FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1941
1941 - 2368.PDF
FLIGHT OCTOBER QTH Topics of the Day EXTREMES DON'T MEET On the British Tendency to Go "Nap" on Certain Things and on the Effects of Mental Inertia WHENEVER people start to talk to me about thecomparative lack ot efficiency in this country amisaying how, "if we were properly organised'and regimented," we should be so much more effective, I confess to becoming a little enraged and voluble—some- times saying a lot of things which 1 don't really mean. Nobody denies that we are, as a people, a lot of muddlers and are often much too tolerant of inefficiency. But, for the love of Mike, surely it is for the right to be muddled and individual—or, if you like, inefficient—that we are fighting. If we became superbly organised and regimented, as •we are told (probably quite wrongly) that the German people are, there would be very little point in fighting them because our own system of ant-living and ant- efficiency would be so like that of the Germans that it would hardly matter whether we were ruled by them or by ourselves. In fact, I am one of those people, so often accused of wishful thinking, who do not believe that the Germans are so very efficient, and who think that an over- organised and consequently top-heavy outfit such as the Nazi- party, is liable to make and to repeat a whole lot of grave errors. I've no doubt at all that they do, though we never hear of them, but that is no reason for us to sit back and wait for them to crack up. They won't unless we first strain the system to breaking point. .- Mobile Inertia in all these talks about our capacity for muddling and on kindred faults, the lecturers very rarely mention the faults to which we are really subject—largely through the effect of over-organisation on the British make-up. We are essentially a nation of individualists, and as soon as this individuality is taken away we often become rather stupid. It is usual to cite the case of the poor old much- maligned Civil Service when the discussion reaches this point. Since I know next to nothing about the workings of this essential affair, I will not bring it into the argu- ment. But because we have a lazy tendency to let things slide and, as far as is reasonably possible, to evade respon- sibility, we do allow things to develop by themselves, we do go to extremes, and we do allow inertia (of the mobile kind) to take charge. From what I hear there was a tendency—and may still he for all 1 know—to say, " Ha, Link and synthetic train- ing and all that. Excellent thing. Saves money. Let's train everybody on the ground." Fanaticism is the direct reaction to conservatism, and we are a conservative people. Consequently, when we once decide that something or other is, alter all, a "good thing," we go at it hell for leather and refuse to stop until another reaction sets in— as it invariably does. For instance, I hope we shan't go quite all-out on tricycles, excellent though I think they are for certain types of aircraft. I am open to correction, but I don't think they are good for initial training, though a short course might be included so that pilots can become accustomed to the technique, and they might be used, too, for all preliminary night-flying instruction. Synthetic Trainers As to the Link and similar training devices, it seems- to have been forgotten that the original machine was designed solely as an instrument-flying trainer and " prac- "ticer"—the last being the far more important matter. Nobody, least of all Mr. Link, ever suggested that this interesting device should be used for much more than practice and for the development of an instrument-flying " mind." Here was something which reproduced very accurately all the reactions of the instruments which are normally used for blind-flying. It did not, and cannot be made to^ reproduce either the reactions of the controls or, still less^: the nervous reactions of a pilot who is actually in the air.' It was not designed to supersede the aeroplane for essential training, but only to supplement it. There is—or was—a tendency among those responsible for training methods to go further and to try to make the Link or the synthetic trainer do the work of real aeroplanes in real conditions. They won't and they can't, but they are of tremendous value for polishing up and for practice on days when the real thing is not possible or when, for one reason or another, there are a lot of pupils waiting around. Learning to Fly- Long ago we read about a special version of the Link designed for primary training. I have no means of know- ing what success has been achieved by this device, but I should say that this success must necessarily have been very limited. It is not possible to reproduce sensations, or reactions, or even appearances with the aid of earth- bound devices, however ingenious. The entire business of learning to fly is one of confidence and poise, and no amount of pretty landscape painting or mechanical in- genuity can alter that. The pilot who learns to fly quickly is not often the one who knows all about it to begin with, but the one who has confidence in his ability and a really good set of senses. When we were very young it was customary for us to receive initial swimming instruction on dry land. I can't remember that it taught me anything at all, because, later on, I found that the sensations in the water were so utterly unlike anything I had previously experienced and, further- more, I was frightened. I eventually learnt to swim by accident, after a number of experiments designed to develop a system of propulsion which would leave my legs "at the ready," arid not trailing behind in a position where they would be no earthly good if I started to sink. Learning to fly is really very like learning to swim or learning to ski. You have to be told a good deal about it, but the actual business of learning each phase comes by accident and often quite unexpectedly. Reaction Testers If somebody introduced a device which could produce all the sensations, all the feel, and all the appearance of +"Nf real thing, we might be getting somewhere, but such a; piece of machinery would be so grotesquely expensive that we might just as well nse a real aeroplane. AnywayT you couMn't learn to land the thing. By all means test reactions through devices such as these. Money and lives can be saved by weeding out the obviously unsuitable prospective pupils. And if we must, while no real aeroplanes are available, let the p.p.s play, about in super-Links. But let us not pretend that any- thing nrach is learnt in them. Only real height, real bumpy air, real centrifugal force, and real fear are any good as training mediums. Dear me, I'm. being conservative—and I've never even sat in one of the affairs about which I am being so extrem« in my views. But I a,m absolutely convinced that syn- thetics cannot replace the real thing, though they can bm very useful at a later stage in training, when pilots are practising blind approaches, camera-gun work, " in-cloud " calculations, and ordinary instrument flying. Practice, but not training; that is the keynote. '' INDICATOR. ''
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
