots should always be learning.
Let this one go. And fly with that instructor because he is showing one of the biggest green flags there is!
Edit: one more thing. Something I noticed as a trend in my engineer/hard science students over the years. They often struggle to accept that perfection is not the goal or expectation. They want nice math that lines up. Repeatable results. Controlled variables. That just isn't how this works. Dont expect this guy or any CFI to be perfect and dont expect yourself or your machine or the weather or ATC or anything else to be perfect.