Education

I think there is a little lack of comprehension of Ragavan's anxiety over all.

The engineering education in India richly rewards those who faithfully reproduce the contents of the books in the syllabus in response to questions in an examination! There is Zero reward for showing COMPREHENSION.The award of marks (no grades) is the criteria and goes by learning "by rote".We have a lot of Gold medallists in Engineering having "ZERO" capability in Engineering and therefore UNEMPLOYABLE.

He therefore questions the UTILITY of such an EDUCATION whereas ENGINEERING is a a verb (action-oriented), not a NOUN (identifier-actually a misnomer). It demands capability to solve problems likely to be encountered in real life and not hypothetical suppositions unrelated to REALITY.

Some of the opinion givers have suggested a judicious MIX of PRACTICALITY with RELATED THEORY. THIS is the requirement and there needs to be a syllabus change to effect this- coupled with more Faculty from "Industry" and not those "just passed out" Master's degree holders having no exposure to practicality, inducted as Lecturers and Professors (with a PhD after a minimum six years of being "on-the- shelf" ) in the academic environs.Such faculties breed more of their kind and keep India from progressing TECHNOLOGICALLY and contributing to its wellbeing and that of humanity.

I can understand what you are saying. Several years ago, the US initiated the SATs, which are tests you have to pass to get into a good college. It has been determined that the good test-takers do well with the SATs, but are not necessarily the brightest bulbs in the bin! However, teachers have adopted the rule of "teaching to the test." This has ruined a generation of students that could have been great.

There is an underground movement starting to gain momentum to not "teach to the test." And to get rid of the SATs altogether. The Conservative right is against this because they like nice numbers to look at, however, the numbers do not mean shit when evaluating a students intelligence, creativity, and ambition.

Let's hope that the SAT goes the way of determining whether a person was a witch!

My daughter is a fourth grade teacher and she spends an incredible amount of time "teaching to the test" since her job and the shool system funding depend on meeting the "No Child Left Behind" criteria. I've given up discussing it with her for fear of hurting her feelings. The sad truth is most of those children are being left behind.

Your point about the SATs is good. I met a guy in the army who had developed tests in civilian life and he told me some of the techniques they use. As a "bar trick" I used to be able to score average on SAT practice tests without reading the questions. Haven't tried that for years (can't drink now), but I sorta don't respect those test results.

You may be thinking of a test other than the SAT. It has been around for more than several years, unless by several you mean 80 or so. The SAT was developed in 1926. One does not "pass" the SATs: you get a raw score (up to 800 per section) which is then usually viewed as a percentile. For Harvard, the average SAT scores for the entering class tend to be over 700 per section (which is 99th percentile). 500 per section is average nationwide (and about 15-10 years ago they had to "recenter" the test to get the average back up to 500).

SAT stands for "Scholastic Aptitude Test" and there is a very high correlation between high scores on the SAT (especially the math section) and the various intelligence tests, like Stanford Binet, etc. Teachers do not teach to the SAT in any meaningful sense, because they are overwhelmed with teaching to other standard tests that measure achievement (in a narrow, rote fact sort of way), rather than aptitude.

The SAT, usually given in sophomore, junior and senior years, is also given to seventh graders who want to enter programs like Duke University's TIP (Talent Identification Program). A bright 7th grader can score in the 95 percentile (for someone entering college) on the SAT even without exposure to the subject matter learned in 8-12 grade: there is no need for trig, calculus, or much beyond basic algebra, some intuitive sense of geometry, and a good head for logic.

When I was in high school, in the late 60's, "preparing" for the SAT's was not widely done, anymore than you would study for other intelligence tests. The College Board folks have always maintained that coaching for the test does little to raise scores: Thus you cannot "teach to" the SAT. This book reviews some studies which have had mixed findings.

The tests that teachers "teach to" here in Georgia are year by year (grade school) or subject by subject (high school). Teachers and schools receive bonuses based on these test scores, but not on SAT scores. Thus they have little time or inclination to teach analytical thinking, or to place concepts into a bigger picture: all they have time to cover is the stuff that is on the test, and the approach favors rote memorization. (Or at least that is the argument advanced by many teachers. On the other hand, I know that my son has had some superb teachers who can cover all the test stuff easily and also reward creativity & analytical thinking, and really engage the students.)

For my son's high school school (a math and science magnet) the SATs are used as an entry test, and the school has determined that they are the best measure of success in the school: a better predictor than grades prior to entry. Some colleges (especially engineering schools) find the same thing -- but others place little emphasis on SAT scores and more on grades, other activities, etc.

