Rudder for final runway alignment (?)

[Mxsmanic]

Is it cheating/advisable/forbidden/useless to use the rudder alone to
accomplish the very last seconds of runway alignment on landing? As I
approach the landing point it becomes very difficult to turn in the
usual way just to improve alignment. Using rudder alone can line me
up perfectly right quick, but I don't know if that's the proper
technique, and I have to hold the rudder going in.

I know that the rudder can (and should?) be used to deal with
crosswinds, but I'm talking about landing in calm air and just being
an aircraft-width or so away from the centerline (which on narrow
runways or with large aircraft might mean one set of wheels on the
grass). As I get closer I'm afraid to roll the aircraft because a
wing might fall too low, or ground effect might do something
unpleasant, or something like that.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Viperdoc[_1_]]

Are you talking about computer games or flying a real airplane?

The flight model of a lot of games does not come close to the real thing
unless you are using one that requires a work station to run.

[M[_1_]]

I don't think that would work very well. If the aircraft is already
lined up with the runway heading, using rudder to move the aircraft
laterally will cause you touchdown in a crab. You should use the
aileron to manuever the plan laterally and use the rudder to keep the
nose pointing to the runway heading, the same way you do in a cross
wind landing. If the runway is very long, add a little bit power when
you do this so you'll have a bit more time. If the runway is short and
you doubt that you can get it straighten out, go around.

The fear of banking the plane close to ground is misplaced. It's
actually easier to do a smoother touchdown when one wheel touches the
ground first, even if it's a bit firm. That's because a single wheel
firm touch-down will cause the plane to roll to the other direction (so
the other wheel will also touch shortly after), and that rolling motion
absorbs some of the energy caused by a firm touchdown and make it feels
less firm.

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> I know that the rudder can (and should?) be used to deal with
> crosswinds, but I'm talking about landing in calm air and just being
> an aircraft-width or so away from the centerline (which on narrow
> runways or with large aircraft might mean one set of wheels on the
> grass). As I get closer I'm afraid to roll the aircraft because a
> wing might fall too low, or ground effect might do something
> unpleasant, or something like that.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[houstondan]

i know you're doing this on a machine and i don't know how it's set up
but with high wing light aircraft ( my only experience) you really can
only move the airplane track left or right with ailerons. punching the
rudders just moves the nose left or right. now, that's short-term.
eventually, the rudder will send the airplane left or right but that
takes a while. kinda like skidding around a turn in a car. also, on a
high wing at least, you've got a lot of room to push it over before you
have a wing hit the runway (or light or weeds or whatever). if the body
of the aircraft is already over the runway but the nose isn't then
"kicking it in" with the rudder is standard.

good luck

dan
Mxsmanic wrote:
> Is it cheating/advisable/forbidden/useless to use the rudder alone to
> accomplish the very last seconds of runway alignment on landing? As I
> approach the landing point it becomes very difficult to turn in the
> usual way just to improve alignment. Using rudder alone can line me
> up perfectly right quick, but I don't know if that's the proper
> technique, and I have to hold the rudder going in.
>
> I know that the rudder can (and should?) be used to deal with
> crosswinds, but I'm talking about landing in calm air and just being
> an aircraft-width or so away from the centerline (which on narrow
> runways or with large aircraft might mean one set of wheels on the
> grass). As I get closer I'm afraid to roll the aircraft because a
> wing might fall too low, or ground effect might do something
> unpleasant, or something like that.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Robert M. Gary]

Even in calm winds pilots use the same techniques to "slide" over to
the runway they use in a cross wind. In truth you probably don't know
if your lack of alignment is a result of cross wind or poor roll out.
The two techniques used are "crab" in which you hold the nose into the
wind and the kick it out before touch down and "slip" in which you hold
the up wind wing down and hold the nose in ailgnment with the runway
using rudder. There are pro's and con's to each. The "crab and kick" is
pretty much the only way to go in aircraft with swept back wings
because they aren't excited about slipping and taught by ex-military
and airline instructors. The "slip" is pretty much the only way to go
with light tailwheel planes because it takes near superhuman ability to
straighten these aircraft on the runway after an upset as extream as
the "kick". Planes in between can go either way.

-Robert, CFII

[karl gruber[_1_]]

No it is not cheating. Many airplanes cannot use a wing down method for
x-wind landing. This is because their engines would scrape the runway.

Karl



"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Is it cheating/advisable/forbidden/useless to use the rudder alone to
> accomplish the very last seconds of runway alignment on landing? As I
> approach the landing point it becomes very difficult to turn in the
> usual way just to improve alignment. Using rudder alone can line me
> up perfectly right quick, but I don't know if that's the proper
> technique, and I have to hold the rudder going in.
>
> I know that the rudder can (and should?) be used to deal with
> crosswinds, but I'm talking about landing in calm air and just being
> an aircraft-width or so away from the centerline (which on narrow
> runways or with large aircraft might mean one set of wheels on the
> grass). As I get closer I'm afraid to roll the aircraft because a
> wing might fall too low, or ground effect might do something
> unpleasant, or something like that.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[RK Henry]

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:46:08 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Is it cheating/advisable/forbidden/useless to use the rudder alone to
>accomplish the very last seconds of runway alignment on landing?

Some argue that it's preferable to use the rudder in an instrument
approach for minor heading changes. In fact, when I took my instrument
rating check ride, the examiner chided me for rolling to minor heading
changes instead of just using the rudder, though he signed me off
anyway. After reading Langewiesche ("Stick and Rudder") I concluded
that it's preferable to use coordinated turns to help avoid
disorienting the inner ear. Personal preference. The choice may also
depend upon the airplane.

>I know that the rudder can (and should?) be used to deal with
>crosswinds, but I'm talking about landing in calm air and just being
>an aircraft-width or so away from the centerline (which on narrow
>runways or with large aircraft might mean one set of wheels on the
>grass). As I get closer I'm afraid to roll the aircraft because a
>wing might fall too low, or ground effect might do something
>unpleasant, or something like that.

IRL, by the time that you're that close to touchdown, you ought to
already have heading and centerline alignment pretty well nailed. If
you're worried about dragging a wing, landing in the grass, or
knocking over the glideslope transmitter or something, then your
approach is so out of shape that you probably ought to miss it and go
around.

RK Henry

[Dudley Henriques[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Is it cheating/advisable/forbidden/useless to use the rudder alone to
> accomplish the very last seconds of runway alignment on landing? As I
> approach the landing point it becomes very difficult to turn in the
> usual way just to improve alignment. Using rudder alone can line me
> up perfectly right quick, but I don't know if that's the proper
> technique, and I have to hold the rudder going in.
>
> I know that the rudder can (and should?) be used to deal with
> crosswinds, but I'm talking about landing in calm air and just being
> an aircraft-width or so away from the centerline (which on narrow
> runways or with large aircraft might mean one set of wheels on the
> grass). As I get closer I'm afraid to roll the aircraft because a
> wing might fall too low, or ground effect might do something
> unpleasant, or something like that.

The actual line up just prior to touchdown is a marriage of subtle control
pressures dealing with several things at one time. Depending on the airplane
you're flying, the amount of bank available to you at the last second might
well be limited as you have noted. For many airplanes, it is perfectly
acceptable and indeed can even be critical to use rudder to insure
proper alignment of the aircraft with the runway at touchdown.
Its probably not wise to consider the act of touchdown as a 0 wind
condition. Although it is possible to actually have a 0 wind condition, in
reality, you will almost always have some wind component acting on the
airplane through the touchdown. That's why landing an airplane is considered
the marriage of all your controls acting at once to achieve the touchdown
correctly.
Some airplanes like airliners for example with underslung engines can't be
banked close to the ground. Others like the F16 or the T38, require a
straight in crab, set up for whatever is necessary, right through the
landing.
Generally, you will set up a landing with whatever the airplane is telling
you is needed at any given instant in time during the approach and the flare
through touchdown. If its truly calm, its a simple line up and landing. If
needed, you can use whatever combination of crab or slip and correction from
the slip through touchdown. Remember, its aircraft specific!
To answer your question, generally yes, you can, and indeed should, use
rudder to align the airplane at touchdown. General rule; keep the tail lined
up with the nose and don't scuff the wheels with a side load and you're
right in the ball park.
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

RK Henry writes:

> Some argue that it's preferable to use the rudder in an instrument
> approach for minor heading changes. In fact, when I took my instrument
> rating check ride, the examiner chided me for rolling to minor heading
> changes instead of just using the rudder, though he signed me off
> anyway.

If I try to use the rudder alone for a heading change in flight, the
aircraft just snaps back to its previous heading when I center the
rudder again.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Viperdoc,

> Are you talking about computer games or flying a real airplane?
>

Haven't you read his postings? He doesn't fly, doesn't want to, insists
he can't afford to, thinks it is dangerous, unpleasant and so on. This
guy is NEVER talking about flying.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

In these kinds of your posts, could you please spell out clearly that
you are talking about playing a flight simulator, not real flying? it
would save people a lot of time tailoring their answers.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message

> If I try to use the rudder alone for a heading change in flight, the
> aircraft just snaps back to its previous heading when I center the
> rudder again.


Try it in a 172. You CAN turn with rudder only. It's not coordinated, but it
still turns.

[RK Henry]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 07:38:09 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>RK Henry writes:
>
>> Some argue that it's preferable to use the rudder in an instrument
>> approach for minor heading changes. In fact, when I took my instrument
>> rating check ride, the examiner chided me for rolling to minor heading
>> changes instead of just using the rudder, though he signed me off
>> anyway.
>
>If I try to use the rudder alone for a heading change in flight, the
>aircraft just snaps back to its previous heading when I center the
>rudder again.

Is there the heading hold engaged on the autopilot? Does the airplane
tend to bank when you apply rudder? If not, this may be a modeling
error in your sim. I'm not aware of any real airplane that returns to
its exact original heading without intelligent intervention. Being
able to turn the airplane using only the rudder is usually inherent in
the airframe design. A simulator that doesn't model that behavior is
incomplete.

RK Henry

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> Try it in a 172. You CAN turn with rudder only. It's not coordinated, but it
> still turns.

If I _hold_ the rudder, I do indeed enter a turn. But I've been
trying (perhaps incorrectly) to just apply it briefly just above the
runway in order to improve my alignment. It works, but only until I
release the rudder, at which point it snaps back. If I hold the
rudder long, the turn becomes more persistent, but then the aircraft
starts to roll, which is what I'm trying to avoid in the first place
when I'm only 30-50 feet above the runway.

I'll grant that I've been trying some truly reckless approaches that
would be unthinkable in real life, standing the aircraft on one wing a
few hundred feet from the threshold, coming in at a 45° angle, and
then trying to align. But I figure that if I can do that to any
extent, then more serious approaches should be all that much easier.
Obviously if I start ten miles out, it's not a problem to be right
down the centerline if the weather isn't too bad. These wild
maneuvers are the kinds of things you can do safely only in
simulation. Surprisingly, there aren't too many crashes, despite the
recklessness of it all.

Plus I get impatient waiting for the next airport to draw near. I've
found that Hawaii seems to have a ton of little airstrips that are
good for touch-and-go practice. Today I discovered that Heathrow and
London City Airport are rather conveniently placed for alternating
touch-and-go practice between them without too many wild approaches.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

RK Henry writes:

> Is there the heading hold engaged on the autopilot?

No, these are with A/P shut off. The usual scenario is that I've
impatiently done a full circle after take-off and I'm trying to
scrunch back in on the same runway from a very short distance away
(half a mile or so, sometimes less). It helps me to get more landings
in over a short period. Especially in small aircraft, going 20-40 nm
to find another airport for another touch-and-go is very
time-consuming.

> Does the airplane tend to bank when you apply rudder?

If I hold it, yes, it starts to bank. But holding it also turns the
aircraft too far, and I don't want to bank because I'm so close to the
ground. The aircraft starts to slip and slide and I come dangerously
close to the ground while still misaligned or too far from the
threshold.

> If not, this may be a modeling error in your sim.

MSFS is pretty reliable on these points, especially with the
hyperrealistic Dreamfleet models. I tend to assume that any mistake
is mine, rather than the sim's.

> I'm not aware of any real airplane that returns to
> its exact original heading without intelligent intervention.

It's not exact, but if I push the rudder sharply and quickly, the
aircraft yaws 10-15 degrees, and if I immediately release it, it yaws
back in the opposite direction almost as if it were pulled, which I
don't understand. If I hold the rudder for more than a second or so,
the plane starts to bank.

> Being able to turn the airplane using only the rudder is usually inherent in
> the airframe design. A simulator that doesn't model that behavior is
> incomplete.

I'm sure the simulator is modeling it correctly. It would be inherent
in the basic aerodynamics of the model, so if this didn't work,
nothing would work.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> In these kinds of your posts, could you please spell out clearly that
> you are talking about playing a flight simulator, not real flying? it
> would save people a lot of time tailoring their answers.

It's not necessary in most cases. Simulators, as their name implies,
behave like real aircraft for the most part, especially for all of the
more basic aspects of flying. While certain types of extremely
complex or aircraft-specific modeling are sometimes absent, all sims
tend to be very good indeed at all the normal flight maneuvers. Some
sims let you crank down the realism at your discretion, but the basic
calculations are there and are correct. Simulation isn't _that_
difficult.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

T o d d P a t t i s t writes:

> In no wind conditions you should not use the rudder alone
> for this. You can side slip (aka side-step) or turn-fly
> straight-turn. If you are too low for those, then you
> should go around.

