Quick Crosswind Calculation
john smith
30 degree crosswind... multiply by 0.5 to get the crosswind component
eg wind 30 degrees off runway heading at 20 kts x 0.5 = 10 kts
45 degree crosswind... multiply by 0.7 to get the crosswind component
eg wind 45 degrees off runway heading at 20 kts x 0.7 = 14 kts
60 degree crosswind... multiply by 0.9 to get the crosswind component
eg wind 60 degrees off runway heading at 20 kts x 0.9 = 18 kts
Andy Hawkins
In article <477d8795$0$7204$4c36...@roadrunner.com>,
john smith<jsm...@net.net> wrote:
> A little geometry/trigonometry goes a long way...
>
> 30 degree crosswind... multiply by 0.5 to get the crosswind component
[snip]
The method I've been taught is to use the clock face.
15 degrees off if quarter past, so use a quarter. 30 degrees is half past,
use half. 45 degrees is 45 minutes past, so use 3/4. 60 degrees or above use
the full wind speed.
Andy
Dave Stadt
"Andy Hawkins" <an...@gently.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnfnrrl...@gently.org.uk...
In the end it doesn't matter, you do what you have to to deal with the
crosswind.
terry
> "Andy Hawkins" <a...@gently.org.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:slrnfnrrl...@gently.org.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi,
>
> > In article <477d8795$0$7204$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
> > john smith<jsm...@net.net> wrote:
> >> A little geometry/trigonometry goes a long way...
>
> >> 30 degree crosswind... multiply by 0.5 to get the crosswind component
>
> > [snip]
>
> > The method I've been taught is to use the clock face.
>
> > 15 degrees off if quarter past, so use a quarter. 30 degrees is half past,
> > use half. 45 degrees is 45 minutes past, so use 3/4. 60 degrees or above
> > use
> > the full wind speed.
>
> > Andy
>
> In the end it doesn't matter, you do what you have to to deal with the
>
> - Show quoted text -
It matters to me. I wouldnt leave the ground if I thought I could not
land again within the crosswind limits of my aircraft.
Terry
Andy Hawkins
In article <7f9a925b-22a1-454b...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
terry<tfm...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
> It matters to me. I wouldnt leave the ground if I thought I could not
> land again within the crosswind limits of my aircraft.
Took the words right out of my mouth...
Andy
Bertie the Bunyip
news:eZqfj.86051$YL5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
Matters if it's over your limit.
Bertie
Bertie the Bunyip
Mmm, never heard i that way before,
Good,.
Bertie
Andy Hawkins
In article <Xns9A1B997B32A...@207.14.116.130>,
Bertie the Bunyip<Sn@rt.1> wrote:
>> 15 degrees off if quarter past, so use a quarter. 30 degrees is half
>> past, use half. 45 degrees is 45 minutes past, so use 3/4. 60 degrees
>> or above use the full wind speed.
>>
>
> Mmm, never heard i that way before,
>
> Good,.
Can't tell if that's sarcasm after me stating the obvious or not? :)
Andy
Bertie the Bunyip
No no. I know the formula as stated by the previous poster, just never
heard that nmonic before.
There's not much mistaking me being sarcastic.
Bertie
Andy Hawkins
In article <Xns9A1BB61202B...@207.14.116.130>,
Bertie the Bunyip<Sn@rt.1> wrote:
> No no. I know the formula as stated by the previous poster, just never
> heard that nmonic before.
>
>
> There's not much mistaking me being sarcastic.
:)
I just thought you might have learned some subtlety! :D
Oh, and I do realise that the 'clock face' method is only a rough guide, and
do know how to calculate crosswind component 'properly' on a whizz wheel.
Andy
Bertie the Bunyip
Well, the clock face thing is more than enough in most cases. It's really
only for take off and landing, but even if you used it for tracking
enroute, it'd still be pretty close as a rough guide unless you were making
some long overwater leg or something. Even then, unless you were just
looking for some tiny little island...
Bertie
Andy Hawkins
In article <Xns9A1BC6D4617...@207.14.116.130>,
Bertie the Bunyip<Sn@rt.1> wrote:
> Well, the clock face thing is more than enough in most cases. It's really
> only for take off and landing, but even if you used it for tracking
> enroute, it'd still be pretty close as a rough guide unless you were making
> some long overwater leg or something. Even then, unless you were just
> looking for some tiny little island...
We're back to where we came in, with me whining about the CAA (or perhaps
JAA) expecting you to calculate a magnetic heading to within 3 degrees on my
Nav exam! :)
Andy
terry
> Hi,
>
> In article <Xns9A1BC6D461736pissuprop...@207.14.116.130>,
> Bertie the Bunyip<S...@rt.1> wrote:
>
> > Well, the clock face thing is more than enough in most cases. It's really
> > only for take off and landing, but even if you used it for tracking
> > enroute, it'd still be pretty close as a rough guide unless you were making
> > some long overwater leg or something. Even then, unless you were just
> > looking for some tiny little island...