There are near perfect correlations between SAT scores and wealth, and they tend to reinforce ethnic stereotypes: Asians as a group do very well, Jews do well, Southern Baptists do poorly. Suburbanites do well, rural folks to poorly.

Gardner from Harvard has long promoted the concept of multiple intelligences. The SAT "reasoning" (aka math) measures just one of these types (the type associated with the typical math nerd). Loads of other types (or at least 7 others, I think Gardner argues) are required to make the world go 'round.

But, in any case, you'd have to provide some references to convince me that teachers teach to the SAT. In the three states where we've lived since having kids, all the teachers are focused on subject matter tests, not the SATs, which, for most students, are seen only very near the end of their careers in K-12.

"The College Board folks have always maintained that coaching for the test does little to raise scores: Thus you cannot "teach to" the SAT."
Do they have a well-researched basis for this assertion? It should be true that you cannot teach these skills parrot-fashion, but that is not the same as saying they cannot be taught.
And it is important to understand the 'rules' of intelligence tests, some of which are somewhat cultural (or in other words arbitrary). Averagely bright kids form cultured environments will doubtless work these rules out for themselves, but others will need to be got up to the starting block. Add to that that the tests also measure verbal reasoning and number skills, and it becomes apparent that teaching kids to enjoy reading and playing verbal number games will enhance their performance. You may say that this actually increases their intelligence - and I would not necessarily disagree.

If the College Board is right, and you can't coach for the test, then the SAT should be sat before education starts so you teach kids according to their predestined future. I think Huxley's Brave New World gives a suitable blueprint. But of course this makes the College Board redundant as you can only teach abilities predetermined presumably genetically.

Horses learn dressage tests which are meant to display the riders skill at directing the animal. Add in cultural factors, kids whose dads fix cars pick up the skills by osnmosis, lawyers kids are smartasses, kids of SAT test designers will do better in SAT tests.

And what defines intelligence. I consider the ability to judge a horse's mood and future intentions absolutely vital in my work. 100 years ago I would have had a lot of support. How many agree with me now?

And how can we test for what the future holds. Maybe I am right and real horsepower is the future so all your written tests will be irrelevant and judging will be on assessing a horse's ear position and mouth actions. Assessing the tensing of buttock muscles will be an equally important discipline.

Education has to be about showing people, not just kids, the pure magic of learning.

Physiscist, teaching kids to enjoy reading and playing verbal number games is all that education is. The reading and games get more complicated, but the secret is keeping the enjoyment. It comes from two directions, a love of learning, and a desire to pass on the fun of learning. Is a College Board capable of passing on a LOVE of learning?

Do they have a well-researched basis for this assertion?

Of course, they claim to -- and I've looked at studies that support their contention. I've also seen many that suggest that you can benefit from preparation. The College Board website sells guides that serve to prepare students for the SAT -- which seems a little duplicitous.

Certainly, test-taking skills can be improved through coaching and experience, as can analytical skills. Learning to play an instrument improves SAT scores and math achievement. Scores must be heavily influenced by motivation, as well. I get the SAT question-of-the-day emailed to me, mainly for entertainment, but partly because I am at an age where I feel I need to work on staying lucid and scaring away Alzheimer's (which started to affect my mother when she was not much more than a decade older than I am now). For some people, receiving SAT questions every day would be torture, for others, fun.

There are large portions of our culture in which it is decidedly uncool to be interested in academics. Bright girls do well in math until middle school, then start to fall behind -- yet they continue to excel in music, which requires a lot of the same skills. I think it is entirely cultural -- it's ok for women to be artistic, but not ok for them to be engineers. Pop culture sends a strong message that women are to be judged solely on appearance.

I agree that that there are many influences that can increase intelligence both in the traditional sense and in the Gardner sense.

It's remarkable that we survive mass-produced education at all.

You make a very good point Ranakrishna, but the situation is not isolated to India. People do move up the academic tree without gaing 'hands-on' experience, but this seems (in my experience) to be less true in Engineering. It's very much up to the individual to make use of opportinity to gain practical experience. At the end of the day, a potential employer has to assess how much use an individual has made of their time. The opportuniy exist for people to take a gap-year to gain working experience.

It really depends on the country...

By the way, what is "gaing" Is it like wassailing only sexual?

It's hands on. Somebody told me that.

