I give up, after many, many years!

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Did you read my post? Did you forget the fact my vacuum system
>> wasn't working? How can I trust the instruments?
>
> You don't need vacuum for electric instruments.

No, you need electricity, fjukktard, even less eliable than vacuum.
>
> If you have no instruments and you're in IMC, you have a big problem.
>
>> Not when the vacuum system is broke. I just experienced it
>> yesterday.
>
> Don't fly IFR until it's fixed.

You are a moron.
>
>> Uh, did you forget climb is pretty close to stall buffet?
>
> Is it? You mean "pretty close" as "within 45 degrees"?


Good grief, You know less about flying than a cinder block does.
>
>> A couple of degrees pitch up and you will get close to stall buffet.
>> Of course you don't feel that in the simulator.
>
> If you're a good pilot, you should never feel it at all.
>
>> Wrong. I have been there. You have not.
>
> Maybe next time you're there, you won't come back. Trust your
> instruments.
>

Idiot.

>> The ABSENSE of a feeling is
>> more important then defective instruments (see above, hint vacuum
>> failure).
>
> I'm not talking about defective instruments. You should never fly IFR
> with defective instruments.

They go defective while you are flying sometimes, fjukktard.
>
>> WRONG Re-read what I said above. You got to use your senses to get
>> to minimums.
>
> No, you can use instruments to get to minimums. After that, you use
> your eyes and instruments.
>
>> Again, you are talking to a pilot, who just experienced IMC and a
>> vacuum failure.
>
> You're a very lucky pilot, then, if you're here posting to this
> newsgroup.
>
>> Everything on a sim doesn't even come close to what I experienced.
>> Oh yeah, it wasn't straight and level flight, instrument approaches
>> require turns. Using an attitude indicator that displays level
>> flight and a DG that doesn't move and my GPS shows degrees ticking
>> off, doesn't bode well for survival if I don't trust my senses ALONG
>> with the backup instruments.
>
> You were lucky.
>


Sounds to me like he knew what he was doing, actually.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> As has happened so many times in the past, your tunnel vision along
>> with your black and white viewpoint lead you to make pronouncements
>> that are not only wrong but laughable.
>
> Show the errors.
>

Only one big one, you thought you were flying when you weren't.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> A plane is flown by sensations.
>
> Explain autopilots.

they don't fly airplanes any more thna you do, fjukktard.
>
>> When you catch an updraft coming over a ridge, do you wait for the
>> altimeter to tell you you're climbing? Or do you slightly lower the
>> nose based on FEELING the additional lift?
>
> I look out the window to see what has
> changed.


What, so looking over at the boulangerie across the road tells you what,
exactly?
>
>> How about landing. Are you FLYING visually or by feel? Do you NEED to
>> look at the airspeed indicator to tell if you're trending faster or
>> slower?
>
> Yes.
>
>> I fly by feel. I orient myself visually, either looking out the
>> window or looking at the instruments. I navigate visually. But I FLY
>> by feel.
>
> How many seconds can you fly by feel before you get into trouble.
>

So far? Many many millions.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

gregvk > wrote in
:

> Buster Hymen > wrote in
> 02:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Buster Hymen > wrote in
>>> 02:
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>>>>> news:4df208ad-4920-4f77-93c1-
>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 17, 9:30 am, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: "Jay Honeck" >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>> What people are asserting here is 180 degrees different from
>>> what
>>>>>>> >>> I read in all the literature. You cannot fly by the seat of
>>> your
>>>>>>> >>> pants.
>>>>>>> >>> You can't fly based on sensations. They are too
unreliable.
>>>>>>> >>> Conversely, you can fly without sensations, as long as you
>>>>>>> >>> have visual and/or instrument information.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >> You're a moron. You're not competent to read with
>>> comprehension.
>>>>>>> >> Anthony, you don't know **** from shinola.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >Presuming we're talking about IFR flight, what, precisely, do
>>>>>>> >you find incorrect in MX's paragraph, above?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Many years ago, on a bet, I did a pretty fair 4 point
>>>>>>> roll.......BLINDFOLDED! I got lunch and a half dozen beers out
of
>>> the
>>>>>>> deal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A plane is flown by sensations. In the short term, it's quite
>>>>>>> reliable. In the long term, slight errors start to compound and
>>> need
>>>>>>> to be eliminated by squaring things up with the instruments or
>>>>>>> horizon. When you catch an updraft coming over a ridge, do you
>>>>>>> wait for the altimeter to tell you you're climbing? Or do you
>>>>>>> slightly lower the nose based on FEELING the additional lift?
>>>>>>> How about landing. Are you FLYING visually or by feel? Do you
>>>>>>> NEED
>>> to
>>>>>>> look at the airspeed indicator to tell if you're trending faster
>>>>>>> or slower? I fly by feel. I orient myself visually, either
>>>>>>> looking out the window or looking at the instruments. I navigate
>>>>>>> visually. But
>>> I
>>>>>>> FLY by feel. Humans are hard wired with a decent inertial nav.
>>>>>>> system. MX is a few wires short of a complete circuit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I pretty much agree with MX, the human inertial nav
>>>>>> is clumsy, we didn't have the evolution of birds.
>>>>>> An example is a "spiral dive", it's actually quite benign
>>>>>> from the standpoint of inertial inputs, it's better to use
>>>>>> instruments.
>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>
>>>>> Like you could.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're a moron!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're a moron!
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> Sorry, Bertie. That last response was meant for Ken "****head"
>> Tucker, the wannabe mother ****er.
>
> Moron.
>