Maybe my problem is just that I'm trying to land in situations that
would be far too hazardous in real life and would require that I go
around. Although it does seem that bush pilots can land anywhere at
any time (but the aircraft I'm using aren't the ones they'd use).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Bushy Pete]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> Maybe my problem is just that I'm trying to land in situations that
> would be far too hazardous in real life and would require that I go
> around. Although it does seem that bush pilots can land anywhere at
> any time (but the aircraft I'm using aren't the ones they'd use).

I've been sittin back and watchin this thread for a while, and there has
been so much **** talked that I have LMAO!

Mrsmaniac, perhaps you should go and spend a few dollars on a real airplane
ride. Your local flying school would be happy to take your money, and for a
lot less than you would spend on a couple of "required every year upgrades",
you could actually experience it for yourself. If I add up what I've spent
on pc upgrades and software upgrades that were then required because my old
dos based software won't run anymore, or I can't read my 5 inch floppies, or
there's a new operating system that I need to get, and compared it to what
I've spent on flying lessons, there isn't much difference..... correction,
the difference is either looking at a bloody pc screen, or looking out into
the wild blue yonder!

You don't have to learn to fly in big aircraft like Cessna 150's but you
could learn just as well in something like a Gemini Thruster, where you have
to learn how to use your rudder pedals. Practice how to taxi up and down the
runway at the best speed the aircraft you are playing in will run with both
the tail up and the tail down. Spend 50 hours with a decent instructor that
can teach you about using your rudder and the rest of the controls, and how
to use your brain to interpret the other senses.

This is a student pilot newsgroup and I would not be the only one to
congratulate you, when you go for your first solo.

Hope this helps,
Peter

[Viperdoc[_1_]]

Have to agree- most of his posts would be more appropriate on a newgroup for
gamers. The flight models in most PC driven "simulators" are not
particularly reflective of the real plane. Unless you're in a full cockpit
multi screen model, it's still just a game. I did initial Baron training at
Flight Safety, and even though there's no motion, I found myself leaning,
clutching the yoke, and sweating during a VMC rollover.

In MS Flight Simulator something relatively slow and stable like a Baron
(which I fly) is not too bad, but the Extra model is terrible (the real one
is a lot quicker than the PC version in roll and pitch).

Regardless, the visceral feedback and visual cues from flying a real plane
are a lot different than sitting in a chair in front of a screen. For the
cost of a good computer, screen, and peripherals you could be more than half
way to having a real pilot's license.

However, questions related to flight sims on a PC are more appropriate on a
gaming newsgroup. If you have a dream of some day flying a real plane, then
go for it. Many of us had to scrimp, save, and come up with creative ways of
getting the resources together to get our certificates, and have never
looked back from the wonderful experience.

[Mxsmanic]

Bushy Pete writes:

> If I add up what I've spent
> on pc upgrades and software upgrades that were then required because my old
> dos based software won't run anymore, or I can't read my 5 inch floppies, or
> there's a new operating system that I need to get, and compared it to what
> I've spent on flying lessons, there isn't much difference..... correction,
> the difference is either looking at a bloody pc screen, or looking out into
> the wild blue yonder!

Computers must be extraordinarily expensive where you live. A copy of
FS 2004 and a joystick can be had where I live for about 60 euro.

> You don't have to learn to fly in big aircraft like Cessna 150's but you
> could learn just as well in something like a Gemini Thruster, where you have
> to learn how to use your rudder pedals.

Cessna makes big aircraft?

> Practice how to taxi up and down the
> runway at the best speed the aircraft you are playing in will run with both
> the tail up and the tail down. Spend 50 hours with a decent instructor that
> can teach you about using your rudder and the rest of the controls, and how
> to use your brain to interpret the other senses.

How much does 50 hours of instruction cost? More than 60 euro?

> This is a student pilot newsgroup and I would not be the only one to
> congratulate you, when you go for your first solo.

Frankly, I don't think I could ever pass the exams (practical or
written), and I'm pretty sure I'd fail the physical as well. I only
just barely managed to get a driver's license, and that cost me 1000
euro.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> Unless you're in a full cockpit
> multi screen model, it's still just a game.

Following that reasoning, unless you have full motion, it's just a
game. In fact, unless the air pressure in the simulator with
altitude, it's just a game. And so on.

> I did initial Baron training at Flight Safety, and even though
> there's no motion, I found myself leaning, clutching the yoke,
> and sweating during a VMC rollover.

What did you train with?

> In MS Flight Simulator something relatively slow and stable like a Baron
> (which I fly) is not too bad, but the Extra model is terrible (the real one
> is a lot quicker than the PC version in roll and pitch).

I've tried the Extra and it seemed extremely fast to me, but I have no
idea how the real one might be. I'm not very interested in acrobatics
so it's not a big deal.

> Regardless, the visceral feedback and visual cues from flying a real plane
> are a lot different than sitting in a chair in front of a screen. For the
> cost of a good computer, screen, and peripherals you could be more than half
> way to having a real pilot's license.

Hardly. A pilot's license here would cost me at least ten times more
than the best computer around.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

T o d d P a t t i s t writes:

> Yes, that's common in simulator flight - you want to salvage
> at all costs since it costs nothing if you fail and going
> around takes time, which is less fun than "saving" a
> horrible approach to make a successful landing.

Exactly.

> Not only are they using different aircraft, bush pilots tend
> to be good pilots, which means they make good approaches.
> While it may not be obvious in the simulator setting, most
> of the landing is in the approach.

In the videos I've seen, the "airport" (such as an expanse of sand in
a river) seems to pop up out of nowhere as they come out of a turn.
But I suppose that if the aircraft and pilot are up to it, just about
anything is possible.

> I think simulator landings are harder in the sense that they
> don't give you most of the clues that you get in a real
> landing. Being a good pilot means that the pilot is really
> sensitive to those subtle clues. He hears the change in
> airspeed as a gust hits him. He feels the subtle G-change
> as wing lift varies entering lift or sink, he feels the
> slight pressure change required on the stick to hold the
> wing level as he descends with one wing passing through the
> air rolling over the treeline. All of those clues tell him
> what the aircraft is going to do before it actually does it.
> You don't have any of that in a sim.

But other people tell me that depending on physical clues is
dangerous, particularly if flying conditions are other than ideal.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

T o d d P a t t i s t writes:

> It does not pop out of nowhere to the pilot. What you see
> from a camera perspective is limited to the field of view of
> the camera. The pilot is tracking altitude, position and
> speed to be right where he wants to be for the terrain and
> wind.

True. I only have one "window" through which I can see things (or at
least only one window at a time--the PC cannot change them as quickly
as I'd be able to turn my head in real life).

> No pilot can fly in IMC without instruments. All pilots can
> do it in VMC. Except for in aircraft I'll never fly, all
> landings are finished in visual conditions.

Which implies that sensations are actually useless, since anything
that doesn't provide reliable visual input is IMC. If sensations were
reliable, you could fly in a featureless fog and still be able to rely
on what you feel to avoid hitting the ground.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Peter Duniho]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>> No pilot can fly in IMC without instruments. All pilots can
>> do it in VMC. Except for in aircraft I'll never fly, all
>> landings are finished in visual conditions.
>
> Which implies that sensations are actually useless

In IMC, sensations ARE useless. Worse, not only are they useless, humans
are so in the habit of trusting their sensations, sensations become a
liability in IMC. That's the point of the comments in this thread.

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Duniho writes:

> In IMC, sensations ARE useless. Worse, not only are they useless, humans
> are so in the habit of trusting their sensations, sensations become a
> liability in IMC. That's the point of the comments in this thread.

The people I'm reading here seem to be saying exactly the opposite:
that you have to depend on these magic physical sensations in order to
fly properly; that you must "feel" the aircraft or you aren't really
flying it.

It's impossible for both of these assertions to be simultaneously
true.

All the literature I've encountered says that you trust your
instruments first, and so that's what I do (of course, in a sim, I
don't have much choice, anyway, although I can simulate the presence
or absence of visual cues, at least).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Scott Post]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:
>Peter Duniho writes:
>
>> In IMC, sensations ARE useless. Worse, not only are they useless, humans
>> are so in the habit of trusting their sensations, sensations become a
>> liability in IMC. That's the point of the comments in this thread.
>
>The people I'm reading here seem to be saying exactly the opposite:
>that you have to depend on these magic physical sensations in order to
>fly properly; that you must "feel" the aircraft or you aren't really
>flying it.
>
>It's impossible for both of these assertions to be simultaneously
>true.

Sure it is. In VFR conditions your eyes give the frame of reference for
all your other senses to operate correctly. In IFR conditions your eyes
aren't available to keep your inner ear calibrated and the physical
sensations become unreliable.

I'm a low time pilot, but in VMC I can fly an approach with no instruments
whatsoever in any of the 3 aircraft I've flown. An airpseed indicator
is nice, but not necessary once you get a feel for the physical clues.

--
Scott Post

[Peter Duniho]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> The people I'm reading here seem to be saying exactly the opposite:
> that you have to depend on these magic physical sensations in order to
> fly properly; that you must "feel" the aircraft or you aren't really
> flying it.

No, that's not what they saying. Not for IMC. You are misreading the
posts.

In VMC, "feel" is very important. A pilot's "feel" for the airplane is what
(in large part) distinguishes an average pilot from one who is a master of
his craft.

> It's impossible for both of these assertions to be simultaneously
> true.

The two assertions you are comparing are not mutually exclusive at all.
They are for two entirely different kinds of flight.

> All the literature I've encountered says that you trust your
> instruments first, and so that's what I do (of course, in a sim, I
> don't have much choice, anyway, although I can simulate the presence
> or absence of visual cues, at least).

You obviously have not read any quality literature that pertains to flying
in visual conditions then. Focusing on the instruments is one of the worst,
least efficient ways to fly in visual conditions.

You are right, in a simulator you really don't have much choice. The
non-instrument feedback is so minimal, instruments become primary. It sure
would be nice if you could figure out that you're flying a simulator, not a
real airplane. No matter how many times you claim that the whole point of a
simulation is to match as closely as possible the real thing, the fact
remains that the simulation does NOT match the real thing. In the case of a
PC-based simulator like MSFS, it really doesn't even come that close.

And you need to find better literature to read.

Pete

[Jim Logajan]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Peter Duniho writes:
>
>> In IMC, sensations ARE useless. Worse, not only are they useless,
>> humans are so in the habit of trusting their sensations, sensations
>> become a liability in IMC. That's the point of the comments in this
>> thread.
>
> The people I'm reading here seem to be saying exactly the opposite:
> that you have to depend on these magic physical sensations in order to
> fly properly; that you must "feel" the aircraft or you aren't really
> flying it.

I'm not sure your summary is accurate - summarizing the viewpoints of
multiple posters has never been a terribly useful tool, IMHO. But if I were
forced to summarize what people were saying, I think a more accurate
summary would be this: in VMC one can and should rely firstly on outside
visual cues, balance (inner ear), tactile, and proprioception senses - and
use instrument readings to adjust the flight parameters more precisely. But
it would not be a fair summary, but I think closer to what "people" are
trying to say.

> It's impossible for both of these assertions to be simultaneously
> true.

Perhaps because Peter is talking about IMC and others are talking about
VMC. In VMC there are no outside visual reference cues that the brain can
use to recalibrate the signals the inner ear sends. And in VMC someone else
is taking care of the "see and avoid" aspect.

Try this for more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_disorientation

[Jim Logajan]

Jim Logajan > wrote:
> In VMC there are no outside visual reference cues that the
> brain can use to recalibrate the signals the inner ear sends. And in
> VMC someone else is taking care of the "see and avoid" aspect.

Oops! The above should say "IMC" where "VMC' is written.

[Mxsmanic]

Scott Post writes:

> Sure it is. In VFR conditions your eyes give the frame of reference for
> all your other senses to operate correctly. In IFR conditions your eyes
> aren't available to keep your inner ear calibrated and the physical
> sensations become unreliable.

In other words, all the important information is visual, and
sensations don't matter.

Remove the sensations, and you can still fly visually without
instruments (in VMC). Remove the visual input, and you cannot fly in
any conditions with sensations alone.

> I'm a low time pilot, but in VMC I can fly an approach with no instruments
> whatsoever in any of the 3 aircraft I've flown.

Try it blindfolded.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Duniho writes:

> Focusing on the instruments is one of the worst,
> least efficient ways to fly in visual conditions.

If what you see or feel and what the instruments say disagree, trust
the instruments.

> And you need to find better literature to read.

Literature is like instruments, and USENET is like sensations.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

T o d d P a t t i s t writes:

> But most flying has reliable visual input - the horizon, and
> when you don't have that, you switch to instruments.

What do you do when your eyes and your instruments disagree?

> Human sensations of acceleration are reliable.

They can easily be fooled in full-motion simulators.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Peter Duniho]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Scott Post writes:
>
>> Sure it is. In VFR conditions your eyes give the frame of reference for
>> all your other senses to operate correctly. In IFR conditions your eyes
>> aren't available to keep your inner ear calibrated and the physical
>> sensations become unreliable.
>
> In other words, all the important information is visual, and
> sensations don't matter.

No. Absolutely, positively no. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

> Remove the sensations, and you can still fly visually without
> instruments (in VMC). Remove the visual input, and you cannot fly in
> any conditions with sensations alone.

"Can" is not the same as doing it with mastery.

A person without any sensation except vision probably could fly an airplane.
But they would be severely handicapped relative to a pilot with all of their
senses. Balance, proprioception (that is, knowing where your own body is
and how it's positioned), hearing, and feeling all contribute and in many
cases offer more accurate and instantaneous information than vision alone
can provide.