D Ramakrishna Naidu has brought this topic back on track. Since politicians love nothing more than ticking boxes, education has been forced down a box ticking route which excludes vast areas of engineering, and concentrates attention on the academic measurable areas. I have carefully not suggested that all academic areas are measurable, just that some academic bits allow politicians to run their box ticking exercises.

Given the crucial importance of engineering, and science, in getting us out of the Global warming, oil free mess we are in, could we not find a way of insisting that politicians prove they have either practical or theoretical skills, and ideally both.

Simon

The issues we have been discussing, mirror problems with many of the entrenched institutions [government, health care.....] huge advances in communication & information technologies, have not been integrated in the operations of the various buracracies & social organizations. Educational institutions have utilized the technologies without adopting the more flexible organizational & operational structures these advances allow.

...a little lack of comprehension of Ragavan's anxiety over all.

Well then, Ragavan should have specifically said that his statement applied to India. By stating his post as he did, he created the impression that his complaint was a universal truth when, in fact, it was not.

I hear you when you say that the powers-that-be sometimes (or most times) dictate how we do things without proper consideration for the long-term effects.

I remember back in high school, someone ordered schools to teach in our native language instead of the usual English. My classmates and I sweated out the following years trying to remember how to say scientific or mathematical terms in Pilipino. The end result was several generations of kids who could not function or compete in the international community because they couldn't speak English properly.

Fortunately, someone stood up and pointed out this fact. They came to their senses before it got worse.

I don't believe you are alone in knowing how the present system is bringing India down, as you say. If you bring together a group of like-minded people, you may be able to effect a change and bring India up to the level of other countries that you and Ragavan so desire of.

Dear Vulcan

"I remember back in high school, someone ordered schools to teach in our native language instead of the usual English. My classmates and I sweated out the following years trying to remember how to say scientific or mathematical terms in Pilipino. The end result was several generations of kids who could not function or compete in the international community because they couldn't speak English properly.

Fortunately, someone stood up and pointed out this fact. They came to their senses before it got worse."

This is exactly our situation in India-where Native language chauvinists insist on teaching Engineering and Science in the local lingo, without realising the longrange damage to multiple generations of youngsters. Ragavan's compositions are an example of this policy. While his abundant native intelligence is manifest in his achievements, his proficiency in English puts his submissions in a seeming "disadvantage" with those who assess by externals rather than the substance of his thoughts.

In spite of knowing the facts, the powers that be continue for their own narrow political gains.Maturity in politics is hard to come by in a "poorly educated" democracy.

Thank you for your kind good wishes. We are listening.

D.Ramakrishna Naidu

"Ingenier", or is it INGENOIRE (French)?

Thanks.This is precisely what is required, as it means a person who uses INGENUITY!

Ingenuity is what is required to be evaluated and not scoring by "Rote".

The present system forbids any "deviation" and thus successfully makes Indians as blind FOLLOWERS and not LEADERS or CONTRIBUTORS.

Fortunately, today's news papers have carried an item saying that an important person in the field of engineering education in Tamil Nadu is insisting on making INTERNSHIP in Industry a Compulsion!! I believe, we're likely to go in the RIGHT DIRECTION at last-better late than never!!

Looks like somebody has heard the ruckus over engineering education.Shall we retire this thread?

You may find the education process I went through in the 1960 through to the early 1980 interesting.

Basically education was broken up into three stages, primary (7 years starting at 5), secondary (4 or 6 years of high school subsequent to primary education) and tertiary (3-9 years of optional study depending on the subjects in question.

I'm only going to deal with the process starting at the optional last two years of secondary education as that's where it really starts to get into the sort of skills you need as an engineer or other similar type professional position.

In order to gain entry into one of the higher level tertiary institutions like the universities of institutes of technology you were required to matriculate. Matriculation involved sitting for 5 subjects that each scored you a maximum of 150 points each. Your entry into tertiary education depended on this total mark with subjects like medicine requiring the highest scores.

For subjects like English and technical elective subjects half of the mark you received came from an ongoing assessment of your work over the previous two years that was given by your teachers. For science and mathematics the final mark came totally from the formal written exams.

The subjects you studied were based on what you had planned for as a career with the only compulsory subject being English. Unfortunately this was really English Literature and was a total and complete waste of time for anybody that was looking at a technical career and did not even mention things like technical, report, specification etcetera writing that is critical to those in technical or engineering type careers.