IKYABWAI?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> That sensation tells you that you are coordinated, which is the
>> point.
>
> No, it does not. Other things can produce the same sensation. You
> have no way of knowing which movement produced the sensation unless
> you cross-check against instruments or the world outside the window.
>
>> The sensation in real airplanes allows you to fly more precisely and
>> safer.
>
> The sensation in real airplanes gives some pilots a false sense of
> security.
>
>> A blazingly stupid comment that shows you know nothing about real
>> flight.
>
> I'll ask again: Can you fly safely with your eyes closed, relying only
> on sensations, and selectively ignoring or accepting the sensations
> you feel?
>
>> It only takes a couple of hours in a real airplane to learn to
>> interpret what they are and what they mean.
>
> Sometimes it takes an accident to learn that you can't trust those
> sensations.
>
>> That's not what the "literature" says.
>
> That's exactly what it says. Trust your instruments, ignore your
> sensations.
>

No, it doesn't.

Fjukkwit.


Bertie

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 17, 3:25*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> You don't need vacuum for electric instruments.

I don't have electric instruments along with the majority of the
world. What is your answer to this?

> > Uh, did you forget climb is pretty close to stall buffet?
>
> Is it? *You mean "pretty close" as "within 45 degrees"?

No, within a few knots.

> > A couple of degrees pitch up and you will get close to stall buffet.
> > Of course you don't feel that in the simulator.
>
> If you're a good pilot, you should never feel it at all.

Having never flown a plane, what gives you the position to say this?

> > Wrong. *I have been there. *You have not.
>
> Maybe next time you're there, you won't come back. *Trust your instruments.

Did you read anything I posted? They failed AFTER liftoff. .
HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

> > The ABSENSE of a feeling is
> > more important then defective instruments (see above, hint vacuum
> > failure).
>
> I'm not talking about defective instruments. *You should never fly IFR with
> defective instruments.

I didin't launch knowingly. It failed after take off. How am I to
survive? Guess senses will be one of your answers?

> No, you can use instruments to get to minimums. *After that, you use your eyes
> and instruments.

WRONG did you read my post on the absence of a feeling being more
important then a failed instrument?

> You're a very lucky pilot, then, if you're here posting to this newsgroup.

NOPE. Used my senses along with every tool I had in my tool kit that
brought me home. No luck about it, that is what training is for and I
took it to heart.

> You were lucky.

NOPE. See above.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Lieberman writes:
>
>> So, in this case the simulator fails in teaching the real world as
>> engine sounds are not consistent or predictable.
>
> They are very consistent and predictable. So much so that they can be
> used for analysis of accidents.