A pilot not taking advantage of these additional sensory inputs is not going
to be able to control the aircraft with nearly the precision than a
masterful pilot applying all of those sensory inputs can.

>> I'm a low time pilot, but in VMC I can fly an approach with no
>> instruments
>> whatsoever in any of the 3 aircraft I've flown.
>
> Try it blindfolded.

Irrelevant. His point is that none of the instruments inside the airplane
are required for visual flight. Obviously VISUAL FLIGHT is not possible
blindfolded. To suggest that as a comparison is just stupid.

Pete

[Mark Hansen]

On 09/22/06 15:55, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Peter Duniho writes:
>
>> Focusing on the instruments is one of the worst,
>> least efficient ways to fly in visual conditions.
>
> If what you see or feel and what the instruments say disagree, trust
> the instruments.

So if you look out the window and see that your diving into the
ground, but the instruments show that you're flying straight and
level, you would just fly into the ground?

Preposterous.

>
>> And you need to find better literature to read.
>
> Literature is like instruments, and USENET is like sensations.
>



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Peter Duniho writes:
>
>
>>Focusing on the instruments is one of the worst,
>>least efficient ways to fly in visual conditions.
>
>
> If what you see or feel and what the instruments say disagree, trust
> the instruments.

No, wrong. Not in visual conditions.

[Jose[_1_]]

>>If what you see or feel and what the instruments say disagree, trust
>> the instruments.
> So if you look out the window and see that your diving into the
> ground, but the instruments show that you're flying straight and
> level, you would just fly into the ground?
>
> Preposterous.

You've never seen the cartoon of the pilot in a small airplane, smiling,
saying everything is just fine, and right in front of him is the ground
tilted at 90 degrees? :)

If you can see the ground out the window, then you can pretty much rely
on that as an indicator of your attitude (except in low visibility
conditions over sloping terrain). But if you are in the clouds, even if
you can see out, what you see can be deceiving. For example, seeing a
sloping cloud deck (not at all uncommon) can give the sensation of being
banked and turning when you are actually straight and level. If you
rely on your visual and inner ear sensations, you could end up in a
spiral dive, the outcome of which would not be pretty. This is
especially true at night in between the clouds.

It's not so preposterous at all.

But in daytime, in good visibility, where you can see the ground, sight
is pretty reliable, and you don't need any flight instruments at all.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mark Hansen]

On 09/22/06 16:57, Jose wrote:
>>>If what you see or feel and what the instruments say disagree, trust
>>> the instruments.
>> So if you look out the window and see that your diving into the
>> ground, but the instruments show that you're flying straight and
>> level, you would just fly into the ground?
>>
>> Preposterous.
>
> You've never seen the cartoon of the pilot in a small airplane, smiling,
> saying everything is just fine, and right in front of him is the ground
> tilted at 90 degrees? :)
>
> If you can see the ground out the window, then you can pretty much rely
> on that as an indicator of your attitude (except in low visibility
> conditions over sloping terrain). But if you are in the clouds, even if
> you can see out, what you see can be deceiving. For example, seeing a
> sloping cloud deck (not at all uncommon) can give the sensation of being
> banked and turning when you are actually straight and level. If you
> rely on your visual and inner ear sensations, you could end up in a
> spiral dive, the outcome of which would not be pretty. This is
> especially true at night in between the clouds.
>
> It's not so preposterous at all.

It was preposterous because the comment was made about VMC. Not about
being in the clouds. Unfortunately, you trimmed that part of the
thread from your response.

>
> But in daytime, in good visibility, where you can see the ground, sight
> is pretty reliable, and you don't need any flight instruments at all.
>
> Jose



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Scott Post]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:
>Scott Post writes:
>
>> I'm a low time pilot, but in VMC I can fly an approach with no instruments
>> whatsoever in any of the 3 aircraft I've flown.
>
>Try it blindfolded.

You claim to know something about aviation, yet don't know what the "V"
in "VMC" stands for.

I give up. I started reading Usenet in 1985 so you'd think I'd have
sense enough by now not to get sucked in by a troll. Mea Culpa.

--
Scott Post

[Peter Duniho]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>> Focusing on the instruments is one of the worst,
>> least efficient ways to fly in visual conditions.
>
> If what you see or feel and what the instruments say disagree, trust
> the instruments.

Again, absolutely not. The instruments all provide information through
one's vision. If the visual sense shows one thing out of the window of the
airplane, and another from the instruments in the airplane, reality (the
view out the window) is the information to trust. If you can't trust what
your eyes see out the window, you can't trust what they see on the
instruments.

The instruments only trump sensory input when one does NOT have external
visual information. Reality trumps flight instruments, always. The only
reason the instruments must be trusted completely in instrument conditions
is that in that situation, they are known to be much more reliable than
other sensory input (vision being obscured, and some other physical senses
being unreliable when vision is obscured).

>> And you need to find better literature to read.
>
> Literature is like instruments, and USENET is like sensations.

Usenet *is* literature. And like all literature, some of it is crap.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>> But most flying has reliable visual input - the horizon, and
>> when you don't have that, you switch to instruments.
>
> What do you do when your eyes and your instruments disagree?

You read the instruments with your eyes. How do your eyes disagree with the
instruments? If you can't trust what your eyes see, you can't trust what
they tell you about outside OR inside the airplane.

Conversely, if you are trusting your eyes and you can see out the airplane,
you ALWAYS trust the view outside the airplane over the instruments.

>> Human sensations of acceleration are reliable.
>
> They can easily be fooled in full-motion simulators.

Wrong. The sensations of acceleration, even in full-motion simulators, are
accurate and reliable. What ARE fooled are the secondary interpretations of
the human sensations of acceleration.

The reason full-motion simulators work as well as they do is that the human
sensations of acceleration are so reliable, even in full-motion simulators.

Pete

[Marty Shapiro]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> T o d d P a t t i s t writes:
>
>> But most flying has reliable visual input - the horizon, and
>> when you don't have that, you switch to instruments.
>
> What do you do when your eyes and your instruments disagree?
>
>> Human sensations of acceleration are reliable.
>
> They can easily be fooled in full-motion simulators.
>

Only if the simulator is set for IMC. It won't fool your sensations when
set for VMC.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Peter Duniho]

"Marty Shapiro" > wrote in message
...
> Only if the simulator is set for IMC. It won't fool your sensations when
> set for VMC.

That's not true. In fact, one of the primary ways that full-motion
simulators create such realism is by taking advantage of the way your body
turns your very-accurate sensations of acclerations into phantom sensations
of velocity, position, and even acceleration (by tilting you backward, when
combined with the misleading forward view of the simulator, acceleration due
to gravity makes you think you are accelerating forward instead).

Pete

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Duniho writes:

> A person without any sensation except vision probably could fly an airplane.
> But they would be severely handicapped relative to a pilot with all of their
> senses. Balance, proprioception (that is, knowing where your own body is
> and how it's positioned), hearing, and feeling all contribute and in many
> cases offer more accurate and instantaneous information than vision alone
> can provide.

I wonder how anyone manages to fly IFR, then, since all they have is
vision in that case.

> A pilot not taking advantage of these additional sensory inputs is not going
> to be able to control the aircraft with nearly the precision than a
> masterful pilot applying all of those sensory inputs can.

Autopilots can fly the aircraft better than a human pilot can, and
they don't depend on sensations.

> Irrelevant. His point is that none of the instruments inside the airplane
> are required for visual flight. Obviously VISUAL FLIGHT is not possible
> blindfolded. To suggest that as a comparison is just stupid.

If sensations were sufficient, it would be possible to fly
blindfolded.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Mark Hansen writes:

> So if you look out the window and see that your diving into the
> ground, but the instruments show that you're flying straight and
> level, you would just fly into the ground?

Sometimes what looks like the ground isn't. The ground on your right
could just be the slope of a mountain, and you might indeed be flying
straight and level.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Duniho writes:

> Again, absolutely not. The instruments all provide information through
> one's vision. If the visual sense shows one thing out of the window of the
> airplane, and another from the instruments in the airplane, reality (the
> view out the window) is the information to trust.

A lot of pilots die by trusting what they think they see out the
window, even when all the instruments disagree.

> If you can't trust what your eyes see out the window, you can't trust
> what they see on the instruments.

What you see out the window is a matter of your subjective
interpretation; what the instruments say is not.

> The instruments only trump sensory input when one does NOT have external
> visual information.

One can have _incorrect_ external visual information.

> Reality trumps flight instruments, always.

Instruments communicate reality, much more often than the view out the
window does.

> The only
> reason the instruments must be trusted completely in instrument conditions
> is that in that situation, they are known to be much more reliable than
> other sensory input (vision being obscured, and some other physical senses
> being unreliable when vision is obscured).

They are pretty much always more reliable, but some pilots don't like
to bother with instruments.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Duniho writes:

> You read the instruments with your eyes. How do your eyes disagree with the
> instruments?

When you see something out the window that seems to conflict with what
the instruments say.

> If you can't trust what your eyes see, you can't trust what
> they tell you about outside OR inside the airplane.

I get the impression that this newsgroup is haunted mainly by VFR
pilots. I didn't realize that there was such a large distinction
between the VFR mindset and the IFR mindset. No wonder VFR pilots are
often so helpless if the weather changes. Are pilots required to know
anything at all about instruments for VFR flight?

> Conversely, if you are trusting your eyes and you can see out the airplane,
> you ALWAYS trust the view outside the airplane over the instruments.

That's a good way to get killed.

Under any conditions, the chances of the instruments all being wrong
are much smaller than the chances of your eyes or sensations fooling
you about what's happening to the aircraft.

> Wrong. The sensations of acceleration, even in full-motion simulators, are
> accurate and reliable.

No, they are not. Full-motion simulators can move only a short
distance, so they cannot produce real-world accelerations anything
like the real thing. However, by taking advantage of the inability of
human pilots to properly judge accelerations, orientation, etc., and
providing appropriate visual cues, full-motion simulators can give
pilots the unmistakable impression of continuous acceleration, even
where there is none in the simulator.

> The reason full-motion simulators work as well as they do is that the human
> sensations of acceleration are so reliable, even in full-motion simulators.

It's exactly the other way around.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Marty Shapiro writes:

> Only if the simulator is set for IMC. It won't fool your sensations when
> set for VMC.

The only difference is the view out the window, and that view is not
reliable.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Marty Shapiro]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in
:

> "Marty Shapiro" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Only if the simulator is set for IMC. It won't fool your sensations
>> when set for VMC.
>
> That's not true. In fact, one of the primary ways that full-motion
> simulators create such realism is by taking advantage of the way your
> body turns your very-accurate sensations of acclerations into phantom
> sensations of velocity, position, and even acceleration (by tilting
> you backward, when combined with the misleading forward view of the
> simulator, acceleration due to gravity makes you think you are
> accelerating forward instead).
>
> Pete
>
>
>

Simulating IMC, absolutely.

Note that I stated "set for VMC". Simulating VMC in a top-of-the-line full
motion simulator with realistic views out all windows is going to be very
close to what you see and feel flying in VMC.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Marty Shapiro]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Marty Shapiro writes:
>
>> Only if the simulator is set for IMC. It won't fool your sensations
>> when set for VMC.
>
> The only difference is the view out the window, and that view is not
> reliable.
>

Considering that I and others on this news group have flown real airplanes
safely in VMC either in aircraft with just the mininum required instruments
(compass, altimiter, airspeed indicator) or have safely completed VMC
flights in aircraft which encountered in flight instrument failure, such as
loss of the vacuum system, and not had any problems doing so, your
statement is simply wrong. The view out the window was all that was needed
to safely conduct and complete the flight.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"Marty Shapiro" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Marty Shapiro writes:
>>
>>> Only if the simulator is set for IMC. It won't fool your sensations
>>> when set for VMC.
>>
>> The only difference is the view out the window, and that view is not
>> reliable.
>>
>
> Considering that I and others on this news group have flown real airplanes
> safely in VMC either in aircraft with just the mininum required
> instruments
> (compass, altimiter, airspeed indicator) or have safely completed VMC
> flights in aircraft which encountered in flight instrument failure, such
> as
> loss of the vacuum system, and not had any problems doing so, your
> statement is simply wrong. The view out the window was all that was needed
> to safely conduct and complete the flight.
>
> --
> Marty Shapiro
> Silicon Rallye Inc.
>
> (remove SPAMNOT to email me)

I wonder how one would fly an ultralight with NO instruments.

[Marty Shapiro]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Peter Duniho writes:
>
>> You read the instruments with your eyes. How do your eyes disagree
>> with the instruments?
>
> When you see something out the window that seems to conflict with what
> the instruments say.
>
>> If you can't trust what your eyes see, you can't trust what
>> they tell you about outside OR inside the airplane.
>
> I get the impression that this newsgroup is haunted mainly by VFR
> pilots. I didn't realize that there was such a large distinction
> between the VFR mindset and the IFR mindset. No wonder VFR pilots are
> often so helpless if the weather changes. Are pilots required to know
> anything at all about instruments for VFR flight?
>

If you read the accident statistics, even IFR rated (and current) pilots
are killed in unexpected encounters with IMC. The VFR pilot has less of a
chance. You do get 3 hours of hood time as part of your private pilot
training, but unless you keep up with it an practice it, it isn't going to
help you when you get into the clouds. There was one study which gave the
non-instrument rated pilot 180 seconds to live if they didn't get back to
VMC conditions.