The remaining 4 subjects were up to the individual student but not taking mathematics or science was somewhat frowned upon. For those that were looking at a career in science or engineering you could extend the science and mathematics so they covered the more complex concepts like calculus. This increased the points you could score from each from 150 to 225 and as a result they were counted as three rather than two subjects. It also involved sitting for a second formal 3 hour written exam for both of the extensions to the mathematics and science+

The final subject I sat for as a future engineering hopeful was called Industrial Arts which was a conglomeration of several subjects:

· Descriptive Geometry: This is basically technical drawing and the associated skills that went with describing anything you were trying to design, test and manufacture. I was worth 50 points half of which were an ongoing assessment and the remainder from a formal written 5 hour examination.

· Material Sciences: Basically the study of the properties of objects that could be used in designing something.

· Structural Analysis: This was an adjunct to the material science subject and involved learning to analyze simple structures like trusses in order to determine the forces and therefore materials and dimensions of the elements within the structure.

· Machining: This was completely assessed by the teachers and looked at the how things were machined, formed, assembled during production.

The last three were worth 100 points together with 50% coming from an ongoing assessment by the teachers and the remainder from a formal 3 hour written exam.

In my case that added up to four subjects English (75 exam 75 assessed) Industrial Arts (100 exam 50 assessed) and Mathematics and Science (225 exam only) giving a total possible score of 750 points towards my matriculation.

For tertiary education I was extremely lucky and was the recipient of what was referred to as a Cadetship. This involved being employed by an engineering company and 12 semesters of formal university study. It depended on each individual student and while it was possible to gain and engineering degree with the minimum 150 weeks of relevant work as an engineer in 6 years, the norm was more like 8 to 10 years.

Now that sounds like a hell of a lot to go through and it certainly was but at the end you had not only the academic side down pat but the hands on part as well and it produced well rounded engineers that were capable of working in any form on engineering not just the specific niche they had specialized in.

The other important part that is worth mentioning is that the majority of the exams were open book exams where students were permitted to take in certain associated text books that could be referred to while sitting for written exams. This may sound like cheating but in reality it was not as what the examiners were trying to asses was whether you understood the basic principles rather than having rote learned something you didn't really comprehend. It also mirrored the real world and how it's not that important to know everything but rather where you can find the information you need. In any case any thorough engineer should check any of the information they have used from memory with up to date documentation.

Unfortunately the concept of a cadetship has gone from extremely scarce to assumed extinction. The teaching has moved back towards the rote learnt purely academic concept that leaves most students lacking when it comes applying their knowledge.

So, in conclusion, yes I do agree that we have moved towards an academic form of tertiary education which to me appears to leave current students wanting in applying the theory they have spent years learning. However, I don't believe we can totally lay the blame at the feet of the education system. Don't get me wrong, profit is a critical part of business but I think the current crop of account driven managers is paying way to much attention to quarterly profits and less on ensuring the people doing the work have the appropriate skills and tools to do their job properly. If more companies were to offer positions like cadetships and paid more attention to supplying their staff with both the intellectual and physical tools needed to carry out the work they are tasked with then the institutes of learning would more than likely offer appropriate curriculums.

masu,

WONDERfully cogent!

Thanks a lot for the close up view of Engineering education in Australia.It is indeed worth emulating in India.

Ragavan and I would not be "grousing", if this approach is taken-even belatedly.

I am naturally curious about your career as an Engineer after this wonderful "Academics".Please share it with us, if it's OK with you.

Thanks again

D.Ramakrishna Naidu

P.S.

Please visit my website: www.artecrobotics.com and I'd welcome your feedback.

Actually a little research on Masu would tell you a lot about his background

Here's the list of the threads Masu has started, pay special attention to his fine series of Blog entries "Future Energy Sources"

http://cr4.globalspec.com/search/sitesearch?do=show&us=1330&srchobjs=t,be

here's a classic thread

http://cr4.globalspec.com/search/sitesearch?do=show&order=asc&sort=textmatchrank&srch=masu

Thanks for your research on masu and tabulation of his contributions.

I am moved and convinced that the world will be able to kick its dependence on fossil fuels with help from masu and his kind of engineering.

D.ramakrishna Naidu

I have been following the comments.

I thank all of you. This type of dialogue has hope for a future

The fact is you are not meant to be an engineer.

There are a lot of mediocre people who enroll first in the course they think they want, but end up disappointed because they are not at par.