>
> We're back to where we came in, with me whining about the CAA (or perhaps
> JAA) expecting you to calculate a magnetic heading to within 3 degrees on my
> Nav exam! :)
>
calculate a magnetic heading within 3 degrees for an exam or for pre
flight planning. If they make the margin too slack people would get
the "right" answer without doing the calculation correctly. for
example variation might only be a couple of degrees, and you might be
able to forget about variation and still get the "correct" answer
( and then get yourself into trouble when you fly somewhere with 10
degrees of variation. I dont use a whiz wheel anymore ( I never did
use them in flight) , I do my pre flight planning wind calcs using
Excel and I could consistantly get within 1 degree and never more than
2 degrees. of the whizwheel calcs. In flight if I have to do a
diversion I usually just guess and then use ded reckoning. but I also
have a simple graph which gives me the drift angle for any wind -
track combination ( of course such a graph will only work at one TAS
so I have one for 90 for the C152 and one for 105kts for the C172 I
fly. Its much easier than rooting around with a whizwheel in flight.
(and it is easier to read with my aging eyes).
Terry.
Ken S. Tucker
Sounds good, it's get's instinctive, if Instructor Pilots
had to pass a trigonometry course there wouldn't be
any :-).
Ken
Andy Hawkins
In article <37903c08-783a-4a22...@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com>,
terry<tfm...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
> There is no reason I can think of why you shouldnt be able to
> calculate a magnetic heading within 3 degrees for an exam or for pre
> flight planning.
On my exam, two of the answers were only 3 degrees apart. That requires an
accuracy of 1.5 degrees.
If you can measure the angle of a line on a chart drawn in pencil, and then
operate a whizz wheel (including the pencil mark for the wind) to within
that accuracy, and *then* fly the heading that accuately, you're a better
man than I am.
Andy
Dan_Thom...@yahoo.com
All upper winds are based on educated guesses and are
frequently totally out to lunch. It doesn't matter that a student can
calculate a heading to within three degrees if he can't figure out
what the wind is actually doing once he's established on track and
altitude. Holding a heading and figuring the drift is a lot harder
than getting a heading in the first place, especially in rough air and
in an airplane much less stable than a Cessna single.
Diversions involver estimating headings and distances
without using a protractor or scale. Any instructor can do it and
doesn't need trigonmetry to do it, Ken.
Crosswind components only tell half the story. At landing
speed the vector is small; late inthe rollout it's a lot larger and
that's when many get into trouble. They think the flight's over and
stop paying attention.
Dan
BT
> Oh, and I do realise that the 'clock face' method is only a rough guide,
> and
> do know how to calculate crosswind component 'properly' on a whizz wheel.
>
> Andy
How to figure it on a whizz wheel? Why..
Have a x-wind component chart in your check list.. draw a dark line..
anything more than that is "above book".
In the traffic pattern is no time to be digging out a whiz wheel. Rules of
thumb math by the original posting.. makes it easy.
Remember.. "book value" is the max "demonstrated" by the manufacturer.. not
necessarily the MAX capable of that aircraft or the pilots talents.
How to tell the cross wind is too much... you are flying down final and
cannot track centerline.. time to go find another runway.
If we waited for cross winds to be below max demonstrated.. we'd loose a lot
of flying time.
BT
Dudley Henriques
Instant Trig! Correct for the crosswind. If you can't hold the
correction, the wind's too strong for that runway.
The airplane is the best teacher you'll ever have. Its like having a CFI
in there with you every time you fly.
--
Dudley Henriques
terry
sharper pencil !) and I dont even try to fly a heading that
accurately, in fact after doing the calcs I only record my headings to
the nearest 5 degrees. I was just making the point that you should be
able to do the calcs with that accuracy, and if you put too much slop
in the exam answer , the exam loses its ability to access if the
student is actually doing the calcs correctly ( I am assuming if it
like the Australian exams it is multiple choice and no one is actually
checking the working).
Terry
Bertie the Bunyip
I passed a navigator's course.
You?
Bertie
Bertie the Bunyip
Well, there's a problem here in that the wind can be wildly outside
limits on approach but well within your limit on the surace, where it
actually counts.
Bertie
Dave Stadt
"terry" <tfm...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:7f9a925b-22a1-454b...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
How do you determine the winds at the time you land?
Dudley Henriques
After re-reading the OP I realized the poster wasn't asking about
approaches :-)
Anyway, you're right about the wind. It can indeed be different and
often is different on the surface. That's why I always have them fly the
approach for wind correction and constantly re-assess the wind based on
what they have to do with the airplane all the way through the approach.
I treat all wind reported as estimated then fly the airplane based on
what's actually encountered all the way through the landing. This is 101
of course :-)
If the wind is outside limits on approach, depending on how much and
from where and with what turbulence I would seriously rethink the
landing and re-assess the entire situation.
--
Dudley Henriques
Michael Ash
> How to tell the cross wind is too much... you are flying down final and
> cannot track centerline.. time to go find another runway.
What do you recommend for those of us whose machines are, shall we say,
go-around impaired? :)
It's a question I've considered. Of course if the current or forecast
crosswinds are too great I won't fly, but forecasts can fail, and I'm
generally limited in my ability to divert to an airport with a
better-oriented runway.
