As I said, when flying tight formation (on the front side of the power curve), don't even think of using pitch for speed. It will be throttle first, and pitch as a secondary function.In the end, we're all on the same page. We know what the control functions will ultimately do, and why. However, like so many others...........I've just never fell into the "pitch for airspeed" & "throttle for altitude" camp as an absolute. As it's been pointed out many times over the years.........power ratios have changed since the days of "Stick and Rudder". However, I still agree with teaching the student the use of pitch for speed first. It's only when instructors stick with that notion for all events.............that I go out of my mind.

No, we're not on the same page. You're looking at it purely from a very narrow "how-to" perspective and seeing only what you want to see during one particular task at one particular condition. I look at it from a wider "why" perspective that encompasses the entire flight envelope. And yes, it is because I hold a CFI certificate. I am one of those instructors that will make you go out of your mind then. Maybe you should open your mind instead of going out of it. As an instructor, I need to give my students a truth that applies not just in level formation station keeping, but rather holds as a constant throughout the entire flight envelope. I say it to explain why, so that the how can fall into place easily later on. Let's take your formation flying, or rather just an increase of airspeed in level flight situation and look at how pitch for speed explains what is occuring. In order to increase airspeed with the side goal of maintaining altitude, you need to simultaneously increase power and push forward on the stick because you are trying to accomplish two things. Increase speed. Maintain altitude. Adding power increases the energy state and if unchecked, will cause a climb, because that is the most natural result of an increase in energy state. Since you want to increase speed and don't want to climb, you simultaneously push forward on the stick to convert that increased energy into increased speed, instead of altitude. You push that stick forward, with your eye on your lead, accelerating at a rate that is just enough to keep the plane from climbing. Yes, I know you just saw all that as pushing the stick to hold altitude, L.Adamson, but that is just how you insist on looking at it. But you're just willingly foolling yourself, and the masquerade comes off so that even you can't deny it when you try this at slow speed. As I said before, this is a meant as a foundation of basic knowledge. Once laid, other things can be built upon, such as ILS's and formation flying. You don't lay a formation flying lesson into Lesson two of private pilot.Power ratios have nothing to do with this. Q400s and A330s have plenty of power to spare. This is all about aerodynamics since I'm assuming we're talking about airplanes with wings. Given your line of reasoning, we should all be riding rockets. Don't confuse rockets with airplanes, L.Adamson. That will get you in trouble, especially if you think you're driving a rocket, when it turns out it was actually an airplane.

Edited January 30, 201214 yr by KevinAu

Maybe you should open your mind instead of going out of it. As an instructor, I need to give my students a truth .....

Nice preach, professor (or father ?) Kevin. :smile:What I and others in this thread are trying to tell you is that if you are happy with your technique, go ahead, it won't hurt anybody if they stick to Cessnas and light planes - but pls see my first post in this thread if you too are interested in "opening you mind" (to use your own words).Please also feel free to answer with another half-page but I am afraid I am going to sign off this one...Best regards,Bruno

Edited January 30, 201214 yr by fencer

Nice preach, professor (or father ?) Kevin. :smile:What I and others in this thread are trying to tell you is that if you are happy with your technique, go ahead, it won't hurt anybody if they stick to Cessnas and light planes - but pls see my first post in this thread if you too are interested in "opening you mind" (to use your own words).Please also feel free to answer with another half-page but I am afraid I am going to sign off this one...Best regards,Bruno

Just Kevin is fine, thank you. I'll keep it short instead of thorough if you like. It works just the same in the airliner I fly. It doesn't just apply to Cessnas and light planes. They all fly on angle of attack and airspeed. The problem with teaching people that pitch is for altitude is that it has gotten people killed. I am not surprised that "all" the airline pilots you know think that way. The industry has had accidents because the pilots have lost the basics. And the industry is trying very hard now to retrain airline pilots so that they know what to do when they get nudged away from the middle of the flight envelope.Cheers.

Edited January 30, 201214 yr by KevinAu

When I get home tonight, instead of this IPhone, I'll post a ton of links from other CFI's who take the other view. I have to do this every year or so

The problem is a surprising amount of pilots don't understand when they should use each technique while they fly.Both are right and both need to be used in their individual flight regimes.

The problem is a surprising amount of pilots don't understand when they should use each technique while they fly.Both are right and both need to be used in their individual flight regimes.

It seems to me that those that are "against" the saying pitch for speed seem to think that it is merely a technique. It is not. It is more than that. It is an explanation of flight and it includes pitch for altitude within it. When you understand pitch for speed, you understand pitch for altitude.

Edited January 30, 201214 yr by KevinAu

Nice preach, professor (or father ?) Kevin. :smile:What I and others in this thread are trying to tell you is that if you are happy with your technique, go ahead, it won't hurt anybody if they stick to Cessnas and light planes - but pls see my first post in this thread if you too are interested in "opening you mind" (to use your own words).Please also feel free to answer with another half-page but I am afraid I am going to sign off this one...Best regards,Bruno

Thanks for the input. Although there was none. Mr. Adamson and Kevin do a better job of conversing (arguing) their points. Let's stay out of the mud slinging.I like to keep it simple and sweet. None of the BS about formation flying. That's an extreme niche, and I could actually argue the throttle->speed point in this regime, too. The only argument against the "pitch is airspeed" mantra is "combination of pitch and power is airspeed and altitude". Too vague? Well too bad! That's the way it is. That's why it takes an average of 20-30hrs to solo; learning that correlation.For ANY pilot (airline, GA, red, yellow, blue) pitch is primarily used for airspeed. How do we get to single engine climb speed when the number two dies? We pitch down or up to decelerate of accelerate. How do we descend from straight and level? We pull the power back and let the aircraft stabilize to the required descent rate (guess what will happen? Airspeed will stabilize to whatever we trimmed for before descent). How do we control the airspeed in slow flight? Pitch. After takeoff? Pitch. Climb? Pitch.That's the basis of flying. Embrace it and enjoy being a good pilot, or don't and fight what's natural.

