Stability and Controllability

PHXAvi8tor

PHXAvi8tor

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jan 5, 2007
Messages
160
Location
KPHX
Display Name
Display name:
PHXAvi8tor
In another post, I mentioned I passed the oral portion of my CFI Initial Prog Check.

But, the check airman would like to see a bit more organized lesson plan on Stability and Controllability.

When you start talking about positive, neutral and negative stability, then toss in static and dynamic aspects, the whole lesson can start to get complicated in a heartbeat.

So, I'm looking for two things:

1. For non-CFIs, primarily: Do you remember this lesson in ground school? If so, was it a good or a bad lesson? For those who recall it being a good lesson, what was good about it?

2. For CFIs: What's your advice on how best to teach this?

I went out and bought a foam gliderplane, and found its CG, through which I tied an eyehook and some string. From there, I can demonstrate the effect of center-of-pressure on the wing as AoA changes, the effect of the stabilizer surface area, dihedral, and vertical stab effectiveness.
 
Last edited:
my stability lesson usually involves a yardstick. I try to balance it upright on my hand to show negative static stability. i hold it between my fingers at the midpoint to demo neutral stability, and hang it from two fingers to show positive static stability.

dynamic stability is shown by drawing three graphs. first is negative dynamic, with an oscillating wave with increasing amplitude. neutral dynamic is an oscillating wave with steady amplitude. positive dynamic is an oscillating wave that dampens out to zero.

connect the two to show how positive static stability and any dynamic stability are related.
 
Cleaned up the lesson plan.

Would appreciate critiques tonight of this plan. Gotta re-deliver it tomorrow at 0600 to my instructor.

Here is the draft of the new lesson plan.
 

Attachments

  • StabilityControllabilityLP_DRAFT.pdf
    125.8 KB · Views: 44
cwyckham said:
Sounds very intuitive, Tony. I like it.
Click to expand...

Thanks Chris, wish I could claim it as original material, but thats the way my CFI taught it to me. Simplicity is important.

Ben-
Lesson plan looks pretty good. It is very complete. When I did my lesson plans they were usually just one page with a brief overview of the topics to be hit upon. I viewed them as simply an outline for me to follow when teaching the subject. You have integrated the actual teaching of the topic into the lesson plan. I dont think this is bad, and may be what your CFI likes. There is a tendency to get a little long when doing this though.
 
I agree with Tony -- that's not a lesson plan, it's a lesson. Suggest going back to the Aviation Instructor's Handbook to review what a lesson plan is and is not. Use their template to build your lesson plan, including the appropriate elements, and not trying to put in the actual lesson material.

BTW, if your instructor wants what you've posted as a "lesson plan," your instructor is at odds with the FAA on the subject of what a lesson plan is.
 
Ron Levy said:
I agree with Tony -- that's not a lesson plan, it's a lesson. Suggest going back to the Aviation Instructor's Handbook to review what a lesson plan is and is not. Use their template to build your lesson plan, including the appropriate elements, and not trying to put in the actual lesson material.

BTW, if your instructor wants what you've posted as a "lesson plan," your instructor is at odds with the FAA on the subject of what a lesson plan is.
Click to expand...

See page 10-8 of the Aviation Instructor's Handbook. This follows the same format, minus the time limits.

Sorry, Ron, but you are out of line here -- except that maybe I can simplify it a bit more.
 
Perhaps this is more of what everyone wants to see? I am uncomfortable keeping it so skeletal. (Why chance it, when lives are at stake and you have an opportunity to create a concise-yet-thorough lesson plan from which to collect your thoughts when teaching a student????)

Still, if an examiner wants bare bones, then can have bare bones. Meantime, I'll still prepare a thorough lesson plan that's well-thought-out, organized, and covers essential material for the student.
 

Attachments

  • StabilityControllability_RonVersion.pdf
    16.4 KB · Views: 29
Last edited:
Ben,

thats actually more like what I did for my lesson plans. Ive attached the lesson plan I have for my "Basic Aerodynamics" lesson. Skeletal is OK, its simply an outline. Think of it like a powerpoint presentation for giving the lesson, it just gets you started, you supply the rest of the information.

However, you have a checkride next week. This is the way you have been doing it. While your lesson plans may not jive with mine and Rons, I dont think you will fail for being complete and thorough. I dont want freaking out about simplifying all your lesson plans. The key word in that last sentece is YOUR.
 

Attachments

  • basicaerodynamics.doc
    22.5 KB · Views: 19
PHXAvi8tor said:
I went out and bought a foam gliderplane, and found its CG, through which I tied an eyehook and some string. From there, I can demonstrate the effect of center-of-pressure on the wing as AoA changes, the effect of the stabilizer surface area, dihedral, and vertical stab effectiveness.
Click to expand...

oh and by the way, this is the BEST way I have found to teach this stuff. especially if the glider has removable wings/tail and ballast in the nose. Then you can essentially build the glider from scratch and show what all the parts do and why they are important, as well as proper CG location, then move into stability and controllability issues.
 