That is good. Otherwise the market will be flooded by incompetent engineers who just got their certificates from "diploma mills."

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

The fact is you are not meant to be an engineer.

WHO ACCORDING TO YOU IS MEANT TO BE AN ENGINEER?

There are a lot of mediocre people who enroll first in the course they think they want, but end up disappointed because they are not at par.

HOW DO THEY GET ADMITTED FOR ENROLMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE? THE ENGINEERING COLLEGE IS SUPPOSED TO MAKE YOU "AT PAR" ISN'T IT??

That is good. Otherwise the market will be flooded by incompetent engineers who just got their certificates from "diploma mills."

OR FROM "DEGREE MILLS"? THE MARKET IS FLOODED BY INCOMPETENT ENGINEERS!!

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

IT IS TOO LATE,AFTER ALL THOSE WORTHLESS 4 YEARS OF PRIME LIFETIME!!

One thing you may find interesting and I havn't mention yet about training is how something that appears completely irrelevant can be very beneficial.

Shortly after I started work as a cadet engineer and had what to me at that stage was a reasonably good income I was taken for a fly by a fellow employee that had just got his Private Pilots License.

For as long as I can remember I have always been fascinated by aircraft and it took me about 10 nano seconds to decide I would invest the lions share of my newly found income on learning to fly and obtaining my PPL.

It too a year of hard work and additional study but I eventually received my PPL.

The interesting point is that the training and philosophy that learning to fly was by far the most important training I ever received. It teaches you about responsibility and taking the consequences for your actions. If you don't fly aeroplanes by the book you will quickly screw up and suffer the consequences for your actions.

It teaches you that you must at all times strive for perfection and excellence in everything you do and think carefully before taking any action about what will be the ultimate consequences.

It also tells future employees that you are a responsible person that is willing to accept the authority and responsibility that comes with many jobs. Besides, it a hell of a lot of fun and taking an aircraft for a spin really shows you how those annoying little problems you have to put up with are inconsequential.

Ultimately I ended up flying gliders but the same applies to gliders and learning to fly is definitely something I would recommend all young people at lest have a try at.

Dear Masu

Thank you indeed. By sheer coincidence, I was looking at the website of a Flight school close (about 150 km) to my place. I am past 67 years and have not given up the idea of learning to fly at least to get a PPL.You will be amazed to know that a misunderstanding with my Late Father (Himself a distinguished Aviator), which prevented me from joining our FLEET AIR ARM of the Indian Navy, way back in 1957, when we had acquired our first Aircraft carrier.Since then I have taken to the air very often on Helicopters and Commercial (National and International) airlines as a passenger.Strangely, like you, my father too was an Aircraft maintenance engineer before he took flying lessons.He was an Instructor on 1)DH 80 (Tiger moths WWII vintage), 2)Dakotas DC3, 3)Skymasters DC4, 4)VISCOUNTS (...?),5) Caravelles (..), 6)Boeng 737s and finally 7) Airbus A300s.

He said either I took to Commercial aviation or no flying at all and as a 16 year old, I could not be "disobedient" as a "good son".

The hankering for flying is still there and I hope to fly a Microlight at least someday, on long cross-country trips.

Best regards

D.Ramakrishna Naidu

P.S. I have designed a Stealth Robotic flight operation system for Light Combat Aircrafts based on Figates! I am trying to publish it in a paper titled "Frigates as Midget Aircraft Carriers."

I don't know what the gliding is like in India but if you are looking towards aviation as a recreational or sporting type activity then it's definitely worth looking at.

Modern gliders are phenomenally efficient aircraft and a lot more high tech than most people realize. It is also one of the most pure forms of aviation and you really need to understand the dynamics of the atmosphere to keep a glider airborne. Even so it is a hell of a lot of fun and a real escape from the usual mundane boring day to day life.

D. Ramakrishna:

If you have an interest in flying and some time to pursue it, I'd recommend that you put it high on your list. I've said to many people that even if I never flew after having learned to do so, that time spent in learning would be reward itself. As far as what to fly: anything. Hang gliders (the jump-off-a-hill) variety are thrilling, and as close to flying like a bird as you can come. They are very intuitive (a fact that led to early practitioners "getting in over their heads" after only a few rides, leading to many accidents). With the wisdom of 67 years, you could learn to hang glide safely.

The closest I've come to flying a powered ultralight was a J3 Piper Cub. In it's time it was an ordinary general aviation aircraft, but by today's standards it is more like an ultralight, with virtual no equipment at all other than an engine, a fuel tank, a couple wings, and a few crude instruments.