I figure the best approach if crosswinds are excessive is to land in the
grass area we have next to the runway. We often do that anyway, it's nice
and wide, and the grass should be more forgiving of side loads imposed by
crab. If the wind is truly insane, I guess I could always try landing
across the runway instead of down it. I'm hoping I won't face that
question in reality, though. :)
--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software
terry
the same as everyone else I suspect, by looking at the windsock. And
of course it may be different to what was forecast, I am just saying
if the forecast winds are outside the limits, I am not going to take
off and put myself in a position I would rather not be in.
terry
BT
impaired..
We have a wide infield.. and those on the ground suggest the same things..
land across the infield and take out most of the crosswind.
BT
"Michael Ash" <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote in message
news:11995120...@nfs-db1.segnet.com...
terry
narrow gravel strip down the middle which we all seem to treat like
the white line on a sealed strip. We also have a runway perpendicular
but it has a caravan ( thats a big trailer for most of you guys)
parked in the middle of it, but that is another very long story,
involving lawyers and fist fights!
Terry
Roger (K8RI)
wrote:
And...How do you know the cross wind limits of your aircraft?
Roger (K8RI)
Roger (K8RI)
wrote:
>On Jan 4, 3:45 pm, Andy Hawkins <a...@gently.org.uk> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In article <37903c08-783a-4a22-abb1-0027dbcbe...@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com>,
>> terry<tfm...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> > There is no reason I can think of why you shouldnt be able to
>> > calculate a magnetic heading within 3 degrees for an exam or for pre
>> > flight planning.
>>
>> On my exam, two of the answers were only 3 degrees apart. That requires an
>> accuracy of 1.5 degrees.
>>
>> If you can measure the angle of a line on a chart drawn in pencil, and then
>> operate a whizz wheel (including the pencil mark for the wind) to within
>> that accuracy, and *then* fly the heading that accuately, you're a better
>> man than I am.
>>
>> Andy
>
> All upper winds are based on educated guesses and are
>frequently totally out to lunch. It doesn't matter that a student can
>calculate a heading to within three degrees if he can't figure out
Particularly whey those winds are constantly changing in both velocity
and direction. Trying to fly a truly accurate course at 6000 or even
3000 using GPS can be an exercise in futility as it requires almost
constant changing of correction. But knowing how to calculate the
correction angle gives the student/pilot a good insight as to what's
going on up there or even when landing.
Roger (K8RI)
terry
crosswind limits published in the flight manual, which are also
approximately the limits of my training.
Terry
Oz Lander
> I like that idea, we too have a very wide grass runway area with a
> narrow gravel strip down the middle which we all seem to treat like
> the white line on a sealed strip.
Funny that isn't it!
I tend to visualise the runway as being the gravel ONLY, and the grass
area as , well, not the runway. I tend to call any of my landings on
the grass, a bad landing, which of course, they aren't, just means I'm
not on the centreline. I think I've only ever used the grass once or
twice during my crosswind training.
--
Oz Lander.
Straight and Level Down Under Forum.
http://www.straightandleveldownunder.net
terry
> terry wrote:
> > I like that idea, we too have a very wide grass runway area with a
> > narrow gravel strip down the middle which we all seem to treat like
> > the white line on a sealed strip.
>
> Funny that isn't it!
> I tend to visualise the runway as being the gravel ONLY, and the grass
> area as , well, not the runway. I tend to call any of my landings on
> the grass, a bad landing, which of course, they aren't, just means I'm
> not on the centreline. I think I've only ever used the grass once or
> twice during my crosswind training.
>
grass, it prolly isnt a great landing.
( but of course only you know where you intended to land :<) .
Michael Ash
> Michael... you forget that I too fly in machines that are go around
> impaired..
>
> We have a wide infield.. and those on the ground suggest the same things..
> land across the infield and take out most of the crosswind.
Glad to see I'm not blowing a bunch of smoke, then.
Barry
>> correction, the wind's too strong for that runway.
> Well, there's a problem here in that the wind can be wildly outside
> limits on approach but well within your limit on the surace, where it
> actually counts.
Yes. Some pilots who choose to fly final in a slip (instead of crabbing on
final then kicking into a slip in or just before the flare) claim that one of
the advantages is that it allows them to see if the crosswind is too strong.
But that reasoning is faulty, as the surface wind is usually less than the
wind at several hundred feet AGL.
Bertie the Bunyip
news:cs2dnX7Dgd5sjuLa...@rcn.net:
Yep, ultimately this works, but I think it might get ahead of a low
hours student.
Bertie
Bertie the Bunyip
news:mIqdnUWXW-nJX-La...@comcast.com:
Well, with experince, you can tell from your drift angle or crab what
the wind is as well, before the slip is introduced.
Having said that I once landed an Arrow in very heavy winds ( no real
choice ws available) onto a slushy runway. The crosswind was well in
excess of what crossed controls could deal with so we ended up landing
crabbed and the airplane just slid sideways down the runway. The
headwind was strong as well so the landing "roll" ( for want of a better
word) was very short anyway.