Edited January 30, 201214 yr by ZachLW

How do we control the airspeed in slow flight? Pitch. After takeoff? Pitch. Climb? Pitch.

My instuctor told me this almost word for word. :Big Grin:Thanks for all of the tips!

Thanks for all of the tips!

I'm going to give you links to more, and there are many more than that. Out of this list, I get quite a kick out of link #4. This is from a 35,000hr. pilotAnyway you look at it, it's an ongoing argument that never ceases. I hope that the following links, will help with additional ideas on the subject.http://myplace.frontier.com/~res0cs5r/id38.htmlhttp://www.sunriseaviation.com/art-pitch_power_trim1.htmlhttp://www.flightlevel350.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=10187http://www.avweb.com/news/pelican/182148-1.htmlhttp://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/180780-pitch-controls-altitude-power-controls-airspeed-3.html

I'm going to give you links to more, and there are many more than that. Out of this list, I get quite a kick out of link #4. This is from a 35,000hr. pilotAnyway you look at it, it's an ongoing argument that never ceases. I hope that the following links, will help with additional ideas on the subject.http://myplace.front...0cs5r/id38.htmlhttp://www.sunriseav...ower_trim1.htmlhttp://www.flightlev...showtopic=10187http://www.avweb.com...n/182148-1.htmlhttp://www.pprune.or...airspeed-3.html

Reading link 4 he says that pitch controls airspeed in the same way that we have. So yes even a 35000 hour pilot believes it too. In the end he says that the best way to do it is by using what ever gives the results you need.

The moral of all those links you're putting up seems to be that it is complicated. Seriously, you really believe that it is better to build a student pilot's foundation on "...pilot controls the situation by using a combination of elevator and power which through this combination determines airspeed and altitude. At any given moment the pilot will make a control decision between altitude or airspeed and use power or elevator, in combination, to meet the needs of that decision." No wonder those guys in that A330 didn't know what to do.L.Adamson, you still haven't provided a word to refute the fact that airspeed consistently responds to pitch inputs one way and one way only no matter what regime of the flight envelope you're flying at.The same cannot be said for altitude response to pitch inputs.The same cannot be said for airspeed response to throttle inputs.Barry Schiff is one of the most famous aviation authors and instructors. http://faaflighttest.us/PitchPower.pdf

Edited January 31, 201214 yr by KevinAu

I'm going to give you links to more, and there are many more than that. Out of this list, I get quite a kick out of link #4. This is from a 35,000hr. pilotAnyway you look at it, it's an ongoing argument that never ceases. I hope that the following links, will help with additional ideas on the subject.http://myplace.front...0cs5r/id38.htmlhttp://www.sunriseav...ower_trim1.htmlhttp://www.flightlev...showtopic=10187http://www.avweb.com...n/182148-1.htmlhttp://www.pprune.or...airspeed-3.html

I fear students getting on the internet and bringing me forum talk like this all of the time. Sometimes it's great for learning, but typically it's just damaging to the learning process. As a rule, I think it's safe to say formation flying isn't something we typically cover with a student pilot. Further more, just because a jet jockey or RV formation pilot uses the throttle to keep a point on the lead aircraft doesn't mean we should jump to the conclusion that throttle is airspeed.It definetly makes for great forum conversation (debate, argument, mud slinging, etc.) but in the end a student is going to learn my way. And they'll develop their skills the right way on that basic principle.

Reading link 4 he says that pitch controls airspeed in the same way that we have. So yes even a 35000 hour pilot believes it too. In the end he says that the best way to do it is by using what ever gives the results you need.

For what it's worth; I was taught to flysmall airplanes by the RPMs. You don't pitch for altitude, you pitch to maintain speed while at full power. On approach you reduce RPMs and then pitch to maintain desired speed, adjusting each as required to maintain a stable approach speed, etc., etc., etc.. I quickly learned in the sundowners, this was the easiest way to fly plane.I too, flew my first approach in the flare from about 2 miles out...lol...using the power to ride the VASI in with the ILS dialed in. My instructor freaked out and told me this wasn't no 727. If my engine failed I was way to far out to make the RWY. Didn't we used to say 'pitch-power-trim'? or something like that?

Hey Zach,This is what I read in the forum :

Thanks for the input. Although there was none. Mr. Adamson and Kevin do a better job of conversing (arguing) their points. Let's stay out of the mud slinging.

And this is the email I get from Avsim (ZachLW quoted a post you made) :<<Thanks for the input. Although there was none. Mr. Adamson and Kevin do a better job of conversing (arguing) their points. Let's stay out of the mud slinging. Don't be such an agitated girl.>>If you want to play that kind of game, I am going to let you play alone.I'll leave you with a suggestion though : Maybe you could spend less time telling us how to control a plane and more time trying to learn to control yourself.Bruno

Hey Zach,This is what I read in the forum :And this is the email I get from Avsim (ZachLW quoted a post you made) :<<Thanks for the input. Although there was none. Mr. Adamson and Kevin do a better job of conversing (arguing) their points. Let's stay out of the mud slinging. Don't be such an agitated girl.>>If you want to play that kind of game, I am going to let you play alone.I'll leave you with a suggestion though : Maybe you could spend less time telling us how to control a plane and more time trying to learn to control yourself.Bruno

My thread! You stole this and drove the whole thing into the ground!All I EVER said was some things about one of my first flight lessons and you guys have ruined this forum "experience" for me.... jeez.Just wanted to see what y'all had to say, not to start a cat fight.