No, they can't.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in news:83f0f162-79f7-4cd9-
:

> On May 16, 11:04*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>> >There has to be something that a simulator can offer that does not
>> >require the instructor to be present.
>>
>> Much depends on the level of your simulator. *If you have something
like
> our
>> Penguin (see it
here:http://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm)
>> you can learn a lot. *If you're flying a mouse in front of your
laptop,
> not
>> so much.
>
> Hah...I must have come full circle.
>
> Last year, when I decided to get into flying, everything was new, and
> so I just went to Google and jumped in, then took ground school, etc.
>
> Your link you give is one of the first one's I saw. I remember
> thinking, "That simulator is soooo coool...and the idea of a flying-
> themed hotel. Maybe one day..."
>
> Going to reread your site, now that I have some idea of what I'm
> looking at.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>

There ya go Jay, you should put the rabbit's endorsement in your
pamphlets. Sums you up perfectly.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> > On the contrary, it's important. Can you really be sure that your
>> > turn is perfectly coordinated and that you are holding altitude
>> > without ever looking at the instruments?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> How?
>
>> Looking out the window. It is a VFR turn, remember from the stuff you
>> cut?
>
> Looking out the window is no longer flying by the seat of your pants,
> which disproves your assertion.
>

Wrong

>> > How do you tell
>> > the difference between an uncoordinated turn and being pushed by
>> > the wind?
>>
>> Once again a blazingly stupid comment that shows you know nothing
>> about flying.
>
> How do you tell the difference between an uncoordinated turn and being
> pushed by the wind?
>

Oh god, soooo wrong.



>> You are safest spending as much time as possible looking out the
>> window.
>
> Why? I thought you could fly by the seat of your pants?
>

Fjukkwit.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> You haven't a clue what a FMC is, what it does, or how it is used.
>
> I know quite a bit about how a FMC works.


No, you don't. You dopn;'t know thing one about how it works.
>
>> Do tell us about the FMC in your Baron.
>
> There is no FMC in the Baron.

There is no baron, fjukkwit.



Bertie

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 17, 3:26*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Lieberman writes:
> > So, in this case the simulator fails in teaching the real world as
> > engine sounds are not consistent or predictable.
>
> They are very consistent and predictable. *So much so that they can be used
> for analysis of accidents.

Uh, you need to get in a real plane. Then come back and lets talk.

I sim by the way as well, and use MSFS, and the sounds that come out
of my speakers do not simulate any C172 I have been in.

MSFS don't simulate fouled plugs BTW, or any other engine anomaly that
can be encountered in the real world flying.

Nor does it simulate the changes in sound of an engine with pitch
changes very well.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

A Lieberman > wrote in news:b4f2ddaf-831d-49ca-beb8-
:

> On May 17, 3:26*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> A Lieberman writes:
>> > So, in this case the simulator fails in teaching the real world as
>> > engine sounds are not consistent or predictable.
>>
>> They are very consistent and predictable. *So much so that they can
be u
> sed
>> for analysis of accidents.
>
> Uh, you need to get in a real plane. Then come back and lets talk.

Even if he did go fly, he'd still be an absolute and utter tit. I'cve
seen students like this. They're a nightmare to teach and an absolute
menace if they actually make it through training with a certificate.



Bertie

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Often there is no direct
> indication of what the engine(s) is doing on the visible instruments, and
> there is no motion in the sim.

Wrong again, asshole.
You don't know **** from shinola.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

>> Not when the vacuum system is broke. I just experienced it
>> yesterday.
>
> Don't fly IFR until it's fixed.
>

Dumber and dumber with every post, Anthony. Calling you a moron gives you
way too much credit for intelligence.

Instruments fail in flight. A concept the fecal matter you call a brain
will never understand.

Anthony, you don't know **** from shinola.

[Helen Waite]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

>> Again, you are talking to a pilot, who just experienced IMC and a
>> vacuum failure.
>
> You're a very lucky pilot, then, if you're here posting to this
> newsgroup.

Good grief! The poster is NOT the only pilot who has experienced vacuum
failure in IMC. It's one of the basic things we train for. I had vacuum
failure the very first time I was in the clouds after passing my checkride.
It was a non-event.

Bertie was being charitable when he said you know less about aviation than
a cinder block. You really should get back on your medication(s).

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Helen Waite > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>>> Again, you are talking to a pilot, who just experienced IMC and a
>>> vacuum failure.
>>
>> You're a very lucky pilot, then, if you're here posting to this
>> newsgroup.
>
> Good grief! The poster is NOT the only pilot who has experienced
> vacuum failure in IMC. It's one of the basic things we train for. I
> had vacuum failure the very first time I was in the clouds after
> passing my checkride. It was a non-event.
>
> Bertie was being charitable when he said you know less about aviation
> than a cinder block.