>> Conversely, if you are trusting your eyes and you can see out the
>> airplane, you ALWAYS trust the view outside the airplane over the
>> instruments.
>
> That's a good way to get killed.
>
> Under any conditions, the chances of the instruments all being wrong
> are much smaller than the chances of your eyes or sensations fooling
> you about what's happening to the aircraft.
>
>> Wrong. The sensations of acceleration, even in full-motion
>> simulators, are accurate and reliable.
>
> No, they are not. Full-motion simulators can move only a short
> distance, so they cannot produce real-world accelerations anything
> like the real thing. However, by taking advantage of the inability of
> human pilots to properly judge accelerations, orientation, etc., and
> providing appropriate visual cues, full-motion simulators can give
> pilots the unmistakable impression of continuous acceleration, even
> where there is none in the simulator.
>

The Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS) moves in 6 axis. In addition to the 3
rotational axis (roll, pitch, yaw) it also moves 40 feet forward/back, 8
feet left/right, and 60 feet vertically. It also has precise OTW (Out The
Window) displays and has been used to simulate everything from blimps to
helicopters to jet fighters to space shuttles.

>> The reason full-motion simulators work as well as they do is that the
>> human sensations of acceleration are so reliable, even in full-motion
>> simulators.
>
> It's exactly the other way around.
>

No. The sensation of acceleration is very reliable. Without the necessary
visual cues, the body can easily misinterpret the sensed acceleration. If
the body did not sense acceleration, there would be no conflict between
what you are seeing on the instrument panel and what the body is feeling.
It is precisely because the body has a very keen sense of acceleration that
the lack of visual cues causes a conflict between what the instruments say
and what the body feels.

A simple experiment will demonstrate this. Sit in a comfortable office
chair which can rotate. Raise it up so your feet are off the ground.
Close your eyes, put your chin into your chest, and cross your arms so each
hand is touching the opposite shoulder. Now, have a friend slowly rotate
the chair, steadily and no more than 3 to 5 RPM.

Initially, you will sense the acceleration and correctly identify the way
the chair is turning. The fluid in your inner ears do not accelerate as
fast as your body, and this is how you sense that you are turning and the
relative direction of the turn with regards to the equilibrium between the
body and the fluids in the inner ear prior to the start of the turn. Soon,
however (if your friend maintains a steady rotation), the fluid in the
inner ear will reach equilibrium with the speed of your body and you will
no longer feel accelleration.

After about two minutes, your friend will stop the chair. You will think
you are turning in the other direction. Why? The fluid in your inner ear
keeps moving and the body, lacking visual cues, interprets this as
accelleration in the opposite direction. (Remember, the fluid wss rotating
at the same speed as the body. Just looking at the relative motion between
the fluid in the inner ear and the body, stopping the body with the fluid
continuing to move in the direction of the rotation is the same as starting
the rotation in the opposite direction at the start of the experiment.)
Lacking the visual cues, the body senses the difference in speed between
itself and the fluid in the inner ear and the direction of this difference,
but incorrectly interprets this the same as it would had your friend
started turning you initially in the opposite direction. (Your body
initially interprets the rotation in the correct direction because of the
visual cues you had prior to closing your eyes and not experiencing any
acceleration until your friend started turning the chair.)

Repeat this same experiment, but this time open your eyes before your
friend stops the chair. This time you will not think you are now turning
in the opposite direction. Even though the fluid in your inner ear is
still moving in the original direction, the visual cues provided by your
eyes combined with the differential in speed with the fluid in your inner
ear causes the correct interpetation that this is a negative acceleration,
ie you're slowing down or stopped.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Marty Shapiro]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in
:

> "Marty Shapiro" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Marty Shapiro writes:
>>>
>>>> Only if the simulator is set for IMC. It won't fool your
>>>> sensations when set for VMC.
>>>
>>> The only difference is the view out the window, and that view is not
>>> reliable.
>>>
>>
>> Considering that I and others on this news group have flown real
>> airplanes safely in VMC either in aircraft with just the mininum
>> required instruments
>> (compass, altimiter, airspeed indicator) or have safely completed VMC
>> flights in aircraft which encountered in flight instrument failure,
>> such as
>> loss of the vacuum system, and not had any problems doing so, your
>> statement is simply wrong. The view out the window was all that was
>> needed to safely conduct and complete the flight.
>>
>> --
>> Marty Shapiro
>> Silicon Rallye Inc.
>>
>> (remove SPAMNOT to email me)
>
> I wonder how one would fly an ultralight with NO instruments.
>
>
>

Without instruments you're only allowed to fly them on MSFS. :-)

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"Marty Shapiro" > wrote in message
...
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in
> :
>
>> "Marty Shapiro" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> Marty Shapiro writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Only if the simulator is set for IMC. It won't fool your
>>>>> sensations when set for VMC.
>>>>
>>>> The only difference is the view out the window, and that view is not
>>>> reliable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Considering that I and others on this news group have flown real
>>> airplanes safely in VMC either in aircraft with just the mininum
>>> required instruments
>>> (compass, altimiter, airspeed indicator) or have safely completed VMC
>>> flights in aircraft which encountered in flight instrument failure,
>>> such as
>>> loss of the vacuum system, and not had any problems doing so, your
>>> statement is simply wrong. The view out the window was all that was
>>> needed to safely conduct and complete the flight.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Marty Shapiro
>>> Silicon Rallye Inc.
>>>
>>> (remove SPAMNOT to email me)
>>
>> I wonder how one would fly an ultralight with NO instruments.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Without instruments you're only allowed to fly them on MSFS. :-)
>
> --
> Marty Shapiro
> Silicon Rallye Inc.
>
> (remove SPAMNOT to email me)

What about a hang glider? Powered parachute?

Part 103 says it's not an airplane if it's under 255 lbs, so no instruments
are required.

[Peter Duniho]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Duniho writes:
>
>> A person without any sensation except vision probably could fly an
>> airplane.
>> But they would be severely handicapped relative to a pilot with all of
>> their
>> senses. Balance, proprioception (that is, knowing where your own body is
>> and how it's positioned), hearing, and feeling all contribute and in many
>> cases offer more accurate and instantaneous information than vision alone
>> can provide.
>
> I wonder how anyone manages to fly IFR, then, since all they have is
> vision in that case.

Are you really this thick-headed in real life? You even quoted my own text
when I wrote "A PERSON WITHOUT ANY SENSATION EXCEPT VISION PROBABLY COULD
FLY AN AIRPLANE". Given that sentence, how could you possibly infer from my
post that I am saying the other sensations are required?

Why don't you read what is written before making silly conclusions?

> Autopilots can fly the aircraft better than a human pilot can, and
> they don't depend on sensations.

No, the best autopilot cannot fly the aircraft better than the best human
pilot. Once again, you pontificate on subjects on which you clearly are
uneducated.

Besides, autopilots most certainly DO depend on sensations. They use their
own form of sensory input. It's not biological in nature, but it's still
sensory input (ie "sensations").

>> Irrelevant. His point is that none of the instruments inside the
>> airplane
>> are required for visual flight. Obviously VISUAL FLIGHT is not possible
>> blindfolded. To suggest that as a comparison is just stupid.
>
> If sensations were sufficient, it would be possible to fly
> blindfolded.

No one has said sensations are *sufficient*. Again, you would do well to
READ the things to which you are responding.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> A lot of pilots die by trusting what they think they see out the
> window, even when all the instruments disagree.

No, they don't. You have absolutely no factual basis for making such a
claim.

> What you see out the window is a matter of your subjective
> interpretation; what the instruments say is not.

What you SEE on the instruments is just as subjective as what you SEE out
the window. Furthermore, the instruments are mechanical devices subject to
failure. They are not infalliable, and they are significantly less
infalliable than the view out the window.

>> The instruments only trump sensory input when one does NOT have external
>> visual information.
>
> One can have _incorrect_ external visual information.

It is true that optical illusions exist which can result in incorrect
interpretation of the view out the window. However, they practically never
happen during the daytime, the few illusions that may happen during the day
are not of the sort that will cause you to run into something or lose
control of the airplane, and among people who are actually pilots (as
opposed to, say, someone like you) it is well-understood that nighttime
flight is a lot more like instrument flight than visual flight.

In other words, for the visual flying that we're talking about here, there's
no significant chance of incorrect external visual information causing a
problem.

>> Reality trumps flight instruments, always.
>
> Instruments communicate reality, much more often than the view out the
> window does.

Instruments communicate their own perception of reality, viewed through the
pilot's own perception of reality. They are an indirect and highly suspect
means of determining reality when compared to using one's own eyes to
directly observe reality.

Only someone who pretends to be a pilot, flying software that pretends to be
a plane, would think otherwise. (And then only if they have configured
their software to make the instruments never fail).

> They are pretty much always more reliable, but some pilots don't like
> to bother with instruments.

You have no basis for claiming that instruments are "pretty much always more
reliable" than direct sensory perception, and with respect to visual flight
conditions your statement is just plain wrong.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> When you see something out the window that seems to conflict with what
> the instruments say.

If that happens, you trust what you see out the window.

> I get the impression that this newsgroup is haunted mainly by VFR
> pilots.

Statistically speaking, it's likely that about half of the people
participating in this newsgroup do not have instrument ratings.

However, it's also likely that about half of the people DO have instrument
ratings. Your "impression" (such as it is, based on your own highly flawed
"understanding" of aviation and piloting) is unlikely to be anywhere close
to correct.

> I didn't realize that there was such a large distinction
> between the VFR mindset and the IFR mindset.

And what "mindset" is that? I am instrument rated. You seem to think that
my mindset is inappropriate for instrument flight. I assure you, the
biggest "mindset" problem is the one that for some reason causes you to
think you have a clue about piloting.

> No wonder VFR pilots are
> often so helpless if the weather changes.

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. A pilot not trained for
instrument flight is unlikely to do well is instrument conditions, just as
you are unlikely to do well flying an actual airplane. So what?

> Are pilots required to know
> anything at all about instruments for VFR flight?

Some minimal training is required, yes. But so what? The training is
intended for when the pilot encounters INSTRUMENT conditions. When in
VISUAL conditions, there is no need to use any instruments in the airplane
at all.

>> Conversely, if you are trusting your eyes and you can see out the
>> airplane,
>> you ALWAYS trust the view outside the airplane over the instruments.
>
> That's a good way to get killed.

No, it's not.

> Under any conditions, the chances of the instruments all being wrong
> are much smaller than the chances of your eyes or sensations fooling
> you about what's happening to the aircraft.

No, they are not. In visual conditions, the likelihood of the external view
becoming compromised in a way that affects the safety of the flight is
practically nil.

>> Wrong. The sensations of acceleration, even in full-motion simulators,
>> are
>> accurate and reliable.
>
> No, they are not.

Yes, they are. There's no magic switch in a full-motion simulator that
disables your sensation of acceleration.

> Full-motion simulators can move only a short
> distance, so they cannot produce real-world accelerations anything
> like the real thing.

I'm starting to think that not only have you never sat at the controls of an
actual aircraft, you have not even ever set foot inside a real full-motion
simulator. You have absolutely no understanding of how full-motion
simulators work.

As I have already pointed out, full-motion simulators take advantage of the
acceleration of gravity, combined with misleading visual information, to
fool the body into thinking they are under a state of constant acceleration.
But the only reason this works is that the body's sensation of
*acceleration* is so sensitive, and fully operational in a full-motion
simulator.

> However, by taking advantage of the inability of
> human pilots to properly judge accelerations, orientation, etc., and
> providing appropriate visual cues, full-motion simulators can give
> pilots the unmistakable impression of continuous acceleration, even
> where there is none in the simulator.

If visual cues were sufficient, you'd get the same sensation of acceleration
at your PC. The visual cues are only part of the picture in the full-motion
simulator. They work in conjunction with real acceleration (momentary
movement of the simulator, combined with a change in attitude resulting in
redirection of the perceived acceleration of gravity) to produce that
impression of continuous acceleration, and it works only because of the
body's accurate and sensitive sensation of acceleration.

>> The reason full-motion simulators work as well as they do is that the
>> human
>> sensations of acceleration are so reliable, even in full-motion
>> simulators.
>
> It's exactly the other way around.

No, it's not. If you'd ever seen a full-motion simulator in operation,
you'd never even think of saying such a silly thing.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Marty Shapiro" > wrote in message
...
>>> Only if the simulator is set for IMC. It won't fool your sensations
>>> when set for VMC.
>>
>> That's not true. In fact, one of the primary ways that full-motion
>> simulators create such realism is by taking advantage of the way your
>> body turns your very-accurate sensations of acclerations into phantom
>> sensations of velocity, position, and even acceleration [...]
>
> Simulating IMC, absolutely.
>
> Note that I stated "set for VMC". Simulating VMC in a top-of-the-line
> full
> motion simulator with realistic views out all windows is going to be very
> close to what you see and feel flying in VMC.

Which is in fact fooling your sensations, since you are NOT in fact flying
(in VMC or otherwise).

The only sensation not being fooled is your sensation of acceleration. All
of the other sensations are being completely duped.

Pete

[Stefan]

Peter Duniho schrieb:

>> When you see something out the window that seems to conflict with what
>> the instruments say.

> If that happens, you trust what you see out the window.

The point is to realize when you can trust what you see outside an when
you cannot. This is not only a VMC vs IMC question.

Stefan

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Duniho writes:

> Are you really this thick-headed in real life? You even quoted my own text
> when I wrote "A PERSON WITHOUT ANY SENSATION EXCEPT VISION PROBABLY COULD
> FLY AN AIRPLANE". Given that sentence, how could you possibly infer from my
> post that I am saying the other sensations are required?

Because you said "Balance [and other sensations] ... contribute ...
more accurate and instantaneous information than vision alone can
provide." Either other sensations are necessary, or they aren't.