This was actually the easiest part of this flight, BTW!
The ramp was a big problem. There were no light aircraft parking
facilities and no tiedowns so we had to get the handlers to bring a
couple of pickup trucks to us to tie it to. One wing to each pickup and
th etail to a post.
We passed out for a while and then continued on in significantly better
wx!
Bertie
Bertie the Bunyip
news:7b9f95dd-d258-4586...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 4, 3:45 pm, Andy Hawkins <a...@gently.org.uk> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> In article
>> <37903c08-783a-4a22-abb1-0027dbcbe...@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com>,
>> terry<tfm...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> > There is no reason I can think of why you shouldnt be able to
>> > calculate a magnetic heading within 3 degrees for an exam or for
>> > pre flight planning.
>>
>> On my exam, two of the answers were only 3 degrees apart. That
>> requires an accuracy of 1.5 degrees.
>>
>> If you can measure the angle of a line on a chart drawn in pencil,
>> and then operate a whizz wheel (including the pencil mark for the
>> wind) to within that accuracy, and *then* fly the heading that
>> accuately, you're a better man than I am.
>>
>> Andy
>
> All upper winds are based on educated guesses and are
> frequently totally out to lunch.
Not so much these days. We get very precise wind forecasts for each
waypoint and the forecast is usualy within +/- 5 knots and 20 degrees,
often less.
Amazing.
Bertie
Ken S. Tucker
wrote:
> On 4 Jan, 22:47, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 1:33 pm, terry <tfm...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
> > > Excel and I could consistantly get within 1 degree and never more than
> > > 2 degrees. of the whizwheel calcs. In flight if I have to do a
> > > diversion I usually just guess and then use ded reckoning. but I also
> > > have a simple graph which gives me the drift angle for any wind -
> > > track combination ( of course such a graph will only work at one TAS
> > > so I have one for 90 for the C152 and one for 105kts for the C172 I
> > > fly. Its much easier than rooting around with a whizwheel in flight.
> > > (and it is easier to read with my aging eyes).
> > > Terry.
>
> > Sounds good, it's get's instinctive, if Instructor Pilots
> > had to pass a trigonometry course there wouldn't be
> > any :-).
>
> I passed a navigator's course.
> You?
> Bertie
I think ground school should cover elementary
Vector additions and subtractions, it jives well
with instinct in most aspects of flying.
Vector products is something a good navigator
should know, that involves trig and my Old Boy
learned that to be a WW2 Pathfinder navigator.
Vector calculus is, of course, a must for global
ballistic trajectories. Tensor analysis is helpful
to change coordinate systems, for example the
Earth is actually an Oblate spheroid, so simple
3D spherical coordinates need minor variations.
Ken
Bertie the Bunyip
news:d2c12216-5a84-451d...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
You are an idiot.
Bertie
>
Roger (K8RI)
wrote:
OK, That makes sense.
Students should have wind limitations in their log set by the
instructor. These are usually on the mild side and for good reason.
Once you gain some experience and confidence your instructor will, or
should give you some instruction and practice in much stronger cross
winds as when you go cross country the winds are not always as
forecast. You may take off from an airport with mild winds and not
discover until you get to your destination that the cross winds are
much stronger than forecast. Sometimes they are not even as reported
even with automated reporting. As an example we had 6" of "partly
cloudy" according the forecast the other night.
There was no forecast for snow when the narrow band of snow turned up,
bringing with it the Winter Storm Warning from the NWS alerts.
Flying weather can be like that as well and one important skill is
learning to judge whether you and your plane can handle a specific
cross wind when coming down final. Of course learning (and
expanding) your limits to the maximum of those available in the
airplane you are flying is important as your confidence builds.
Unfortunately it's something many pilots never do. They stick with the
"demonstrated" cross wind component of an airplane when in reality the
plane *may* and I emphasize the may be capable for handling up to
twice that. I also emphasize this is not something to be taken
lightly. Flying close to the plane's and/or pilots limits takes
caution and lots of practice with a good instructor. So there is a lot
of truth in what was said earlier about learning to deal with what you
find.
Good luck and continued good judgment.
Roger (K8RI)
>Terry
Ken S. Tucker
LOL, my IQ is 99%+ and I'm a member of MENSA,
that "qualifies" me to genius level.
More important than IQ is maturity and the best
sign of a REAL pilot is maturity.
Bertie you ain't no goddamn pilot, never will be.
Ken
Bertie the Bunyip
> On Jan 5, 11:02 am, Bertie the Bunyip <S...@rt.1> wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote
>> innews:d2c12216-5a84-451d-b31a-
bff1b4...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.co
>> m:
No, you aren't.
> that "qualifies" me to genius level.
No it doesn;'t
> More important than IQ is maturity and the best
> sign of a REAL pilot is maturity.
> Bertie you ain't no goddamn pilot, never will be.
Yeh, right.
Bertie
Dudley Henriques
landings as through there was a crosswind present because there usually
is; even if its a low component.
The best approach is to get them acclimated early on to look for and
compensate for wind whatever it might be on ALL approaches. In this way
landings are treated as landings instead of landings into the wind and
with a crosswind.