I'm kind of the mother Theresa of usenet.


Bertie

[Buster Hymen]

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
:

>>
>> I look out the window to see what has
>> changed.
>
>
> What, so looking over at the boulangerie across the road tells you what,
> exactly?
>>

Bertie, according to the on line 3D map of Paris I just looked at, across
the street from 29 Rue du General Bertrand looks like another apartment
building. But if one turn's left from 29 Rue du General Bertrand and
crosses Rue de Sevres, you are at Hopital Necker, which is for sick
children. Anthony is probably in the hospital's long term care facility
for adults who are developmentally 7 years old and have no hope of
progressing.

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberman writes:

> MSFS don't simulate fouled plugs BTW, or any other engine anomaly that
> can be encountered in the real world flying.

MSFS aircraft are properly maintained by default.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > As has happened so many times in the past, your tunnel vision along
> > with your black and white viewpoint lead you to make pronouncements
> > that are not only wrong but laughable.

> Show the errors.

The first one is posting simulator based nonsense to a real flying
group.

It is all downhill after that.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On May 17, 5:30*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> MSFS aircraft are properly maintained by default.

So is my airplane down to every AD and every scheduled maintenance for
the past 6 years and replaced faulty instruments. I have the bills to
prove it, will you pay for them?

Things break in flight as it happened to me

Lets face it, MSFS does simulate some things, but what I experienced
Saturday, I have never encountered in MSFS.

Is that a flaw in real life or Microsoft? Do I need to reboot my life?

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

<snip>

> > Again, you are talking to a pilot, who just experienced IMC and a
> > vacuum failure.

> You're a very lucky pilot, then, if you're here posting to this newsgroup.

Laughably, totally, ignorantly, wrong.

He is posting because he is trained and used everything at his disposal,
which includes motion sensations and sounds, to get back on the ground
in an airplane that doesn't have a pause key.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > That sensation tells you that you are coordinated, which is the point.

> No, it does not. Other things can produce the same sensation. You have no
> way of knowing which movement produced the sensation unless you cross-check
> against instruments or the world outside the window.

What part of you must spend as much time as possible looking out the
window in VFR are you failing to understand?

The choices are NOT

a) Stare out the window
b) Stare at the panel
c) Fly blindfolded.

I take back everything I ever said about you being intelligent with
psychological issues.

You are an idiot with psychological issues.


> > The sensation in real airplanes allows you to fly more precisely and
> > safer.

> The sensation in real airplanes gives some pilots a false sense of security.

Yet another blazingly stupid comment that shows you know nothing about real
flight.

> > A blazingly stupid comment that shows you know nothing about real
> > flight.

> I'll ask again: Can you fly safely with your eyes closed, relying only on
> sensations, and selectively ignoring or accepting the sensations you feel?

What part of you must spend as much time as possible looking out the
window in VFR are you failing to understand?

The choices are NOT

a) Stare out the window
b) Stare at the panel
c) Fly blindfolded.

> > It only takes a couple of hours in a real airplane to learn to interpret
> > what they are and what they mean.

> Sometimes it takes an accident to learn that you can't trust those sensations.

Yet another blazingly stupid comment that shows you know nothing about real
flight.

> That's not what the "literature" says.

> That's exactly what it says. Trust your instruments, ignore your sensations.

Yet another blazingly stupid comment that shows you know nothing about real
flight.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > > On the contrary, it's important. Can you really be sure that your turn is
> > > perfectly coordinated and that you are holding altitude without ever looking
> > > at the instruments?
> >
> > Yes.

> How?

Training in a real airplane.

> > Looking out the window. It is a VFR turn, remember from the stuff you cut?

> Looking out the window is no longer flying by the seat of your pants, which
> disproves your assertion.

Yet another blazingly stupid response that shows you know nothing about
real flight, not even the terminology.

The term "flying by the seat of your pants" does not mean flying blindfolded.

> > > How do you tell
> > > the difference between an uncoordinated turn and being pushed by the wind?
> >
> > Once again a blazingly stupid comment that shows you know nothing about
> > flying.

> How do you tell the difference between an uncoordinated turn and being pushed
> by the wind?

Yet another blazingly stupid response that shows you know nothing about
real flight.

> > You are safest spending as much time as possible looking out the window.

> Why? I thought you could fly by the seat of your pants?