> Why don't you read what is written before making silly conclusions?

I did; the inconsistency in what you wrote is what puzzled me.

> No, the best autopilot cannot fly the aircraft better than the best human
> pilot.

Then why do commercial airlines prefer that their pilots stay on
autopilot? And why does flight with RVSM _require_ autopilot?

> Once again, you pontificate on subjects on which you clearly are
> uneducated.

Me and the FAA. Apparently they don't realize that pilots fly much
better than autopilots, so when tolerances are tight, they foolishly
require autopilots. And when visibility is low, they foolishly
require instruments. Don't they realize that pilots fly best by the
seat of their pants? It does seem that certain pilots think that way.

> Besides, autopilots most certainly DO depend on sensations. They use their
> own form of sensory input. It's not biological in nature, but it's still
> sensory input (ie "sensations").

They use data from instruments, just like a competent human pilot
flying IFR.

> No one has said sensations are *sufficient*.

But some seem to be saying that they are necessary, and that's clearly
not true. Others also seem to be saying that they are reliable, and
that's not true, either.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Duniho writes:

> No, they don't. You have absolutely no factual basis for making such a
> claim.

Only a pile of accident reports a mile high. And they were all
certain that what they saw out the window was more reliable than any
instrument.

> What you SEE on the instruments is just as subjective as what you SEE out
> the window. Furthermore, the instruments are mechanical devices subject to
> failure. They are not infalliable, and they are significantly less
> infalliable than the view out the window.

They are far less prone to failure than human perception. That's why
they are there.

> It is true that optical illusions exist which can result in incorrect
> interpretation of the view out the window. However, they practically never
> happen during the daytime, the few illusions that may happen during the day
> are not of the sort that will cause you to run into something or lose
> control of the airplane, and among people who are actually pilots (as
> opposed to, say, someone like you) it is well-understood that nighttime
> flight is a lot more like instrument flight than visual flight.

But the sensations are the same.

> Instruments communicate their own perception of reality, viewed through the
> pilot's own perception of reality.

Which is much more trustworthy than the pilot's perception alone. In
IFR, 90% of the crucial interpretation is done by the instruments,
which do not get tired, confused, or overconfident; the other 10% is
done by the pilot, and since much less of the overall interpretation
is done by him, the overall system is more reliable.

> They are an indirect and highly suspect
> means of determining reality when compared to using one's own eyes to
> directly observe reality.

Highly suspect? How frequently do instruments fail in flight?

> Only someone who pretends to be a pilot, flying software that pretends to be
> a plane, would think otherwise. (And then only if they have configured
> their software to make the instruments never fail).

I've met some real pilots whom I found scary. I don't know how they
stay alive in the air, given some of the weird things they believe.

> You have no basis for claiming that instruments are "pretty much always more
> reliable" than direct sensory perception, and with respect to visual flight
> conditions your statement is just plain wrong.

All of the history of aviation demonstrates that instruments are more
reliable. That's why instruments are the reference when things are
confusing, and even when they are not. The sky is very unforgiving of
those who think they know better than their instruments.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Marty Shapiro writes:

> There was one study which gave the
> non-instrument rated pilot 180 seconds to live if they didn't get back to
> VMC conditions.

Why won't all his "sensations" help him?

> The Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS) moves in 6 axis. In addition to the 3
> rotational axis (roll, pitch, yaw) it also moves 40 feet forward/back, 8
> feet left/right, and 60 feet vertically. It also has precise OTW (Out The
> Window) displays and has been used to simulate everything from blimps to
> helicopters to jet fighters to space shuttles.

Yes. But a real aircraft moves the length of a football field forward
every second, and it can drop 100 feet per second. So all full-motion
simulators depend a lot on the weaknesses of human perception.

> No. The sensation of acceleration is very reliable. Without the necessary
> visual cues, the body can easily misinterpret the sensed acceleration.

These two statements conflict with each other.

> If the body did not sense acceleration, there would be no conflict between
> what you are seeing on the instrument panel and what the body is feeling.

If the body sensed accelerations correctly, there would be no
conflict, either.

> Repeat this same experiment, but this time open your eyes before your
> friend stops the chair. This time you will not think you are now turning
> in the opposite direction. Even though the fluid in your inner ear is
> still moving in the original direction, the visual cues provided by your
> eyes combined with the differential in speed with the fluid in your inner
> ear causes the correct interpetation that this is a negative acceleration,
> ie you're slowing down or stopped.

Simulators use the same methods to convince pilots that they are
really moving.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jose[_1_]]

> There was one study which gave the
> non-instrument rated pilot 180 seconds to live if they didn't get back to
> VMC conditions.

IIRC that study used pilots who had not been trained at all under the
hood - not even the three hours presently required. It may have even
led to the present requirement. It showed that just a little bit of
training was able to reverse the outcomes of a significant number of
such simulated flights.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Duniho writes:

> If that happens, you trust what you see out the window.

I don't.

> Statistically speaking, it's likely that about half of the people
> participating in this newsgroup do not have instrument ratings.

I believe it.

> However, it's also likely that about half of the people DO have instrument
> ratings. Your "impression" (such as it is, based on your own highly flawed
> "understanding" of aviation and piloting) is unlikely to be anywhere close
> to correct.

You just speculated that half the people here are not instrument
rated, therefore I'm pretty close to correct.

> And what "mindset" is that?

The mindset that is willing to believe optical illusions and
misleading sensations over instruments. Why bother with instruments
at all, if one is magically endowed with the ability to perceive
reality perfectly with eyes and semicircular canals?

> I am instrument rated. You seem to think that my mindset is inappropriate
> for instrument flight.

Yes, but as long as I'm not your passenger, and not anywhere near you
in the sky (or beneath you on the ground), it's not my problem.

> I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.

If they have no clue about the use of their instruments, then they are
going to be helpless if the weather deteriorates. If they are
convinced that instruments are less reliable than their perceptions,
then they'll be in even deeper trouble.

> A pilot not trained for
> instrument flight is unlikely to do well is instrument conditions, just as
> you are unlikely to do well flying an actual airplane. So what?

Well, apparently the non-IFR pilots don't hesitate to talk about IFR,
but they don't like it when non-pilots talk about piloting. Hmm.

> Some minimal training is required, yes. But so what? The training is
> intended for when the pilot encounters INSTRUMENT conditions. When in
> VISUAL conditions, there is no need to use any instruments in the airplane
> at all.

You see it as a need; I see it as a convenience.

> No, they are not. In visual conditions, the likelihood of the external view
> becoming compromised in a way that affects the safety of the flight is
> practically nil.

And what is the probability that the instruments will fail?

> Yes, they are. There's no magic switch in a full-motion simulator that
> disables your sensation of acceleration.

Simulators trick your sensations, and your imagination fills in the
rest.

> I'm starting to think that not only have you never sat at the controls of an
> actual aircraft, you have not even ever set foot inside a real full-motion
> simulator. You have absolutely no understanding of how full-motion
> simulators work.

I do indeed know how they work, and the tricks they play to make
pilots think they are actually moving.

> As I have already pointed out, full-motion simulators take advantage of the
> acceleration of gravity, combined with misleading visual information, to
> fool the body into thinking they are under a state of constant acceleration.

It's much more complicated than that.

> If visual cues were sufficient, you'd get the same sensation of acceleration
> at your PC.

Sometimes you do, especially with multiple screens. That's why many
people get motion sickness playing Doom. They aren't moving, but the
effect of the visual input they see is strong enough to convince their
brains that they are.

> The visual cues are only part of the picture in the full-motion
> simulator. They work in conjunction with real acceleration (momentary
> movement of the simulator, combined with a change in attitude resulting in
> redirection of the perceived acceleration of gravity) to produce that
> impression of continuous acceleration, and it works only because of the
> body's accurate and sensitive sensation of acceleration.

If the body were so accurate, it would notice the simulator returning
to a neutral position, and it would notice the rotation of the
simulator when the net acceleration vector shifts. But that doesn't
happen.

> No, it's not. If you'd ever seen a full-motion simulator in operation,
> you'd never even think of saying such a silly thing.

I have seen them in operation.

Heck, you don't have to be a pilot to ride in one ... just take a ride
like Star Tours at Disneyland, which uses full-motion simulators.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Stefan writes:

> The point is to realize when you can trust what you see outside an when
> you cannot. This is not only a VMC vs IMC question.

If instruments and the view out the window disagree, in all
probability the instruments are right, and you're misinterpreting what
you see out the window. You can even fall prey to that in
simulations.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mark Hansen]

On 09/23/06 01:17, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Mark Hansen writes:
>
>> So if you look out the window and see that your diving into the
>> ground, but the instruments show that you're flying straight and
>> level, you would just fly into the ground?
>
> Sometimes what looks like the ground isn't. The ground on your right
> could just be the slope of a mountain, and you might indeed be flying
> straight and level.
>

If you can't tell the difference between the flat ground and the side
of a mountain, you should definitely stay with MSFS.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Peter Duniho]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>> [...] Given that sentence, how could you possibly infer from my
>> post that I am saying the other sensations are required?
>
> Because you said "Balance [and other sensations] ... contribute ...
> more accurate and instantaneous information than vision alone can
> provide."

Where in that sentence to you see the word "required" or "necessary"?

> Either other sensations are necessary, or they aren't.

A trivially true statement. Just as any statement of the form "either X or
not X" is trivially true.

>> Why don't you read what is written before making silly conclusions?
>
> I did; the inconsistency in what you wrote is what puzzled me.

There is no inconsistency in what I wrote. If you see one, you have misread
what I wrote.

>> No, the best autopilot cannot fly the aircraft better than the best human
>> pilot.
>
> Then why do commercial airlines prefer that their pilots stay on
> autopilot? And why does flight with RVSM _require_ autopilot?

Commercial flying is a VERY restricted form of flight, well-suited to
autopilots. The use of autopilots for commercial flying has very little to
do with the general question of whether an autopilot is the equal to a pilot
or not. Once again (I think this is about the 50th time?), you are making
false extrapolations from your tiny bit of actual knowledge.

> Me and the FAA. Apparently they don't realize that pilots fly much
> better than autopilots, so when tolerances are tight, they foolishly
> require autopilots.

Really? Show me the FAA regulation that requires the use of an autopilot
for short field landings. Show me the FAA regulation that requires the use
of an autopilot for off-airport landings. Show me the FAA regulation that
requires the use of an autopilot for narrow runways.

Guess what. You can't. There is no truth whatsoever to the statement that
"when tolerances are tight, they [the FAA] require autopilots". The FAA
requirements that do provide for the use of autopilots are not targeted at
situations "when tolerances are tight", and there a numerous situations when
tolerances are tight in which autopilots are NOT required (and in fact, in
which they would not even work).

> And when visibility is low, they foolishly
> require instruments.

Again with the limited visibility. There is no question that when you
cannot see outside the airplane, one need instruments to fly the airplane.
That's not at debate here, and no matter how many times you prop that straw
man up, knocking it down proves nothing.

> Don't they realize that pilots fly best by the
> seat of their pants? It does seem that certain pilots think that way.

If a *good* pilot can see outside the airplane, a *good* pilot DOES fly best
by the "seat of their pants".

>> Besides, autopilots most certainly DO depend on sensations. They use
>> their
>> own form of sensory input. It's not biological in nature, but it's still
>> sensory input (ie "sensations").
>
> They use data from instruments, just like a competent human pilot
> flying IFR.

So what? My point is that the autopilots have their own sensations. Many,
in fact, use sensory input BEYOND what is available to a pilot via the
flight instruments.

>> No one has said sensations are *sufficient*.
>
> But some seem to be saying that they are necessary, and that's clearly
> not true. Others also seem to be saying that they are reliable, and
> that's not true, either.

Not a single person has written that non-visual sensations are necessary.
What has been said is that proper use of non-visual sensations greatly
enhances a pilot's control of the aircraft.

As far as "reliable" goes, when coupled with visual feedback in the form of
a view outside the aircraft, non-visual sensations ARE extremely reliable.
To say otherwise is to exercise the same arrogant ignorance you've exhibited
over and over.

Frankly, I'm getting a little sick and tired of your inability to accept
just how little you know. Amazingly, in each and every post you not only
manage to avoid admitting your errors, you somehow come up with entirely new
incorrect things to write. You are a fount of anti-knowledge. I'm
beginning to believe that you are beyond redemption.

I notice I'm one of the few people left even bothering to reply to your
posts. You obviously know nothing about flying, but I'm left wondering if I
have a clue with respect to who is worth conversing with.

Pete

[Jay B]

I've just learned that (based on this thread) Monty Python's Flying
Circus is considering re-writing "The Argument."

Jay B

[Peter Duniho]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Only a pile of accident reports a mile high. And they were all
> certain that what they saw out the window was more reliable than any
> instrument.

Where are these accident reports? Show us ten from the last year. I doubt
you can come up with even one, but this supposed "mile high" pile ought to
provide you plenty of documented evidence with which to support your claim.
Show us.

Remember, we are talking about in-flight situations during good daytime
visibility here.

> They are far less prone to failure than human perception. That's why
> they are there.

They are NOT less prone to failure than human perception when one can see
outside the aircraft.

> [...]
>> Instruments communicate their own perception of reality, viewed through
>> the
>> pilot's own perception of reality.
>
> Which is much more trustworthy than the pilot's perception alone. In
> IFR, 90% of the crucial interpretation is done by the instruments,
> which do not get tired, confused, or overconfident; the other 10% is
> done by the pilot, and since much less of the overall interpretation
> is done by him, the overall system is more reliable.