I've never taught crosswind as a separate landing issue. If this method
is handled correctly by the instructor there should be absolutely no
problem at all with beginning students.
--
Dudley Henriques
Bertie the Bunyip
_PPQeLanZ2dn...@rcn.net:
>>
>>
>> Yep, ultimately this works, but I think it might get ahead of a low
>> hours student.
>>
>> Bertie
> From the very outset, right off the bat, it's a good idea to teach
> landings as through there was a crosswind present because there usually
> is; even if its a low component.
I agree. I was told to ignore slight x-winds by on eof my instructors when
I was a student and I could have kicked him after I learned better.
> The best approach is to get them acclimated early on to look for and
> compensate for wind whatever it might be on ALL approaches. In this way
> landings are treated as landings instead of landings into the wind and
> with a crosswind.
> I've never taught crosswind as a separate landing issue. If this method
> is handled correctly by the instructor there should be absolutely no
> problem at all with beginning students.
>
Well, yeah. Again, I have to agree. it's a whole ball of wax thing.
Bertie
Dudley Henriques
Hey, thanks a bunch Ken! I'll call in this suggestion in to the FAA
right away. I'm sure they'll want to get busy changing the books.
:-))
--
Dudley Henriques
Dudley Henriques
you just might be the only member of Mensa on the entire planet with
an IQ measured as a percentage instead of as an Intelligence Quotient.
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
I know just a little bit about Mensa myself. Since you're a member and
from Canada, I'll write a short letter to Joel Matthews up in Winnipeg.
I'm sure you're familiar with Joel and who he is.
It's a pleasure to be associated with you Mr Tucker.....a REAL pleasure!
:-))
Oh, and BTW, I can vouch personally for the fact that ole' Bertie knows
his way around a cockpit :-))
--
Dudley Henriques
Bertie the Bunyip
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> On Jan 5, 11:02 am, Bertie the Bunyip <S...@rt.1> wrote:
>>> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote
>>> innews:d2c12216-5a84-451d-b31a-
bff1b4...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.c
>>> om:
Problem is, I've forgotten more about it than he;ll ever know and
forgetting more every day!
Bertie
>
Bertie the Bunyip
>
> Oh, and BTW, I can vouch personally for the fact that ole' Bertie
> knows his way around a cockpit :-))
Wait a sec. Ken's already proven you;re not a pilot so that makes your
endorsement useless!
Bertie
Bertie the Bunyip
He's obviously taken crosswinds to the next level.
Bertie
>
Dudley Henriques
for breakfast this morning :-))
--
Dudley Henriques
Bertie the Bunyip
LanZ2dnUV...@rcn.net:
What's breakfast?
Bertie
Dudley Henriques
By God you're right! I must find out how to sign him on as an
instructor. It isn't every day we get the chance to fly with a CFI who
advocates teaching Calculus in ground school!!! There must be literally
hundreds of everyday type folks out here who are simply learning to fly
the "regular way" who would break down the door to get into a ground
school where they had to become competent in Calculus to pass the written.
By God, I do believe ole' Ken here just might be the long lost key to
straightening out the entire flight instruction training curriculum.
Lord only knows I've been trying to straighten it out for 50 years and I
haven't managed to make a dent in it yet :-)
--
Dudley Henriques
Dudley Henriques
What, no per diem ? :-)))
--
Dudley Henriques
Dudley Henriques
--
Dudley Henriques
Bertie the Bunyip
Actually, that's usually included with the room most places we stay.
Big problem at one place we stay though where there is a chinese crew
that stays there as well. They;re like locusts!
Bertie
Bertie the Bunyip
Well, there yu have it.
He's probably using quantum physics to do those inverted spins..
Bertie
Dudley Henriques
--
Dudley Henriques
Dudley Henriques
You can bend the "rules" sometimes, but you can NEVER ignore the "laws"!!!
:-))
--
Dudley Henriques
Ken S. Tucker
>
> Hey, thanks a bunch Ken! I'll call in this suggestion in to the FAA
> right away. I'm sure they'll want to get busy changing the books.
> :-))
Well make sure they can afford my consulting fee.
In my PPL ground school, vector additions we're
required for navigational crab offset using VFR.
Ken
Bertie the Bunyip
>>
>> Actually, that's usually included with the room most places we stay.
>> Big problem at one place we stay though where there is a chinese crew
>> that stays there as well. They;re like locusts!
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
> Well, whatever you do, keep the dog locked up :-))
>
Ewww!
Seriosuly, they're unreal. You can't help but feel for them as they
obviously only get peanuts for working. T
hey do two shifts at breakfast, they come down when it opens at 6:30 and
pig out and then again at 11:30.
The manager told me they also ake everything out of the rooms afterwards!
Bertie
Dudley Henriques
Hell Ken , with your "intelligence quotient" at what was it you
said?...99%+ and being a Mensa member and all, I would have figured you
for skipping ground school and just taking the test outright.
:-))
--
Dudley Henriques
Bertie the Bunyip
I was thinking he was spinning in another dimension. Maybe even inside
out down the back of a giant tortilla!