Yet another blazingly stupid response that shows you know nothing about
real flight, not even the terminology.

The term "flying by the seat of your pants" does not mean flying blindfolded.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[di+gi+es]

On 5/17/2008 3:30 PM Mxsmanic ignored two million years of human
evolution to write:

> MSFS aircraft are

nonexistent.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > You haven't a clue what a FMC is, what it does, or how it is used.

> I know quite a bit about how a FMC works.

Then why did you make such an idiotic post about airlines and FMC's?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 17 May 2008 07:30:55 -0700 (PDT), A Lieberman
> wrote:
>
>ILS minimums, it's only 20 seconds. The more you use your senses WITH
>instruments in IMC, the better chance your outcome will be.

I think that was very well said. <G>

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>> I fly by feel. I orient myself visually, either looking out the window or
>> looking
>> at the instruments. I navigate visually. But I FLY by feel.
>
> How many seconds can you fly by feel before you get into trouble.

Initially we were talking about instrument flight. Somehow, several posts
upstream this got conflated into instrument flight after a vacuum failure --
a completely different kettle of fish.

IMHO (and this from a 1300-hour VFR pilot and aircraft owner who stopped
just short of taking the IFR flight test in '02) MX's assertions regarding
ignoring physical sensations mesh perfectly with everything I've been taught
about instrument flight. You MUST ignore what your inner ear is telling
you and pay strict and sole attention to your instruments, or you've got 153
seconds (or whatever the time was) before you auger in.

This point is supported by every written text on instrument flight I've
read, and by every CFII I've flown with. I can't argue that certain
sensations help to confirm what's happening during certain phases of
instrument flight -- but to state that you don't place absolute trust in
your instruments in IMC does the students on this group a disservice.

Now, of course, if you want to talk about flying by the seat of your pants
after your vacuum pump goes T.U. in IMC, well, that's another thread.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>> > A blazingly stupid comment that shows you know nothing about real
>> > flight.
>
>> I'll ask again: Can you fly safely with your eyes closed, relying only on
>> sensations, and selectively ignoring or accepting the sensations you
>> feel?
>
> What part of you must spend as much time as possible looking out the
> window in VFR are you failing to understand?

You guys are hilariously arguing right past each other. MX is arguing that
you can't fly in IMC ("with your eyes closed") by the seat of your pants --
which is 100% correct.

You, on the other hand, jrespond by arguing that of COURSE you can fly by
the seat of your pants, if only you look out the window!

God almighty, keep it up -- it's "Who's on first" all over again, and some
pretty damned good Saturday night entertainment!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 17, 6:37 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> >> > A blazingly stupid comment that shows you know nothing about real
> >> > flight.
>
> >> I'll ask again: Can you fly safely with your eyes closed, relying only on
> >> sensations, and selectively ignoring or accepting the sensations you
> >> feel?
>
> > What part of you must spend as much time as possible looking out the
> > window in VFR are you failing to understand?
>
> You guys are hilariously arguing right past each other. MX is arguing that
> you can't fly in IMC ("with your eyes closed") by the seat of your pants --
> which is 100% correct.
> You, on the other hand, jrespond by arguing that of COURSE you can fly by
> the seat of your pants, if only you look out the window!
> God almighty, keep it up -- it's "Who's on first" all over again, and some
> pretty damned good Saturday night entertainment!
> :-)

After doing a weird manuever, it's hard to tell if you're
in a banking turn or a spiral dive, that's how I learned.
Maybe a good pilot could use VFR as a ref, but I was
clued in by my IAS needle going into yellow.

I was a fairly good gymnast, so my orientational
skills are likely a bit better than average.
Ken

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 17, 8:31*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>* You MUST ignore what your inner ear is telling
> you and pay strict and sole attention to your instruments, or you've got 153
> seconds (or whatever the time was) before you auger in.

Jay,

I think you missed my point.

Like I said originally to you in my original post, you ignore certain
sensations (inner ear like you say) but you DO NOT ignore the seat of
the pants sensation. Two different beasts but still sensations.

Mx blanket statement is flat out wrong. I only brought out the vacuum
failure as an extreme example, but even with a full working compliment
of instruments, you still need to listen to your sensations.

Read my ILS rational, where you feel the applied power to capture the
glide slope. If you don't feel it in the seat of your pants, you got
a bigger issue. If you are above the glide slope, and you reduce
power, the lack of pressure in your butt should happen, but if the
opposite happens, you have a problem.