Again, you have no clue with respect to what IFR flight entails. Most of
the interpretation is done by the pilot. The flight instruments provide raw
data, and the pilot is required to integrate that mentally into an overall
situational picture.

Moving map GPS has alleviated this somewhat, but a) most non-transport
airplanes still don't have moving map displays, and b) they introduce a
whole slew of new ways to become confused by the flight instruments.

Until such time as you have actually flown a REAL aircraft in REAL
instrument conditions BY YOURSELF, do not presume to lecture this newsgroup
about what happens in IFR conditions.

>> They are an indirect and highly suspect
>> means of determining reality when compared to using one's own eyes to
>> directly observe reality.
>
> Highly suspect? How frequently do instruments fail in flight?

Well, according to a recent informal survey in this newsgroup, about one
instrument failure per 500 hours is about average. My personal average is a
little higher than that, but in all but one case the instruments were
non-critical engine instruments. That one exception was a vacuum pump
failure, resulting in the failure of both my attitude indicator and my
directional gyro.

During the entire timespan of those failures, I have not once had my sensory
perceptions fail me during good daytime visual conditions.

> [...]
> All of the history of aviation demonstrates that instruments are more
> reliable.

There is nothing about the history of aviation that demonstrates any such
thing.

> That's why instruments are the reference when things are
> confusing, and even when they are not.

Instruments are not the reference when things are not confusing. Any
certificated pilot is perfectly capable of flying an airplane without any
instruments whatsoever.

> The sky is very unforgiving of
> those who think they know better than their instruments.

It is even more unforgiving of those who arrogantly insist that they know
more than people with actual first-hand experience.

I'll say one thing, perhaps the only thing, you have exactly right: you
definitely do NOT belong in the pilot seat of any aircraft.

Pete

[RK Henry]

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 17:07:17 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Peter Duniho writes:
>
>> What you SEE on the instruments is just as subjective as what you SEE out
>> the window. Furthermore, the instruments are mechanical devices subject to
>> failure. They are not infalliable, and they are significantly less
>> infalliable than the view out the window.
>
>They are far less prone to failure than human perception. That's why
>they are there.

Instruments are 100% affected by human perception, unless you're
talking about coupled autopilot operations.

Instruments are as much a part of the perceptual environment as the
whoosh of the wind, the sound of the engine, the smells, the view out
the windows, the pressure of the seat against ones butt, the pull of
the seatbelt, the force of the hand against the controls, the
vibrations, the loose objects flying around the cabin. The pilot
integrates all of these indications to get a more accurate picture of
the state of the airplane. In instrument training, a common admonition
from the instructor is, "Look at everything, stare at nothing." The
advice doesn't apply only to the instrument panel.

>>> They are an indirect and highly suspect
>> means of determining reality when compared to using one's own eyes to
>> directly observe reality.
>
>Highly suspect? How frequently do instruments fail in flight?

Far too often, unfortunately. I've had vacuum pumps fail, all in VFR
conditions fortunately. I've had an electric turn coordinator fail.
I've had an altimeter fail. In that case I ended up rejecting the
altimeter reading and relying on my eyes or I'd have made a mark on
the landscape. Everything on the airplane is subject to Murphy's law,
it can fail, and that includes instruments.

There's a good reason why every time you fly with a CFII he/she will
bring along some suction cups or Post-it notes to stick over
instruments.

And of course when a gyro fails, you may need to disable the autopilot
so it won't be misled by erroneous indications.

RK Henry

[Peter Duniho]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Duniho writes:
>
>> If that happens, you trust what you see out the window.
>
> I don't.

What in the world does that mean? You have never, and will never, be in
that situation. Any personal claim on your part regarding what you would or
would not do is meaningless.

> [...]
>> However, it's also likely that about half of the people DO have
>> instrument
>> ratings. Your "impression" (such as it is, based on your own highly
>> flawed
>> "understanding" of aviation and piloting) is unlikely to be anywhere
>> close
>> to correct.
>
> You just speculated that half the people here are not instrument
> rated, therefore I'm pretty close to correct.

Maybe it's some whacked out French thing (or wherever you're from), but
around here the word "mainly" is not at all a synonym for "only half".

> The mindset that is willing to believe optical illusions and
> misleading sensations over instruments.

No one is suggesting that one believe optical illusions and misleading
sensations over instruments. Those things simply aren't present during good
daytime visual conditions.

> Why bother with instruments
> at all, if one is magically endowed with the ability to perceive
> reality perfectly with eyes and semicircular canals?

It's not magic. It's biology. And the answer to your question is, you
don't. That's the point. If you have information available via your eyes
and other sensations, you have no need for instruments. The instruments are
for when you are deprived of those biologically-granted abilities (in
particular, the visual aspect, as that's the sense that keeps everything
else working correctly).

> [...]
>> I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.
>
> If they have no clue about the use of their instruments, then they are
> going to be helpless if the weather deteriorates. If they are
> convinced that instruments are less reliable than their perceptions,
> then they'll be in even deeper trouble.

What does "if the weather deteriorates" have to do with this discussion?
We're not talking about instrument conditions, we're talking about visual
conditions.

No one is claiming that instruments don't have their use. They do, in
instrument conditions. That's why they call those conditions INSTRUMENT
CONDITIONS. But we're not talking about that.

>> A pilot not trained for
>> instrument flight is unlikely to do well is instrument conditions, just
>> as
>> you are unlikely to do well flying an actual airplane. So what?
>
> Well, apparently the non-IFR pilots don't hesitate to talk about IFR,
> but they don't like it when non-pilots talk about piloting. Hmm.

What non-IFR pilots have been talking about IFR? And even if they have, how
does that make your own insistence on writing about things on which you have
no actual knowledge any better?

>> Some minimal training is required, yes. But so what? The training is
>> intended for when the pilot encounters INSTRUMENT conditions. When in
>> VISUAL conditions, there is no need to use any instruments in the
>> airplane
>> at all.
>
> You see it as a need; I see it as a convenience.

Again, please read what I wrote. The words I wrote are "NO NEED". I don't
see instruments as a need. For that matter, you do NOT see them as a
convenience...you have specifically written that you see them as a need.

>> No, they are not. In visual conditions, the likelihood of the external
>> view
>> becoming compromised in a way that affects the safety of the flight is
>> practically nil.
>
> And what is the probability that the instruments will fail?

Relatively high. As in, any pilot with any reasonable amount of experience
has likely had at least one flight instrument fail during a flight.

>> Yes, they are. There's no magic switch in a full-motion simulator that
>> disables your sensation of acceleration.
>
> Simulators trick your sensations, and your imagination fills in the
> rest.

That's true. But they don't trick your sensation of acceleration.

> I do indeed know how they work, and the tricks they play to make
> pilots think they are actually moving.

Then why don't you write about that, instead of making stuff up that has no
basis in facts?

>> As I have already pointed out, full-motion simulators take advantage of
>> the
>> acceleration of gravity, combined with misleading visual information, to
>> fool the body into thinking they are under a state of constant
>> acceleration.
>
> It's much more complicated than that.

MORE complicated? IMHO, the description I gave is plenty complicated. The
point isn't whether it's complicated, it's whether your sensation of
acceleration is being fooled (or rather, whether someone's sensation
is...obviously, since you've never been in a full-motion simulator, none of
your sensations have ever been fooled, sensation of acceleration or not).

>> If visual cues were sufficient, you'd get the same sensation of
>> acceleration
>> at your PC.
>
> Sometimes you do, especially with multiple screens. That's why many
> people get motion sickness playing Doom. They aren't moving, but the
> effect of the visual input they see is strong enough to convince their
> brains that they are.

Wrong. They get motion sickness for the very reason that their sensation of
acceleration is NOT being fooled.

You seem to be confusing the sensation of acceleration (that is, the body's
direct acquisition of data indicating acceleration, a biomechanical process)
and the mind's impression of acceleration (which is a mental process that
integrates a number of biomechanical processes into a single perception of
reality).

The reason a person gets motion sickness is that their vision sends signals
of acceleration and other motion, while the sensory organs that provide
direct data of acceleration do not. The conflict results in the motion
sickness. If the simulator were effectively fooling all sensation of
acceleration, there would be no motion sickness.

> [...]
> If the body were so accurate, it would notice the simulator returning
> to a neutral position, and it would notice the rotation of the
> simulator when the net acceleration vector shifts. But that doesn't
> happen.

Again, how would you know whether that happens or not?

With respect to returning to neutral position, if it happens quickly enough
(the one way to fool one's sensation of acceleration is to sneak up on it),
it does happen. This is not uncommon if the simulator gets frozen
mid-flight and reset, for example. As far as noticing the rotation, this is
accounted for in the motion of the simulator, and the rotation is combined
with the forward motion that obscures it from one's sensation.

>> No, it's not. If you'd ever seen a full-motion simulator in operation,
>> you'd never even think of saying such a silly thing.
>
> I have seen them in operation.

Why weren't you paying attention then? Why did you not notice that the
simulator pitches up even before the airplane itself has been pitched up?

Pete

[Mark Hansen]

On 09/23/06 11:46, Jay B wrote:
> I've just learned that (based on this thread) Monty Python's Flying
> Circus is considering re-writing "The Argument."
>
> Jay B
>

Damn it! I paid for an Argument!

.... no you didn't.

;-)


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Duniho writes:

> What in the world does that mean?

It means that I do not take for granted that what I see out the window
is what I think I'm seeing, especially with respect to the aircraft's
attitude, speed, altitude, and so on.

> No one is suggesting that one believe optical illusions and misleading
> sensations over instruments. Those things simply aren't present during good
> daytime visual conditions.

How do you know? The nature of illusion is that you don't know it's
an illusion until it's too late.

> Again, please read what I wrote. The words I wrote are "NO NEED". I don't
> see instruments as a need. For that matter, you do NOT see them as a
> convenience...you have specifically written that you see them as a need.

I've written that they are more trustworthy than vision and
sensations. If there is a disagreement, the instruments are right.
If the instruments agree, no problem.

> Relatively high.

Relative to what? Give me a number.

> As in, any pilot with any reasonable amount of experience
> has likely had at least one flight instrument fail during a flight.

Which instruments have failed for you, and over the course of how many
flights?

> That's true. But they don't trick your sensation of acceleration.

But they do. They make you think you are strongly accelerating when
in fact you are not. For example, tilting the simulator so that the
net acceleration vector points a bit backwards gives you the
impression that the aircraft is accelerating "forward"; but in
reality, the total acceleration is still only 1 G, whereas it would be
more than 1 G in reality.

> Then why don't you write about that, instead of making stuff up that has no
> basis in facts?

See above.

> Wrong. They get motion sickness for the very reason that their sensation of
> acceleration is NOT being fooled.

No, they get motion sickness from visual input alone. The exact
mechanism is not fully understood.

> The reason a person gets motion sickness is that their vision sends signals
> of acceleration and other motion, while the sensory organs that provide
> direct data of acceleration do not. The conflict results in the motion
> sickness. If the simulator were effectively fooling all sensation of
> acceleration, there would be no motion sickness.

Not true. Even when acceleration and visual input are perfectly
synchronized, motion sickness often results.

> Again, how would you know whether that happens or not?

Because that's how simulators work.

> With respect to returning to neutral position, if it happens quickly enough
> (the one way to fool one's sensation of acceleration is to sneak up on it),
> it does happen. This is not uncommon if the simulator gets frozen
> mid-flight and reset, for example.

The simulator is always returning to a neutral position, because it
needs freedom of movement for the next acceleration. The only
exceptions would be where no acceleration in certain directions is
possible (e.g., downward acceleration on the ground).

The key is to accelerate quickly and then smoothly back off to more
than a stop, so that the simulator cabin returns to a neutral
position, ready for the next acceleration cue. There is very little
real acceleration, but the pilot's imagination will fill everything in
after that first little push.

> As far as noticing the rotation, this is
> accounted for in the motion of the simulator, and the rotation is combined
> with the forward motion that obscures it from one's sensation.

It can't be accounted for; it's a limitation of full-motion
simulators. In real life, the acceleration vector moves, not the
pilot. In a simulator, the acceleration vector remains stationary,
and the pilot rotates. Unless the center of rotation is a great
distance away from the pilot, his equilibrium will note rotation, not
just acceleration. But usually the other cues will hide this minor
effect.

> Why weren't you paying attention then? Why did you not notice that the
> simulator pitches up even before the airplane itself has been pitched up?

I did notice that. That was self-evident, anyway, since that's the
only way to simulate the movement in question.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Mark Hansen writes:

> If you can't tell the difference between the flat ground and the side
> of a mountain, you should definitely stay with MSFS.

Unfortunately, when it happens to pilots in real life, they can't just
jump out of the cockpit and in front of a PC.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Dave Stadt]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Duniho writes:
>
>> If that happens, you trust what you see out the window.
>
> I don't.

Of course you don't. You don't have a window.

[Dave Stadt]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Mark Hansen writes:
>
>> If you can't tell the difference between the flat ground and the side
>> of a mountain, you should definitely stay with MSFS.
>
> Unfortunately, when it happens to pilots in real life, they can't just
> jump out of the cockpit and in front of a PC.

We know the difference between flat ground and a mountain. We don't need to
sit in front of a PC and play a game.

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Stadt writes:

> We know the difference between flat ground and a mountain.

Sometimes a mountain in level flight looks just like flat ground in a
bank.

> We don't need to sit in front of a PC and play a game.

Good luck.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jose[_1_]]

> I've just learned that (based on this thread) Monty Python's Flying
> Circus is considering re-writing "The Argument."