I've spent a little time in small airliners, and they are interesting in an entirely different way: quite involving but not exactly fun in the way a J3 is: when you are surrounded by many tons of metal, you loose a lot of the feel of flying like a bird.

Start next weekend.

Have fun, Ken

Ken is 100% correct and if you think recreational aviation is for you then stop thinking about it and try it out.

Anything to do with flight and aviation is expensive but there are forms of aviation that with a little creative accounting most people could afford. Hang gliding and paragliding are the purest forms of flight and the least expensive but do require a certain level of fitness and strength on the part of the pilot.

Full blown gliding is the next least expensive form of aviation and probably the most organized of the recreational aviation disciplines. It varies from country to country but gliding will cost you about one third the cost of flying a powered aircraft and is fare closer to flying general aviation aircraft. Again it depends on the country but you can often use the hours spend flying gliders towards minimum hour requirements for general aviation aircraft.

You can do intensive courses over one or two weeks but most glider pilots will learn to fly through a club where the instructors are all volunteers. This can dramatically reduce the cost of learning as you don't need to pay for the instructor but you will be expected to repay the instructors time by doing some form of work for the club.. The overall cost depends on how involved you wish to become and most glider pilots are members of clubs that have a selection of gliders that the members can hire on a time basis.

You can of course go all the way and purchase your own glider and tailor it to you specific requirements. At the absolute extreme a carbon fiber glider with instruments and a descent avionics package will set you back somewhere around US$200,000.⁰⁰ but you can get second hand gliders for a fraction of that price. For example you can easily pick up a fiberglass 15 m wingspan glider like the Hornet in the image below for less than US20,000.⁰⁰. This is a 25 year old design and this particular glider was constructed in the 1980s but if you look after them and carry out the required maintenance then you will usually be able to sell a glider for the price you paid for it.

By the way, the glider in the image is one of the gliders I flew on a regular basis and is flying north of Adelaide with Gulf St Vincent in the background.

Gliding isn't as pure a form of flying as hang gliding or paragliding but it doesn't require the level of physical fitness and exertion. This makes it's more suited to older flyers who would find running down the side of hill or jumping off a cliff while hanging under a thumping great canopy or hang glider somewhat difficult.

Personally I like gliding the most mainly because I would find flying a hang glider or paraglider canopy pretty much impossible to handle. It is also a good stepping stone towards powered flight and can dramatically reduce the time and cost of getting a private pilots license.

Anyway, regardless of which form or aviation you find suitable do as Ken suggest and get your feet off the ground this weekend. You may not like it but my guess is you will be asking yourself why you didn't do it sooner.

When you can soar like an eagle the turkeys we find ourselves surrounded by will cease to be annoying and look like nothing more than tonight's dinner.

Dear masu

Thank you for the delightful picture- of you in the cockpit? Were you flying westwards, 1500-2000 feet altitude at about 12:30 hrs? photo taken at about 20 minutes of having taken off?Ambient temperature 19°Celsius? slightly southerly (Cross) wind about 10 knots? I don't know, I'm only trying to guess-please feel free to correct me.

The costs cited are more or less the same as here in India.Since I had mentioned about my Father, here is a picture from my family archives.Picture taken 1946 when he was an Instructor in the Madras Fying Club when he was 28 years old and I was 5.

Ken and you are indeed a great help in kindling my enthusiasm. You are right, one could happily get away from the "Turkeys" and be among the eagles. By the way, did you see a film called "Fly away Home" on a young (11 Yrears old?) American girl called AMY, who taught GEESE to fly? It brought tears to my eyes-what a magnificient effort? This is kind of stuff that makes everything else pale. It is eternal.

HIGH regards

D.ramakrishna Naidu (DRAM)

Hi D.RAMAKRISHNA NAIDU,

No it's not me in the cockpit but I have spent many hours in that aircraft and have taken it up to 13,000 feet on several occasions. The only reason I stopped at 13,000 feet was the lack of an oxygen system and technically you are not supposed to go past 10,000 feet without supplemental O₂.

As for the conditions. The area around Adelaide has a Mediterranean climate which receives most of it's rain in winter so the green would indicate that it was taken in early spring most likely October or early November and some time in the early afternoon.. The glider is flying on a heading of roughly 340 at an altitude of somewhere around 5,000 feet AMSL but there is no way to tell how long it has been airborne as the scattered cumulus clouds that look to be at around 10,000 feet means it was a good flying day and riding thermals to cloud base would have been pretty easy to do.