Good example, though not likely, but very possible is having the trim
set in the nose down position rather then nose up. Apply power and
instead of maintaining level altitude, you just accelerated downhill
and you wouldn't get that firm seat of the pants feeling. The
building airspeed and the ABSENCE of an expected seat of the pants
feeling doesn't bode well. This would be an extreme example, but very
pluasible.

Remember, that the above sensations helps CONFIRM the instruments, NOT
the other way around.

> but to state that you don't place absolute trust in
> your instruments in IMC does the students on this group a disservice.

You can't. If you do that, you miss the whole point. It's a
combination that makes it all work. If you put 100 percent faith in
instruments and ignore what I am describing above, then you are
failing to recognize instrumentation or airplane setting errors, and
that will lead to a not so good ending.

It's a combination of instruments AND what you feel in the seat of
your pants (NOT your inner ear feelings) that makes a difference
between landing at minimums or butching up an approach.

> Now, of course, if you want to talk about flying by the seat of your pants
> after your vacuum pump goes T.U. in IMC, well, that's another thread.

Nope it is not, I flew my partial panel Friday the very same way if I
had full instrumentation. I just had less gauges to monitor :-)

Again, go up with an IA rated pilot, see what the real deal is all
about. That hood just doesn't do it any justice, nor will any MSFS
desktop simulator do it.

If you have not seen my video, go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCvDb3mCAf8
and then watch it at 1:39. Look at the cowling, and it was straight
and level relative to the camera, but in reality, I was in a climbing
right turn. You feel that climb in the seat of your pants which is
verified with your attitude indicator (when it works!).

In my case, I verified the VSI reading with the feeling in my rear
end. This has nothing to do with inner ear balance which is what you
need to ignore. Had I not felt that climb in my rear end, then I got
something big time wrong with the plane that I need to reconcile,
whether it be trim, or power or something.else like picking up icing
affecting my power performance.

Bottom line, in IMC your seat of pants sensation will save your butt,
but you got to use it by listening to what it's telling you, or more
importantly NOT telling you. (seat of the pants sensation)

Allen

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberman writes:

> Read my ILS rational, where you feel the applied power to capture the
> glide slope. If you don't feel it in the seat of your pants, you got
> a bigger issue. If you are above the glide slope, and you reduce
> power, the lack of pressure in your butt should happen, but if the
> opposite happens, you have a problem.

To capture the glide slope, you watch the needles on your instruments.

> Good example, though not likely, but very possible is having the trim
> set in the nose down position rather then nose up. Apply power and
> instead of maintaining level altitude, you just accelerated downhill
> and you wouldn't get that firm seat of the pants feeling.

Applying power will not accelerate you downhill. Power controls altitude,
pitch controls speed. At constant pitch, increased power produces increased
lift, and thus produces a climb.

> The building airspeed and the ABSENCE of an expected seat of the pants
> feeling doesn't bode well. This would be an extreme example, but very
> pluasible.

Just look at the instruments, and forget the seat of the pants. Your
altimeter will tell you about changes in altitude, and your airspeed indicator
will tell you about changes in speed.

> Remember, that the above sensations helps CONFIRM the instruments, NOT
> the other way around.

No. The instruments confirm. The instruments are the final authority. If
you are looking at the instruments to begin with (as you will be in IMC), you
don't need anything else, and paying attention to sensations of movement will
only get you into trouble.

> You can't.

Yes, you can. You can fly entirely with instruments. You _have to_ fly
entirely with instruments in IMC. Doing anything else is dangerous.

> It's a combination that makes it all work.

No combination is necessary.

> If you put 100 percent faith in instruments and ignore what I am
> describing above, then you are failing to recognize instrumentation
> or airplane setting errors, and that will lead to a not so good ending.

Failing instruments in IMC usually lead to a not-so-good ending. The seat of
your pants won't help you.

> It's a combination of instruments AND what you feel in the seat of
> your pants (NOT your inner ear feelings) that makes a difference
> between landing at minimums or butching up an approach.

No, it's instruments.

> Again, go up with an IA rated pilot, see what the real deal is all
> about. That hood just doesn't do it any justice, nor will any MSFS
> desktop simulator do it.

This is unrelated to simulations or hoods. In the real world, in IMC, you fly
by instruments.