No, that would be "abuse". "Argument" is three doors down.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay B]

Jose wrote:
> > I've just learned that (based on this thread) Monty Python's Flying
> > Circus is considering re-writing "The Argument."
>
> No, that would be "abuse". "Argument" is three doors down.
>
> Jose

:O)

Jay B

[Mike Isaksen]

Peter, without intending insult to anyone, do you feel the the futility of
continuing this thread? I read your posts as attempting to debate the
subtlety of music with a deaf person who has never the less studied music
books for years.

This thread reminds me of a CFI friend who raved about his new student
following a first lesson. The student ace'd the written and his years of MS
sim flying made him really smooth. There was no doubt he'd solo fast. After
the second flight my friend complained that the student wasn't looking
outside enough and had no feel for the controls. Following the third flight,
during a portion of which he covered the panel with the sectional, my friend
came back wondering if the student would even make it to solo. In the end
the student did ok and made his PPL in about average time. The lesson I
walked away with is that books and simulation can make you Talk the Talk,
but seldom Walk the Walk.

The best I think Mxsmanic can do at this time is to pony up the money for
three flight lessons, and the sim will "feel" very different from then on.
Depending on the age, money can come from birthday cash, early holiday
(christmas?) gift, or a credit card (30 euro dollar per month min payoff).
Little risk, lots of gain. Good flight.

[Peter Duniho]

"Mike Isaksen" > wrote in message
news:3wmRg.236$Dq3.95@trndny06...
> Peter, without intending insult to anyone, do you feel the the futility of
> continuing this thread? [...]

No insult taken. If anything, I deserve a bit of harassment for being
willing to continue the "dialogue" as far as I have. You'll note a previous
message (particularly, my comments toward the end):
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/msg/d7853c84e1127a38?dmode=source

> [...]
> The best I think Mxsmanic can do at this time is to pony up the money for
> three flight lessons, and the sim will "feel" very different from then on.

If he were so-inclined, you're right that it would. However, he's made it
abundantly clear that he doesn't have what it takes to even go for an
introductory flight, never mind any serious flight training.

Why I didn't take that as a clue earlier regarding his intransigence with
respect to other knowledge-expanding activities, I can't say. Honest, I'm
not usually this optimistic.

Pete

[Jim Logajan]

"Mike Isaksen" > wrote:
> This thread reminds me of a CFI friend who raved about his new student
> following a first lesson.
....

That little story reminds me of the definition of anecdotal evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> It's not necessary in most cases.
>

yes, it is.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Isaksen writes:

> This thread reminds me of a CFI friend who raved about his new student
> following a first lesson. The student ace'd the written and his years of MS
> sim flying made him really smooth. There was no doubt he'd solo fast. After
> the second flight my friend complained that the student wasn't looking
> outside enough and had no feel for the controls. Following the third flight,
> during a portion of which he covered the panel with the sectional, my friend
> came back wondering if the student would even make it to solo. In the end
> the student did ok and made his PPL in about average time. The lesson I
> walked away with is that books and simulation can make you Talk the Talk,
> but seldom Walk the Walk.

It works both ways. You learn from what you have. If you have a sim
with reliable instruments, moderately good visuals, and no motion,
you'll learn to fly by instruments, with some help from looking out
the window, and with no attention paid at all to motion. If you want
to fly for real, you'll have to counteract that tendency.

But the opposite problem can also exist. If you learn to fly in a
real plane with minimal instruments, always in clear weather, you get
used to looking out the window or "feeling" the plane's movements, and
you are less likely to look at those pesky instruments. So then you
have to force yourself to look at them when it becomes necessary to
use them.

The interesting thing is that IFR is always possible in VMC, but VFR
is not possible in IMC. So if you know your instruments, you can
always fly, but if you don't, you're in trouble if VMC disappears one
day during a flight.

I still can't believe the recording I listened to a few days ago in
which some pilot was screaming that he was lost and clearly feared
that he was about to die. He had passed from VMC into a cloud or
something, and apparently he had never looked at his instruments
before in his life ... or at least that's the impression I got. Why
not just glance at the artificial horizon and see if you really are
sideways before the panic attack?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Duniho writes:

> If he were so-inclined, you're right that it would. However, he's made it
> abundantly clear that he doesn't have what it takes to even go for an
> introductory flight, never mind any serious flight training.

Quite so. No money, no time, can't even pass the physical I suspect.
Be glad that your situation is different.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Don Poitras]

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I still can't believe the recording I listened to a few days ago in
> which some pilot was screaming that he was lost and clearly feared
> that he was about to die. He had passed from VMC into a cloud or
> something, and apparently he had never looked at his instruments
> before in his life ... or at least that's the impression I got. Why
> not just glance at the artificial horizon and see if you really are
> sideways before the panic attack?

Passing into a cloud isn't always (or even often) just a matter of
the windows going white. It sometimes is accompanied by rather violent
turbulance. If you let the plane get sideways (it can happen pretty
fast) looking at the sideways AI if you're not used to looking at it
can be pretty confusing (and scary).

--
Don Poitras

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Autopilots can fly the aircraft better than a human pilot can, and
> they don't depend on sensations.
>

Didn't you state somewhere else you were opposed to FBW? Kind of a
contradiction here....

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mike,

> Depending on the age, money can come from birthday cash, early holiday
> (christmas?) gift, or a credit card (30 euro dollar per month min payoff).
>

Work. You forgot good, honest work as a source.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Quite so. No money, no time, can't even pass the physical I suspect.
> Be glad that your situation is different.
>

Some, even most, is in your power to change. It's just that you chose
not to.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> A lot of pilots die by trusting what they think they see out the
> window, even when all the instruments disagree.
>

Ah, another silly statement that I'm sure you won't back up by facts.
Will you? Cite one example?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> I'll say one thing, perhaps the only thing, you have exactly right: you
> definitely do NOT belong in the pilot seat of any aircraft.
>

You got that right.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> If what you see or feel and what the instruments say disagree, trust
> the instruments.
>

Ever the expert gamer.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> I get the impression that this newsgroup is haunted mainly by VFR
> pilots. I didn't realize that there was such a large distinction
> between the VFR mindset and the IFR mindset. No wonder VFR pilots are
> often so helpless if the weather changes. Are pilots required to know
> anything at all about instruments for VFR flight?
>

That clearly takes the cake. You are an arrogant pityful idiot. You
wasted a perfectly good chance to learn. No wonder your real life is as
miserable as you describe it if you show the same attitude in it that
you show here.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> > If that happens, you trust what you see out the window.
>
> I don't.
>

You don't even have a window to look out. You have a monitor.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Didn't you state somewhere else you were opposed to FBW? Kind of a
> contradiction here....

Not really. You can disconnect the autopilot if you don't like the
way it's behaving. You cannot disconnect fly-by-wire systems. You
can fight against a misbehaving A/P by manhandling the yoke or stick
yourself, but if a fly-by-wire system decides to ignore your
"suggestions," you're out of luck.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Wade Hasbrouck]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> Didn't you state somewhere else you were opposed to FBW? Kind of a
>> contradiction here....
>
> Not really. You can disconnect the autopilot if you don't like the
> way it's behaving. You cannot disconnect fly-by-wire systems. You
> can fight against a misbehaving A/P by manhandling the yoke or stick
> yourself, but if a fly-by-wire system decides to ignore your
> "suggestions," you're out of luck.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

If the autopilot fails to disengage you can be in a world of trouble too...
It can happen, and has.

[Dave Stadt]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Mike,
>
>> Depending on the age, money can come from birthday cash, early holiday
>> (christmas?) gift, or a credit card (30 euro dollar per month min
>> payoff).
>>
>
> Work. You forgot good, honest work as a source.

He is in France. It's against the law.

> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Not really.

Yes, really. You stated the autopilot always flew better than the
pilot.


> but if a fly-by-wire system decides to ignore your
> "suggestions," you're out of luck.
>

Not really. It is certified to do the right thing. Name an accident
where an FBW system didn't.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Wade Hasbrouck writes:

> If the autopilot fails to disengage you can be in a world of trouble too...
> It can happen, and has.

But you have a way to disengage the autopilot. You have no way to
disengage fly-by-wire; there is no manual override.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Not really. It is certified to do the right thing. Name an accident
> where an FBW system didn't.

Habsheim.

There's a reason why they call it the Scarebus.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Wade Hasbrouck]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Wade Hasbrouck writes:
>
>> If the autopilot fails to disengage you can be in a world of trouble
>> too...
>> It can happen, and has.
>
> But you have a way to disengage the autopilot. You have no way to
> disengage fly-by-wire; there is no manual override.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Which misses the point of my statement... "What do you do if the autopilot
does not disengage or is 'jammed'?" You need to be familiar with "What are
you going to do if it does not disengage or is 'jammed'?" I know there are
some procedures to follow for this situation, but not familiar with them as
the planes I fly do not have an autopilot.

[Mxsmanic]

Wade Hasbrouck writes:

> Which misses the point of my statement... "What do you do if the autopilot
> does not disengage or is 'jammed'?"

Which misses the point of my statement: With an autopilot, you have a
button that normally disengages it. And that normally works, even
when the rest of the autopilot fails. With fly-by-wire, you have
nothing; if the FBW system fails, you hit the side of a mountain, or
the ground. There is no button that disengages FBW. The first two
letters in FADEC stand for "full authority," meaning you can't
override it.

> You need to be familiar with "What are
> you going to do if it does not disengage or is 'jammed'?" I know there are
> some procedures to follow for this situation, but not familiar with them as
> the planes I fly do not have an autopilot.

FBW doesn't need any such procedures, since there is no way to
disengage FBW. If it fails, you're doomed ... simple.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

T o d d P a t t i s t writes:

> Of course, you have
> to believe the instruments as to where the horizon is for
> these sensations to be reliable ...

If you have to believe the instruments in order to make the sensations
reliable, then the sensations are _not_ reliable--the instruments are.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Stefan]

Mxsmanic schrieb:

>> Not really. It is certified to do the right thing. Name an accident
>> where an FBW system didn't.

> Habsheim.
> There's a reason why they call it the Scarebus.

Sigh. Yes, there is a reason. It's called ignorance.

Stefan

[Mxsmanic]

Stefan writes:

> Sigh. Yes, there is a reason. It's called ignorance.

Not when flight recorders are spirited away for two weeks after an
accident.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Dave,

> He is in France. It's against the law.
>

See my comments in this thread (or another manic thread) about attempts
at humor by Americans about the French...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

T o d d P a t t i s t writes:

> The direct sensation of acceleration is reliable, but like
> the instruments has imperfect accuracy.

A sensation of acceleration alone is of limited utility. Unless you
can integrate the accelerations over time in a very accurate way, they
don't tell you much about where you are, or what attitude you are in.

> The integrated
> value of acceleration that you do in your head produces an
> estimate of speed, and that value is less reliable. The
> second integration that you do in your head is position, and
> that value is even less reliable.

Yup.

> I've been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but
> you're not trying hard to understand this. Perhaps this
> will make it clear - A full motion simulator can produce an
> excellent simulation of many of the sensations we are
> discussing. It's obvious that the full motion simulator
> does not move thousands of feet the way that an airplane
> does. How does it achieve excellent simulation without
> moving out of the simulation box? It can do that because
> humans are good at sensing accelerations, but not in
> integrating them to get velocity or double integrating to
> get position. The full motion sim matches the accelerations
> pretty closely, but not so closely that it needs to really
> leave the building that houses the sim.
>
> The same thing happens in instrument flight and in VFR
> flight - the pilot uses the sensed accelerations to fly, but
> uses the horizon - either real or AI instrument simulated to
> recalibrate his awareness of position and attitude. Without
> the horizon, his beleif in position and attitude starts to
> drift away from reality. He's excellent at detecting when
> he starts to accelerate away from his current
> position/attitude, but lousy at knowing what the current
> position/attitude is.

So it would seem that the only utility of sensation is in assessing
extremely short-term movements of the aircraft. You may sense that
you've started to climb or descend, but you don't know how far, or how
fast. For movements and commands that take place over the scale of
seconds, that might be moderately useful, but beyond that it seems
that it's just good for feeling warm and fuzzy.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

T o d d P a t t i s t writes:

> That's exactly the point. The sensations don't tell you
> absolutes, they tell you when things are changing and how
> quickly. Those are the sensations the skilled pilot uses to
> know what the plane is about to do so he can react *before*
> the aircraft significantly changes its position or attitude.

If he is able to instantly and correctly interpret the implications of
the acceleration he feels, which I would doubt it all but the most
ideal situations. I read constantly about how easy it is to be duped
by illusions in vision and sensation in aviation; there must be a
reason for all of these warnings. This newsgroup is the first time
I've seen anyone give sensations such priority. Every other source
warns about how misleading they can be.

> Nope. When you are landing, you need to touch down in a
> particular attitude. If you wait until the plane has
> changed its attitude or position so much that it's visible
> looking out the window, it may be too late in a critical
> situation. You need to sense that it's starting to roll
> left so you can correct it before it has changed.

Your artificial horizon should tell you immediately what attitude the
aircraft is in, if there's any doubt. And landing is a tightly
circumscribed environment compared to cruise flight.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Habsheim.

BS! Point me to where the FBW does something the pilot doesn't. In
Habsheim, the pilot did something the plane wasn't designed nor able to
do, namely extremely low flight in a wooded area. His last words were
probably along the lines of "Hey, watch this!". FBW had nothing to do
with it. The accident report reflects this.

>
> There's a reason why they call it the Scarebus.
>

Yes. That reason is called "Boeing Marketing Department".