I don't see anything on standards of completion, timing, training materials/teaching aids, etc., in your original lesson plan. It contains only what you're teaching, not how you're going to teach it. Without those, it isn't a complete lesson plan. From the AIH, with emphasis added:

A lesson plan is an organized outline for a single instructional period. It is a necessary guide for the instructor in that it tells what to do, in what order to do it, and what procedure to use in teaching the material of a lesson. Lesson plans should be prepared for each training period and be developed to show specific knowledge and/or skills to be taught.​
Re-read carefully that lesson plan on 10-8 with that thought in mind, and compare it to your lesson plan. In addition, unless it's an all-day lesson, it shouldn't be five pages long.​

That said, your second lesson plan is much more like it -- a plan for conducting the lesson. All it needs is a few minor details mentioned above (teaching materials/training aids to be used, standards of completion, timing, etc), and you're there. Now, don't throw away the original creation -- it's a wonderful handout/talking paper to teach over/with. But your second effort is what a lesson plan should look like.
 
Last edited:
A lesson plan is just a framework.

I'm not a CFI, but I have a M.A. in teaching and a teaching certificate. I haven't looked at your stuff, nor at the FAA info. I need to go to bed. Still here is an outline of a typical lesson PLAN.

1) Objectives - yup, self explanatory. SWBAT -- Student Will Be Able To....

2) Materials - what do you need (e.g. a model airplane? Jepp charts?)

3) Procedures - framework for the lesson. Step by step. Not the lesson itself, just lay out how you'll teach it. YOU should know the stuff to be able to teach off this. Include a breakdown by time, so you know how much time each step will take.

4) Assessment - How do you test understanding? A quiz? Series of questions? Ability to demonstrate in the air?


It may help to think of the lesson plan in the context of a unit. E.g., a unit on the Basic 4, a unit on precision maneuvers (S turns, patterns, turns around point) etc.
 
Well, time for bed, but I did take a look at your 2 drafts. The first is YOUR teaching outline. You may teach off that, but it's not a lesson plan. Those are your teaching notes, and good ones at that. Once you've taught enough, you can/will internalize that stuff such that you don't even need that level of detail.

The second shot is more of a lesson plan. Looks like it follows the FAA format. Mine differs a bit, and that's not surprising.

It's not that they want brief and uninformative, it's just that they want to see your PLAN. What is the FRAMEWORK of the lesson? They don't need or want to see all the stuff you're going to teach in detail -- that's the point of you teaching the lesson. The point is to demonstrate that you can develop a road map for each session. Heaven knows my CFIs could have done better on that.

Good luck.
 
Last edited:
tonycondon said:
my stability lesson usually involves a yardstick. I try to balance it upright on my hand to show negative static stability. i hold it between my fingers at the midpoint to demo neutral stability, and hang it from two fingers to show positive static stability.

dynamic stability is shown by drawing three graphs. first is negative dynamic, with an oscillating wave with increasing amplitude. neutral dynamic is an oscillating wave with steady amplitude. positive dynamic is an oscillating wave that dampens out to zero.

connect the two to show how positive static stability and any dynamic stability are related.
Click to expand...

Yeah sure, but which one(s) can induce phugoid oscillations?
 
flyersfan31 said:
Well, time for bed, but I did take a look at your 2 drafts. The first is YOUR teaching outline. You may teach off that, but it's not a lesson plan. Those are your teaching notes, and good ones at that. Once you've taught enough, you can/will internalize that stuff such that you don't even need that level of detail.

The second shot is more of a lesson plan. Looks like it follows the FAA format. Mine differs a bit, and that's not surprising.

It's not that they want brief and uninformative, it's just that they want to see your PLAN. What is the FRAMEWORK of the lesson? They don't need or want to see all the stuff you're going to teach in detail -- that's the point of you teaching the lesson. The point is to demonstrate that you can develop a road map for each session. Heaven knows my CFIs could have done better on that.

Good luck.
Click to expand...

Thanks. That squares with the way I've been viewing these things,too.

Also, I have noticed that I teach better when I am less dependent on the detailed "teaching notes."

In other words, the more I can internalize this stuff -- and the more practiced I get at teaching the technical subject areas -- the more important element will be the skeletal lesson plan. (Teaching notes will simply become reference material that sits in my bag or underneath the lesson plan if needed in a pinch.)
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
Yeah sure, but which one(s) can induce phugoid oscillations?
Click to expand...


I believe that's negative dynamic stability??? Gee, now I need to go look it up again.

This one actually shows up on the knowledge test for CFI Initial.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
Yeah sure, but which one(s) can induce phugoid oscillations?
Click to expand...
Static stability is required to get phugoids, since there must be some force acting to return the aircraft to that neutral point.
The more dynamically stable the aircraft is the less sever the phugoids will be, if the plane is negatively dynamically stable, the phugoids will increase rather than eventually dampening out.
Did I get that right?

On an unrelated note, my instructor who used to fly Tupolevs 134's said that the aircraft was so statically stable that it was nearly un maneuverable. The designer's response was to give the wings negative dihedral so that it was able to turn without undue effort. Apparently the flying characteristics still left something to be desired.
 
infotango said:
Static stability is required to get phugoids, since there must be some force acting to return the aircraft to that neutral point.
The more dynamically stable the aircraft is the less sever the phugoids will be, if the plane is negatively dynamically stable, the phugoids will increase rather than eventually dampening out.
Did I get that right?
Click to expand...


sounds right to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top