Bertie
Bertie the Bunyip
What, two houn' dogs and a vial of 'sang?
> In my PPL ground school, vector additions we're
> required for navigational crab offset using VFR.
Nasa does PPLs?
Bertie
Dudley Henriques
decent wage. Based on what you're saying, I wouldn't want to take a look
inside their Jepp cases. Probably gravy all over yesterday's approach
plate!! :-))
--
Dudley Henriques
Dudley Henriques
I'll bet he's so smart he defines his butt opening as a black hole!
--
Dudley Henriques
Bertie the Bunyip
It may be. I'm going to play it safe and not get too close anyway.
Bertie
Dudley Henriques
baked beans and putting him on roller skates facing away from the forum
just might have some good points you know.
--
Dudley Henriques
Ken S. Tucker
I respect the sarcasm, ( I learned calculus to do
rocketry ballistics, and when it worked it was a
wowzer moment for me, so I learned more ).
Calculus is mostly about rates of change.
In piloting, at the landing flare, when the AoA
is varying positvely, with elevator feedback,
with slightly negative rate of climb, and a nice
stall inches above the runway, is real sweet.
Ken
Bertie the Bunyip
> That's a shame really. They ought to pay those guys some kind of a
> decent wage.
Well, they probably do. I've been in a good few third world countries, and
you can live on say, 10 bucks a week in some of them fairly handily because
the food is very very cheap. I'd say they're better off than most of their
countrymen.
Based on what you're saying, I wouldn't want to take a
> look inside their Jepp cases. Probably gravy all over yesterday's
> approach plate!! :-))
I really wouldn't be surprised. In fact, I've flown with guys that do that!
Bertie
>
Bertie the Bunyip
LanZ2dnUV...@rcn.net:
Yes, but he might blow the sun out.
Bertie
Bertie the Bunyip
> On Jan 5, 12:27 pm, Dudley Henriques <dhenriq...@rcn.com> wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> > Dudley Henriques <dhenriq...@rcn.com> wrote in
>> >news:ZoidnZJIJ_w_fOLa...@rcn.net:
>>
>> >> Oh, and BTW, I can vouch personally for the fact that ole' Bertie
>> >> knows his way around a cockpit :-))
>>
>> > Wait a sec. Ken's already proven you;re not a pilot so that makes
>> > your endorsement useless!
>>
>> > Bertie
>>
>> By God you're right! I must find out how to sign him on as an
>> instructor. It isn't every day we get the chance to fly with a CFI
>> who advocates teaching Calculus in ground school!!! There must be
>> literally hundreds of everyday type folks out here who are simply
>> learning to fly the "regular way" who would break down the door to
>> get into a ground school where they had to become competent in
>> Calculus to pass the written. By God, I do believe ole' Ken here just
>> might be the long lost key to straightening out the entire flight
>> instruction training curriculum. Lord only knows I've been trying to
>> straighten it out for 50 years and I haven't managed to make a dent
>> in it yet :-) Dudley Henriques
>
> I respect the sarcasm, ( I learned calculus to do
> rocketry ballistics, and when it worked it was a
> wowzer moment for me, so I learned more ).
Really?
do this.
(2X3-y)dx+(2x2y+x)dy=0
>
> Calculus is mostly about rates of change.
> In piloting, at the landing flare, when the AoA
> is varying positvely, with elevator feedback,
> with slightly negative rate of climb, and a nice
> stall inches above the runway, is real sweet.
Nope.
Bertie
Dudley Henriques
I'm already fairly familiar with Calculus although I admit I haven't yet
solved the argument between Newton and Leibniz but thanks anyway
ole'buddy :-)
--
Dudley Henriques
Dan_Thom...@yahoo.com
> LOL, my IQ is 99%+ and I'm a member of MENSA,
> that "qualifies" me to genius level.
> More important than IQ is maturity and the best
> sign of a REAL pilot is maturity.
> Bertie you ain't no goddamn pilot, never will be.
> Ken
IQ as a percent. First time I've ever seen that.
Ken, IQ is a scale that has no upper limit, like percent
does. 100 is the supposed "average", but in Canada in the 1990s the
"average" was around 102. I would expect about the same in the U.S.
Member ship in Mensa is limited to those with IQs in the top
2 percent of the population. In Canada, that means you need an IQ of
132 or better. By the way, if you are a member of Mensa you would know
what that name means. Can you tell me?
There have been people with IQs of over 200. Last I heard
the highest recorded was over 250. It was young woman.
No more BS, please. It's too easy to prove you haywire.
You'd get more respect if you stuck to what you know.
Dan
Ken S. Tucker
> >news:ZoidnZJIJ_w_fOLa...@rcn.net:
>
> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >>> On Jan 5, 11:02 am, Bertie the Bunyip <S...@rt.1> wrote:
> >>>> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote
> >>>> innews:d2c12216-5a84-451d-b31a-
On Jan 5, 12:53 pm, Dudley Henriques <dhenriq...@rcn.com> wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 11:50 am, Dudley Henriques <dhenriq...@rcn.com> wrote:
> >>> Ken
> >> Hey, thanks a bunch Ken! I'll call in this suggestion in to the FAA
> >> right away. I'm sure they'll want to get busy changing the books.
