Attitude?

SkyDog58 said:
Read the first sentence in this Plane & Pilot article and tell me what you think about the author's definition of attitude.
Click to expand...

"Attitude: a key concept in aviation, which is the position of an aircraft relative to the wind, but also discussed frequently in addressing a pilot’s judgment and the resultant probable level of safety." -- Lou Churchville

Never heard of Lou Churchville. If he actually wrote that sentence, he's wrong. I believe it's possible it was garbled in transmission somewhere between author and publisher.
 
My attitude is always right for me.
 
Lou Churchville said:
Attitude: a key concept in aviation, which is the position of an aircraft relative to the wind
Click to expand...

Wut... :(:confused:

Dunno how someone could get a "key concept" so wrong.

Does the thing called the ATTITUDE INDICATOR know what the wind is doing? :eek:
 
Glad to hear that all of you so far thinks it is wrong just like I did when I read it. "... relative to the wind"... I always thought it was relative to the horizon. I think he is confusing the angle of attack of the wing and the relative wind with the aircraft attitude. I certainly hope that P&P didn't pay him too much for that article. :confused:
 
I think the author did a quick google search-copy-paste.
 
Attitude, AOA, tomato tomato
 
James331 said:
Attitude, AOA, tomato tomato
Click to expand...
Not sure what you are trying to say, but Attitude is definitely not AOA.
In a deep stall situation, you can have a flat (horizontal) pitch and roll attitude, while your AOA indicator will be showing the aerodynamic truth: a large angle of attack, at or beyond the stall. Ask the AF 447 crew.
 
Last edited:
RotorDude said:
Not sure what you are trying to say, but Attitude is definitely not AOA.
Click to expand...
OK, the attitude indicator, or artifical horizon shows the aircraft attitude in relation to the horizon. An AOA indicator shows the aircraft, or part there of, attitude in relation to relative wind.
 
GlennAB1 said:
OK, the attitude indicator, or artifical horizon shows the aircraft attitude in relation to the horizon. An AOA indicator shows the aircraft, or part there of, attitude in relation to relative wind.
Click to expand...

Not "attitude" but "angle". You might think it's semantics, but there is a reason for it. In aviation instrumentation, "attitude" is something you measure with a gyro (or equivalent solid-state device) to indicate the aircraft's "pose" relative to the earth. AOA is measured by sensing an airflow relative to the aircraft's wing (no gyro involved) and indicates the aerodynamic status of that wing, independent of the earth.
 
GlennAB1 said:
OK, the attitude indicator, or artifical horizon shows the aircraft attitude in relation to the horizon. An AOA indicator shows the aircraft, or part there of, attitude in relation to relative wind.
Click to expand...

The reason we have words is to distinguish them from other words.
 
RotorDude said:
Not "attitude" but "angle". You might think it's semantics, but there is a reason for it. In aviation instrumentation, "attitude" is something you measure with a gyro (or equivalent solid-state device) to indicate the aircraft's "pose" relative to the earth. AOA is measured by sensing an airflow relative to the aircraft's wing (no gyro involved) and indicates the aerodynamic status of that wing, independent of the earth.
Click to expand...

Very big Yep! It's possible to exceed the critical Angle of Attack (AoA) while in a vertical descent.
  • AoA is all about the angle between the relative wind and the wing chord. The critical AoA for most civilian airplanes is in the range if 16-18°.
  • The Attitude of the airplane is all about the angle between the longitudinal axis of the airplane and a level attitude (defined as whatever makes the airplane fly without the altitude changing).
In a vertical dive, the attitude is -90° and can be under control if the AoA is reasonable, meaning don't pull out of the dive too fast. This is simply the last quarter of a loop, a routine part of many airshows. Again, the critical angle of attack is around 16-18°, but airshow performers regularly exceed 18° positive attitude for many climbs, chandelles, Cuban 8s, loops, barrel rolls, etc.

If an author can't tell the difference between Angle of Attack and Attitude, nothing written after that can be trusted. Attitude is such a basic concept (where the plane is pointed) that this confusion completely destroys any credibility the author may have had.
 
Author used "aircraft" in the definition as well. Totally incorrect for a helicopter.
 
i chose to read the article in toto ,i found it to be very moving and thoughtful. as a person in the last trimester of his life all of what the author said was a wake up call to all that chose to read it and look to the intent of the words written.
i also think the author was talking to all people ,all ages and also all those of different vocations and avocations.
 
Cooter said:
So very wrong. I pointed this out long ago in your link to attitude flying. Misunderstanding this fundamental concept can be fatal.
Click to expand...

Think I should have but one of the smilies on there, the sarcasm was lost on my post.

Also I don't think I ever linked to anything about attitude flying, think youre thinking of someone else.
 
James331 said:
Think I should have but one of the smilies on there, the sarcasm was lost on my post.

Also I don't think I ever linked to anything about attitude flying, think youre thinking of someone else.
Click to expand...

Hmm well, is there any other reason I can disagree with you? That's twice today my attempts at disagreement have been thwarted. I must be losing my edge. ;)

I guess I'll go see if I can find a post about religion somewhere!
 
hotprops said:
i chose to read the article in toto ,i found it to be very moving and thoughtful. as a person in the last trimester of his life all of what the author said was a wake up call to all that chose to read it and look to the intent of the words written.
i also think the author was talking to all people ,all ages and also all those of different vocations and avocations.
Click to expand...
This. It was a personal memoir, and not meant to be an instructional article on aerodynamics. As such, I'm not sure the magazine would have edited in the same way, for factual content.
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
This. It was a personal memoir, and not meant to be an instructional article on aerodynamics. As such, I'm not sure the magazine would have edited in the same way, for factual content.
Click to expand...

Ah so personal memoirs shouldn't use common definitions for things and can be utter garbage? :)
 
denverpilot said:
Ah so personal memoirs shouldn't use common definitions for things and can be utter garbage? :)
Click to expand...
I will say that if I came upon that piece and read it, I would have never noticed. Even now, when it's been pointed out, I don't really care that he wrote it that way. No one's going mistake it for instructions on how to fly.
 
Everskyward said:
I will say that if I came upon that piece and read it, I would have never noticed. Even now, when it's been pointed out, I don't really care that he wrote it that way. No one's going mistake it for instructions on how to fly.
Click to expand...

Probably wouldn't mistake it for a magazine anyone would pay to read, either. LOL
 
denverpilot said:
Probably wouldn't mistake it for a magazine anyone would pay to read, either. LOL
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I haven't paid to read an aviation magazine in a long time, and I can't ever recall having read Plane & Pilot.
 
Hank S said:
Do ya'll have writers at the Birmingham papers, or just people who "publish" as quickly as possible without fact checking, as is rapidly becoming the norm these days?
Click to expand...

I dropped my subscription a while back. To answer your question, the writers are pretty bad. Seems to be little fact checking and basic errors that don't get corrected before publication. And they only put out the paper 3 days a week and al.com, their online site, is slow as molasses and just terrible.
 
Everskyward said:
I will say that if I came upon that piece and read it, I would have never noticed. Even now, when it's been pointed out, I don't really care that he wrote it that way. No one's going mistake it for instructions on how to fly.
Click to expand...

Seriously, you don't think you would have noticed? It jumped off the page at me and I was not looking to nit pick either. Though I have been in aviation maintenance for a long time, I am still a fairly low time private pilot but to me it was an error that a high time commercial pilot should not have made and that another would or should notice and the editors should have caught it. It is Aviation 101 level stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top