The area around where the photo was taken receives what is in meteorological terms a convergence front which is a complicated way of saying a sea breeze. Sometime around 15:00 each day the temperature differential between the land and adjacent gulf becomes sufficient to create a small relatively slow moving front of maritime air. This usually kills off any lift and breaks up the cumulus cloud formations but it hasn't yet happened in the photo so it was more than likely prior to the front forming.

The base of operations for my club was Gawler which is about 30 km north of Adelaide, the capital of South Australia. Normally being close to a major city and international airport would severely limit gliding operations du to the primary control zone. However, Gawler is close to a military air base and there is a big chunk of the primary control zone cut out for military aircraft. We had a special arrangement with the Royal Australian Air Force and once we received the weather forecasts could request a block of their air space. Normally they would give us about 50% of their airspace to whatever altitude we asked for so getting to 10,000 feet plus did not infringe on Adelaide's primary control zone. In return for the airspace we would supply the air cadets with gliders and instructors for the two week long training courses they ran each year. A very nice arraignment indeed and the only proviso was that in the event of an emergency we vacate the airspace in 30 minutes. Mind you nobody could ever remember such an emergency so it didn't happen too often.

• By the way, did you see a film called "Fly away Home" on a young (11 Yrears old?) American girl called AMY, who taught GEESE to fly? It brought tears to my eyes-what a magnificient effort?

I havn't seen the film but I have seen a documentary on the project and it certainly was something that I enjoyed greatly.

As a final incentive to starting your training my favorite aircraft of all time is called a Discus as shown in the images below.

Boy, this is one high performance machine, the balance and feel that you got from the controls was simply outstanding. This is definitely one of the handful of aircraft that you don't get into and fly but rather put on and become part of. The only thing you had to watch was you airspeed as it was very, very, very slippery through the air and your airspeed could build up very quickly. The total parasitic or skin friction induced drag is roughly equivalent to a 15 m long tube with a diameter of 12 mm. That's bugger all especially when it has a maximum all up weight of 525 kg. It literally flies better than the birds and as I and numerous other club members could confirm can easily outperform the local pair of wedge tailed eagles. The club I was a member of had two and one day when a mate and I were flying them a light aircraft requested permission to cross our airspace. The poor unsuspecting Piper pilot was pretty startled when two un‑powered gliders flying in formation passed him with a good 20 knots on his airspeed.

The total parasitic or skin friction induced drag is roughly equivalent to a 15 m long tube with a diameter of 12 mm.

Great aerodynamics and engineering.May be the glass epoxy or whatever exterior also contributes?, besides the geometry?

The poor unsuspecting Piper pilot was pretty startled when two un‑powered gliders flying in formation passed him with a good 20 knots on his airspeed.

Amazing.So, one has to really watch out for airspeed-though on the safer side.You must be having a whale of a time. I am inclined to power flying, as the silence in a glider could be "deafening". There is something reassuring in the roaring hum of the engine. This is a conditioned reflex because of having flown with my father as a kid in open cockpits of the Tigermoths and all those aerobatics-looping and spinning and recovering from a dive.

Thanks for the pictures of the Discus.It is a beautiful plane and inviting.

We have the turbulent "Monsoon" to get over and by November/December, there should be good flying weather. In the meantime, I could enrol for the Course work.

Thanks for inspiring me.

• I am inclined to power flying, as the silence in a glider could be "deafening". There is something reassuring in the roaring hum of the engine.

You would be surprised how noisy it can be in a glider, moving through the air at a couple of hundred kilometers per hour can get pretty loud.

Something you may find interesting is the cause of death in aircraft accidents. In all but the most horrendous impacts like spinning in or CFIT (Controlled Flight Into Terrain) it's not the impact that gets you. If the pilot still has some degree of control most of the occupants will be alive and relatively uninjured when the aircraft comes to rest. It's the fire that ultimately gets you not the actual impact and gliders don't carry fuel so it dramatically reduces the danger.

You also don't need that much space to put a glider down and part of the training covers how to carry out a forced landing away from an airfield. Power pilots also cover this in their initial training but they usually don't go as far as actually landing the aircraft in a field or paddock. Glider pilots on the other hand not only cover it but have to perform real life forced landings all the way to the ground before you are cleared for cross country flying. You also need to be current and if you havn't had a forced landing for a couple of years your annual flight review will often include carrying out a forced off field landing.