> >> :-))
>
> > Well make sure they can afford my consulting fee.
> > In my PPL ground school, vector additions we're
> > required for navigational crab offset using VFR.
> > Ken
>
> Hell Ken , with your "intelligence quotient" at what was it you
> said?...99%+ and being a Mensa member and all, I would have figured you
> for skipping ground school and just taking the test outright.
> :-))
No way man! Ground School is fantabulous!
One of the finest experiences of my life, I was
mesmerized, in fact I'd like to do GS again.
You get all sorts of neat stuff, if the instructor
will do that, (I'm an instructor/prof, who needs
improvement, to get above the boring average).
One little test on homebuilts is: Why drill a
hole in the bottom of the fuselage?
What are the flight advantagous of the Clark Y?
I really enjoyed the stimulation of eclaticism,
especially while kickin down coffee and drwing
notes.
> Dudley Henriques
Ken
Bertie the Bunyip
aad88f...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
No, it is expressed as a percentile. 99% means you're smarter than 99%
of the population. an IQ of 100 means you're smater than exactly 50% of
the popualtion.
99% woud be an IQ of about 154, depending on which scale is being used.
Ken must be applying this to the walking catfish population.which would
mean 1 out of 100 wling catfish are smarter than he is.
I might give him that.
Bertie
Michael Ash
> Actually, that's usually included with the room most places we stay.
> Big problem at one place we stay though where there is a chinese crew
> that stays there as well. They;re like locusts!
You should try a Chinese Pizza Hut sometime. The prices are about
equivalent to what they are in the US, which makes it pretty upscale, so
people treat it as a special occasion. There's an entire art of what I can
only describe as "food architecture", based around techniques for
constructing a structurally sound tower of food of maximum height when
going to the single serving salad bar.
--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software
Bertie the Bunyip
>> >> :)))
Then how come you haven't learned anything?
> One of the finest experiences of my life, I was
> mesmerized, in fact I'd like to do GS again.
I'm sure your GS instructor would be thrilled to hear it.
My condolonces to his family.
> You get all sorts of neat stuff, if the instructor
> will do that, (I'm an instructor/prof, who needs
> improvement, to get above the boring average).
>
> One little test on homebuilts is: Why drill a
> hole in the bottom of the fuselage?
Why not?
>
> What are the flight advantagous of the Clark Y?
It was a big improvement on the clark What and When.
>
> I really enjoyed the stimulation of eclaticism,
> especially while kickin down coffee and drwing
> notes.
Not that you understood any of it.
Bertie>
>
Bertie the Bunyip
news:11995699...@nfs-db1.segnet.com:
He heh. Haven;t had the pleasure of going there yet, but it might be on the
cards.
Bertie
Ken S. Tucker
My take on that "history" is as follows:
Newton developed "Fluxions" (calculus) to prove
orbital mechanics (especially Kepler's 3 laws)
and his own Theory of Gravity. He referred to
"integration" as "anti-differentiation".
OTOH, I think Leibniz had an edge over Newton
in integral calculus and pure mathematics, but
Newton applied it and proved it to be physically
important.
Without Newton's physical application, Leibniz's
calculus could have died on the vine for a century.
Calculus is a tool like a hammer and Newton had
a nail.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Bertie the Bunyip
And you're operating with a bowl of stale oatmeal.
Bertie
Ken S. Tucker
Ok, I'll try...,...I'm shaken in my booties and
in your panties dirty birty....
Divide by dx to get,
(2X3-y)+ (2x2y+x) (dy/dx) =0
Subtract (2X3-y) to get,
(2x2y+x) (dy/dx) = -(2X3-y)
Divide by (2x2y+x) to yield,
dy/dx = -(2X3-y)/(2x2y+x).
From that point you'll need to define what is "X"
and also if the "d" is a partial or a differential.
Kisses
Ken
Bertie the Bunyip
> On Jan 5, 1:21 pm, Bertie the Bunyip <S...@rt.1> wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote
>> innews:1d20187f-f5f9-49a1-8351-e56719ac2bb2
@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.co
>> m:
So, you can't do it then.
more BS
Bertie
Ken S. Tucker
> On Jan 5, 12:24 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > LOL, my IQ is 99%+ and I'm a member of MENSA,
> > that "qualifies" me to genius level.
> > More important than IQ is maturity and the best
> > sign of a REAL pilot is maturity.
> > Bertie you ain't no goddamn pilot, never will be.
> > Ken
>
> IQ as a percent. First time I've ever seen that.
>
> Ken, IQ is a scale that has no upper limit, like percent
> does. 100 is the supposed "average", but in Canada in the 1990s the
> "average" was around 102. I would expect about the same in the U.S.
> Member ship in Mensa is limited to those with IQs in the top
> 2 percent of the population. In Canada, that means you need an IQ of
> 132 or better. By the way, if you are a member of Mensa you would know
> what that name means.