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

T,

> I've been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but
> you're not trying hard to understand this.
>

Uhm, I don't think that's his intention.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[RK Henry]

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 23:23:16 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>FBW doesn't need any such procedures, since there is no way to
>disengage FBW. If it fails, you're doomed ... simple.

Don't underestimate the capabilities of a trained, experienced crew to
cope with equipment failure. Case in point, United flight 232 at Sioux
City, Iowa. Despite complete hydraulic loss and concomitant loss of
flight controls the crew was able to bring the aircraft to what turned
out to be a survivable crash for most of the occupants. Though the
outcome was not as favorable as we might have hoped, it was
considerably better than "doomed," and the flight crew can be fully
credited with that measure of success.

In-flight emergencies are like a box of chocolates, you never know
what you're gonna to get.

RK Henry

[Mxsmanic]

RK Henry writes:

> Don't underestimate the capabilities of a trained, experienced crew to
> cope with equipment failure. Case in point, United flight 232 at Sioux
> City, Iowa. Despite complete hydraulic loss and concomitant loss of
> flight controls the crew was able to bring the aircraft to what turned
> out to be a survivable crash for most of the occupants.

They were also flying an aircraft that did not have fly-by-wire
systems.

Fly-by-wire means that no command bypasses the computer. If the
computer malfunctions, or if it decides to ignore your command, you're
out of luck, and no amount of skill will help you. If flight 232 had
been a fly-by-wire aircraft, everyone aboard would have died.

The problem with fly-by-wire is that digital systems have typically
catastrophic failure modes, which is the dark flip side of their
superlative performance within the envelope. If flight remains within
the envelope foreseen by the developers of the system (and assuming
there are no bugs in the software), FBW aircraft fly better and more
easily than non-FBW aircraft. However, if flight ventures outside the
programmed envelope, failures in the system _will_ occur--and failures
in digital systems are often catastrophic failures, because of the way
digitization separates control from any constraining physical
parameters.

This issue is not limited to FBW aircraft, but it is much more
critical in FBW because the results of a malfunction are usually
fatal.

Everything is different in more conventional aircraft. You might lose
the hydraulic assist on control surfaces, but you can still move them
to some extent, and they won't snap into implausible positions that
exceed the physical limits of the system.

As an example, if you have a purely analog throttle, if you push it
beyond the maximum or below idle, the worst you're likely to get is no
effect at all, i.e., you'll still have full throttle or idle,
respectively. In a poorly-designed FADEC, however, your throttle will
just be providing a number to a computer. If the computer has
throttle settings from 00 to 99, and you push the throttle to a point
that sends the internal computer setting beyond 99, it may roll over
to 00, setting the engines abruptly to idle. Thus, the FBW throttle
has a catastrophic failure mode that is completely absent in the
conventional throttle.

Add to that the fact that many FBW systems are not ergonomically
designed and may have features that were conceived by engineers or
project analysts rather than pilots, and you multiply the chances of
problems.

I think every FBW should have a button that says "do exactly what all
the control inputs tell you to do," but many engineers apparently
disagree, and most people (including some engineers) don't know enough
about computers to realize the danger in this.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> BS! Point me to where the FBW does something the pilot doesn't.

Habsheim. The pilot apparently put the throttles all the way forward,
but the FADEC ignored this, because the aircraft was not in the right
"mode." We don't know for sure because of tampering with the flight
recorders, but this is one of several plausible scenarios.

Normally, a pilot expects engines to spool up when he advances the
throttle. But FBW systems do what they want, not what the pilot
wants.

> In Habsheim, the pilot did something the plane wasn't designed nor
> able to do, namely extremely low flight in a wooded area. His last
> words were probably along the lines of "Hey, watch this!".

I read the transcript, and those were not his last words, although
I've forgotten what they were (and it's not certain that the published
transcript actually reflects what was originally on the voice
recorder).

> FBW had nothing to do with it. The accident report reflects this.

FBW had everything to do with it. There were too many FBW systems
aboard, and they were too complicated, and they worked in ways that
were counterintuitive for an experienced pilot. When the pilot
followed his instincts in an emergency situation, the FBW refused to
follow.

> Yes. That reason is called "Boeing Marketing Department".

The real reason why I prefer Boeing is the ten-day disappearance of
those flight recorders. If the aircraft were so reliable, there would
be no reason to sneak away with the hard data. Boeing has a long
history of concern for safety and experience therewith that its main
competitor does not share.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[RK Henry]

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 05:56:24 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>RK Henry writes:
>
>> Don't underestimate the capabilities of a trained, experienced crew to
>> cope with equipment failure. Case in point, United flight 232 at Sioux
>> City, Iowa. Despite complete hydraulic loss and concomitant loss of
>> flight controls the crew was able to bring the aircraft to what turned
>> out to be a survivable crash for most of the occupants.
>
>They were also flying an aircraft that did not have fly-by-wire
>systems.
>
>Fly-by-wire means that no command bypasses the computer. If the
>computer malfunctions, or if it decides to ignore your command, you're
>out of luck, and no amount of skill will help you. If flight 232 had
>been a fly-by-wire aircraft, everyone aboard would have died.

The similarity is that in both cases there's no hard connection
between the control surfaces and the flight controls. The DC-10 had no
cables between the controls and the flight surfaces, just pipes, so
with no hydraulic power there was no control action at all. But the
crew was left with control of the engines and that made it possible to
control the airplane. My assertion is that there is insufficient
evidence to conclude that everyone would have died had the airplane
been FBW. Uncertainty remains as to that outcome.

However, much as it may disturb some other, less tolerant, members of
this group, I tend to agree with your qualms about FBW. FBW makes it
possible to implement exotic airframe designs by defining their flight
characteristics in software instead of in hardware. That's fine when
the pilot sits in an ejection seat, but when this technology is
extended to airplanes whose occupants don't have the option of pulling
a handle when things go badly then we must be very careful. I'm sure
the problems can be solved, probably with multiple redundancy, but a
century of experience with aviation shows that we must always consider
the possibility of failure.

I've been similarly apprehensive about glass cockpits in light
aircraft. A single point of failure in an inadequately designed and
tested system could conceivably leave a pilot deaf, dumb, and blind.
Show me the test plan.

RK Henry

[Mxsmanic]

RK Henry writes:

> The similarity is that in both cases there's no hard connection
> between the control surfaces and the flight controls. The DC-10 had no
> cables between the controls and the flight surfaces, just pipes, so
> with no hydraulic power there was no control action at all. But the
> crew was left with control of the engines and that made it possible to
> control the airplane.

True, but at least the control system didn't have a mind of its own.
It may stop working, but it isn't likely to start doing things that
the pilot doesn't want it to do.

> My assertion is that there is insufficient
> evidence to conclude that everyone would have died had the airplane
> been FBW. Uncertainty remains as to that outcome.

From what I've read, they weren't even supposed to have survived the
accident as it was. I don't know if anyone ever managed to duplicate
their landing feat in a simulator (I've read that it has never been
successfully done in simulation).

> However, much as it may disturb some other, less tolerant, members of
> this group, I tend to agree with your qualms about FBW. FBW makes it
> possible to implement exotic airframe designs by defining their flight
> characteristics in software instead of in hardware. That's fine when
> the pilot sits in an ejection seat, but when this technology is
> extended to airplanes whose occupants don't have the option of pulling
> a handle when things go badly then we must be very careful.

I agree. Furthermore, I just don't see a need for it. Just because
you can do it doesn't mean that you must or you should; it doesn't
even mean that you have anything to gain from it.

Military fighters need the best possible performance (or at least they
did, until they hit the obstacle of keeping pilots alive). FBW can
achieve that in certain situations, but at the expense of higher risk
for all flight in general. I don't see how any of this would be
applicable for general or commercial aviation.

> I'm sure
> the problems can be solved, probably with multiple redundancy, but a
> century of experience with aviation shows that we must always consider
> the possibility of failure.

Perhaps the problems can be solved, but if there is nothing to be
gained by FBW in the first place, why bother? Does anyone who flies a
plane for pleasure dream of being able to fly by just pushing one
button, or having a plane that does what it thinks is best, instead of
what the pilot tells it to do?

When planes are for pure transportation, perhaps that might argue in
favor of such systems, but in that case why bother keeping a pilot in
the cockpit at all? If FBW is completely reliable, you don't need a
pilot. If you need a pilot, then FBW is not completely reliable, and
the pilot needs a way to override it.

> I've been similarly apprehensive about glass cockpits in light
> aircraft. A single point of failure in an inadequately designed and
> tested system could conceivably leave a pilot deaf, dumb, and blind.

And he would already be broke from paying for the avionics.

Wouldn't this also be a risk for any other aircraft?

> Show me the test plan.

That's the part that worries me most. I know what passes for
"testing" in the world of computers, and it's an accident waiting to
happen. Yes, avionics are tested more thoroughly--but not thoroughly
enough. The failure modes multiply exponentially as gadgets and
features are added, and nobody is testing all the possible scenarios.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[RK Henry]

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:23:39 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Military fighters need the best possible performance (or at least they
>did, until they hit the obstacle of keeping pilots alive). FBW can
>achieve that in certain situations, but at the expense of higher risk
>for all flight in general. I don't see how any of this would be
>applicable for general or commercial aviation.

There is one potential advantage to computer enhanced control for
civil aviation: fuel economy. We can build more efficient airframes,
but they're often unstable. We can compensate with software. FBW
offers the promise of allowing airplanes to use less fuel. That's too
important a benefit to ignore, but we can't sacrifice safety in the
process.

RK Henry

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> If flight 232 had
> been a fly-by-wire aircraft, everyone aboard would have died.
>

Oh, are we clairvoyant now, too? You are spreading more clueless BS.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> but this is one of several plausible scenarios.
>

A flat earth is one of several plausible scenarios to many people, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

RK Henry writes:

> There is one potential advantage to computer enhanced control for
> civil aviation: fuel economy.

Yes, but you could still build a system that the pilot can override
and yet preserve fuel economy. Autopilots and flight computers are
existing examples of this. Overriding them requires only the press of
a button, or (in some cases) merely a movement of the controls by the
pilot.

> We can build more efficient airframes, but they're often unstable.

Why would a more efficient airframe be unstable? Something that
requires constant computer surveillance to stay in the air likely has
some aerodynamic instabilities, which implies sources of drag or lift
that would sap energy from the powerplant. Gliders require very
little energy.

> FBW offers the promise of allowing airplanes to use less fuel. That's too
> important a benefit to ignore, but we can't sacrifice safety in the
> process.

Corporations don't care about safety.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

RK,

> but when this technology is
> extended to airplanes whose occupants don't have the option of pulling
> a handle when things go badly then we must be very careful. I'm sure
> the problems can be solved, probably with multiple redundancy, but a
> century of experience with aviation shows that we must always consider
> the possibility of failure.
>

And your worries show in the accident statistics of the Boeing 777 and
the Airbus 32x and up exactly where, after over 20 years of service?

> A single point of failure in an inadequately designed and
> tested system could conceivably leave a pilot deaf, dumb, and blind.
>

There's a ton of single points of failure in any aircraft ever designed.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[RK Henry]

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 17:01:37 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>RK,
>
>> but when this technology is
>> extended to airplanes whose occupants don't have the option of pulling
>> a handle when things go badly then we must be very careful. I'm sure
>> the problems can be solved, probably with multiple redundancy, but a
>> century of experience with aviation shows that we must always consider
>> the possibility of failure.
>>
>
>And your worries show in the accident statistics of the Boeing 777 and
>the Airbus 32x and up exactly where, after over 20 years of service?

Umm...20 years of service? They've got a way to go before they rack up
that much service experience. However, I have few doubts. The
engineers share my concerns, that's why they've provided multiple
redundancy.

My Warrior has non-redundant cables operating the control surfaces. As
long as metal continues to obey physical laws and they get looked at
once a year, I have few worries. However, there are people who suggest
FBW is in the future for light aircraft. That worries me. How is a 777
flight control system going to scale to a Warrior? Is there going to
be some kind of cost-saving breakthrough or are they going to cut
corners?

RK Henry

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> And your worries show in the accident statistics of the Boeing 777 and
> the Airbus 32x and up exactly where, after over 20 years of service?

With the exception of the 747, all of the non-fly-by-wire Boeing
aircraft have had fewer accidents than any of the FBW Airbus aircraft,
on a per-flight basis.

From the most to least safe, we have:

1 Saab 340
2 (Boeing) MD-80
3 Boeing 767
4 Boeing 757
5 Boeing 737
6 Boeing 727
7 Airbus A319/A320/A321
8 Embraer 120 Brasilia
9 (Boeing) DC-9
10 BAe 146
11 L-1011 Tristar
12 Airbus A300
13 Airbus A310
14 Boeing 747 (!)

> There's a ton of single points of failure in any aircraft ever designed.

But very few catastrophic failure modes outside the world of
fly-by-wire.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

RK Henry writes:

> My Warrior has non-redundant cables operating the control surfaces. As
> long as metal continues to obey physical laws and they get looked at
> once a year, I have few worries. However, there are people who suggest
> FBW is in the future for light aircraft. That worries me. How is a 777
> flight control system going to scale to a Warrior? Is there going to
> be some kind of cost-saving breakthrough or are they going to cut
> corners?

They are going to cut corners. That's the objective of most FBW
systems.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[601XL Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
> They are going to cut corners. That's the objective of most FBW
> systems.
>


You are just so damn clueless.

[Thomas Borchert]

RK,

> 20 years of service?
>

When did the 320 enter service?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
...
> You are just so damn clueless.

Of course, you have to wonder if he was initially so clueless he was forced
to move to France or whether he became that way after moving there from
their cultural influence... Either way, same result...