The area that has proved most problematic for gliders are mid air collisions. The most common method of gaining height is to thermal which involves flying an orbital path that stays within a parcel of rising air. It depends on the conditions and how many gliders are in the area but it can get pretty crowded in a thermal with aircraft being close enough together to identify the pilot. The field of view from a glider is far better than most aircraft but there are still blind spots and mid air collisions do take place.

We have however been working on the problem and with the advent of Global Positioning Systems and the anti collision systems used in commercial airliners an anti collision system for gliders has been developed. It hasn't been in use for long enough to ascertain how effective it is but the initial results seem to indicate a dramatic reduction in the number of mid air collisions.

You may find some of the things we do to make gliders more slippery interesting. If you have ever tried to push your finger across an old vinyl record you will find that it's almost impossible to move it in a radial direction but very easy in the direction of the grooves. We do a similar thing on the gliders. It involves scoring the surface with an extremely fine abrasive with scratches that follow the path the air will when if flows across the aircraft. We also use something called turbulating tape. This consists of an adhesive tape that has tiny (less than 1 mm) tabs that create a small amount of turbulence. It's applied to areas where the surface in concave and prevents the flow of air from separating from the surface of the glider. They do a similar thing on commercial jet aircraft with small angled tabs that are 10 to 20 mm tall along the wings.

Dear Ken

Thanks a lot for your encouragement.I am just waiting for the savings required:approx.US$50,000/- for a PPL course and no where near it.Besides, the nearest training school is 150 Km away, about 2.5 hours drive either way.

Do you have a pic of the J3?Is it a high wing monoplane type like the Tigermoth DH80 as in the picture? That's my Dad in the cockpit (1946) when he was an Instructor in the Madras Flying club and I was 5 years old!

Regards

D.Ramakrishna Naidu (DRAM)

Here's a picture of a J3 Cub -- not the one I flew, but identical to it in appearance.

I've only seen one or two that are anything other than this color scheme.

That $50,000 cost is pretty staggering. Here, in the US, it costs $5000 - $9000 for a full private pilot license, but less than that for a sport plane license (which requires half the flight time -- 20 hours instead of 40).

Ground school (the theoretical part of learning to fly) can be done here for free. The only requirement is that you pass a test -- so you can learn the material on your own. You don't save very much by doing it on your own, because the instruction is normally in a classroom with 10-20 other learners (making the instructors fee very low per student).

Many people with small aircraft would be happy to take a student pilot for several or many rides, with the learner doing most of the flying. (I used to take people along fairly often: its nice to have the company, doesn't add anything to the cost of flight, etc.)

I wonder if there might be a microlight school closer? Also, here, and perhaps there, there are a lot of pilots with instructor licenses who would be able to teach you at lower than the going rate. I'd say "poke around a few airports" (here there are about 5 within an hours drive) but that may not be so easy in India. But perhaps if you spent some time at the nearest airport you'd uncover ways to reduce the cost.

As far as saving the money in advance -- I'd say go ahead and get started, paying as you go. (That may be counter to your sensible philosophy, but had I waited until I had the money saved, I would have started much later, and probably would have been less creative in finding ways to scrape together the money.) Better to be a destitute flyer than a rich non-flyer.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE BEAUTIFUL PICTURE.Please excuse delay in acknowledging.

We have these in good numbers in India in most of the Flying clubs.Many are being replaced by Cessna variants.

With the facts mentioned by you about Flight training in the U.S., it is no wonder that Americans take to the air as much as Ducks to water! Orwill and Wilbur Wright are great examples of "Have will,will fly". On visiting the Air museum in Dayton (2001), I spent the whole time in just the section on the Wright brothers and still felt I didn't get enough. What amazed me was that the Wright brothers didn't get much encouragement in the U.S. but the French army ordered a number of the Flyers and enabled their commercial success.

I was also amazed at the superb workmanship of the aircrafts and the fact that they functioned as very good engineers, including designing and buiding the wind tunnel and the instrumentation,done by them as "Lay" people with hardly any back ground in engineering as such.

There is a lot of inspiration and it is still an emotional experience even after 7 years of having visited the museum.

You have a lot of job opportunities in the U.S. and can go along with the ups and downs of the monetary situation, whereas in India, we have to keep the money flow stable or we're done for.

I have to thank both you and Masu for pulling me along. I'll keep you updated.