"Can you tell me?"
Yes I can.
> There have been people with IQs of over 200. Last I heard
> the highest recorded was over 250. It was young woman.
If you think IQ is hard to define, how is a "Maturity"
MQ defined? Maybe a guy has a hot-rod with 427 in3
under the hood (IQ), but can't work the clutch (MQ).
Sometimes the product, IQ*MQ is the Effect Quotient.
(The EQ is sometimes called the Emotional Quotient).
Ken
Bertie the Bunyip
407e-a210-2...@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
Wheras your bicycle chani broke a long time ago.
>
> Sometimes the product, IQ*MQ is the Effect Quotient.
> (The EQ is sometimes called the Emotional Quotient).
I don';t care if you have three heads each with an IQ of 200. You are
still an idiot.
Bertie
Ken S. Tucker
...
> Oh, and BTW, I can vouch personally for the fact that ole' Bertie knows
> his way around a cockpit :-))
LOL, sure, consensual cock-sucking is legal in 48
states, a vacuum cleaner is legal in 50 states.
I think I'll stay with that fella Hoover :-).
Ken
Bertie the Bunyip
9781-158...@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 5, 11:59 am, Dudley Henriques <dhenriq...@rcn.com> wrote:
> ...
>> Oh, and BTW, I can vouch personally for the fact that ole' Bertie knows
>> his way around a cockpit :-))
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> LOL, sure, consensual cock-sucking is legal in 48
> states, a vacuum cleaner is legal in 50 states.
Funny the way your mind works.
well, maybe not funny....
Bertie
Dudley Henriques
bull shit like a cat with a fur ball :-)
--
Dudley Henriques
Bertie the Bunyip
Well, it's funny the way he goes straight for the gay lame.
Bertie
Dudley Henriques
--
Dudley Henriques
Dan_Thom...@yahoo.com
>>By the way, if you are a member of Mensa you would know
> > what that name means.
>
> "Can you tell me?"
>
> Yes I can.
So, what is it?
Dan
Dudley Henriques
--
Dudley Henriques
Bertie the Bunyip
Oh it's just a lame attempt to tar someone as gay.
It's what k00ks do when they haven't got a leg to stand on.
It also usually indicates some deep rooted issues of their own.
Seen American Beauty?
Bertie
Dan_Thom...@yahoo.com
> Well make sure they can afford my consulting fee.
> In my PPL ground school, vector additions we're
> required for navigational crab offset using VFR.
> Ken
From an earlier post:
>I think ground school should cover elementary
>Vector additions and subtractions, it jives well
>with instinct in most aspects of flying.
>Vector products is something a good navigator
>should know, that involves trig and my Old Boy
>learned that to be a WW2 Pathfinder navigator.
>Vector calculus is, of course, a must for global
>ballistic trajectories. Tensor analysis is helpful
>to change coordinate systems, for example the
>Earth is actually an Oblate spheroid, so simple
>3D spherical coordinates need minor variations.
>Ken
For a fellow with such intelligence, your spelling, sentence
structure and punctuation lack finesse. Commas where a new sentence
should start. Apostrophes where they don't belong (for example,
"fella's," where you intended the plural rather than the possessive),
and so on.
And this one, again:
>LOL, my IQ is 99%+ and I'm a member of MENSA,
>that "qualifies" me to genius level.
As I said earlier, Mensa's requirements are an IQ of 132 or
better. Genius is defined, depending on the source, at being at least
140 to 180. If you were at the 99th percentile (which, as many peop,e
with much lower intelligence know, and you certainly should know, is
not at all the same as 99%), you would have an IQ of 135, which isn't
quite enough to claim "genius" status. See the chart:
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/IQtable.aspx
Dan
Dudley Henriques
--
Dudley Henriques
Bertie the Bunyip
Yeah, remeber the end?
Wonder if Ken keeps nazi memorablilia?
Bertie
Dudley Henriques
scene :-))
--
Dudley Henriques
Ken S. Tucker
I was nailed in grade 4 with an IQ of 150,
(they claimed I was a genius).
I had no idea what the fuck that meant.
I suppose it's solving a problem honestly.
That's why I think the maturity of a person is
so important...knowing what you know and
what you're uncertain about with probabilities.
I'm 60/40 on that statement.
Myself, I regulate my applied IQ, like a weight
lifter...it takes mental energy.
Any of you fella's took a 3 hour math exam and
felt energized after that?
Thinking uses mental energy.
It' like lifting a bunch of weights off the floor and
placing them on shelves.
We' ve all been there, given sufficicent stimulation,
and pumping in adrenaline, I could probably boost
my IQ to 200 briefly. Then I memorize the data
acquired from that, I don't know if that's where I
live now.
Regards
Ken
Bertie the Bunyip
uR3anZ2dnU...@rcn.net:
He he. OK.
The point is that guys who go around accusing others of being gay have
issues"
Bertie
>
Dudley Henriques
Obviously they didn't either :-)
--
Dudley Henriques
Dudley Henriques
I try and avoid gay people. They are so HAPPY!!! :-))
--
Dudley Henriques