> Look at the cowling, and it was straight
> and level relative to the camera, but in reality, I was in a climbing
> right turn.

If the cowling starts to move while you're flying, you have worse problems
than just failing instruments.

> In my case, I verified the VSI reading with the feeling in my rear
> end.

Your rear end is useless for measuring rate of climb.

> Bottom line, in IMC your seat of pants sensation will save your butt,
> but you got to use it by listening to what it's telling you, or more
> importantly NOT telling you. (seat of the pants sensation)

The seat of the pants sensation can get you killed.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>Bottom line, in IMC your seat of pants sensation will save your butt,
>but you got to use it by listening to what it's telling you, or more
>importantly NOT telling you. (seat of the pants sensation)

Gotcha. That's quite a different "sensation" than the inner ear -- thanks
for the clarification.

However, I think many in this group are arguing right past MX, dismissing
him out of hand simply because most of the respondents can't stand him.
Your point that seat of the pants pressure sensations are used during
instrument flight does not disprove MX's point about the necessity of
relying primarily on your instruments for accurate information in IMC.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

On May 17, 9:37*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Applying power will not accelerate you downhill. *Power controls altitude,
> pitch controls speed. *At constant pitch, increased power produces increased
> lift, and thus produces a climb.

Did you miss the part about the trim setting in a nose down position?
The above answer is WRONG when you don't have the airplane configured
correctly. Ignore your senses, you are dead.

> > The building airspeed and the ABSENCE of an expected seat of the pants
> > feeling doesn't bode well. *This would be an extreme example, but very
> > pluasible.
>
> Just look at the instruments, and forget the seat of the pants. *Your
> altimeter will tell you about changes in altitude, and your airspeed indicator
> will tell you about changes in speed.

Did you miss the part about the possibility of icing affecting the
pitot static system? You fly a real plane as described above and
ignore the seat of your pants sensation and you are dead.

> No. *The instruments confirm. *The instruments are the final authority.. *If
> you are looking at the instruments to begin with (as you will be in IMC), you
> don't need anything else, and paying attention to sensations of movement will
> only get you into trouble.

WRONG. Please RE-READ MY POST.
>
> > You can't.
>
> Yes, you can. *You can fly entirely with instruments. *You _have to_ fly
> entirely with instruments in IMC. *Doing anything else is dangerous.
>
> > It's a combination that makes it all work.
>
> No combination is necessary.

WRONG. Until you get in a real plane, you have no experience to even
comment on this thread. AGAIN, I use MSFS, and it does not compare
one iota, so I am talking from experience both from the simulation
part and flying a real airplane? Can you say this????

> > It's a combination of instruments AND what you feel in the seat of
> > your pants (NOT your inner ear feelings) that makes a difference
> > between landing at minimums or butching up an approach.
>
> No, it's instruments.

and if the instruments fail or glide slope fails or localizer? and you
don't identify it with the seat of your pants? You are one dead
puppy.

> This is unrelated to simulations or hoods. *In the real world, in IMC, you fly
> by instruments.

WRONG. Take some flight lessons.

> > Look at the cowling, and it was straight
> > and level relative to the camera, but in reality, I was in a climbing
> > right turn.
>
> If the cowling starts to move while you're flying, you have worse problems
> than just failing instruments.

WRONG. Cowling is a visual reference point that just like my horizon
indicator showed straight and level in IMC. If I followed your advice
and trusted my instruments, I wouldn't be typing this post. I WOULD
BE DEAD!

> > In my case, I verified the VSI reading with the feeling in my rear
> > end.
>
> Your rear end is useless for measuring rate of climb.

It is perfectly useable to verify climb. I never said rate of climb.

> > Bottom line, in IMC your seat of pants sensation will save your butt,
> > but you got to use it by listening to what it's telling you, or more
> > importantly NOT telling you. (seat of the pants sensation)
>
> The seat of the pants sensation can get you killed.

WRONG. See above.

[[email protected]]

On May 17, 9:43*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Your point that seat of the pants pressure sensations are used during
> instrument flight does not disprove MX's point about the necessity of
> relying primarily on your instruments for accurate information in IMC.

Actually my point does!

The fly by the seat of my pants did not feel like I had a 20 to 30
degree pitch up which my horizon indicator showed (which was
waaaaaaaaay more then Vx pitch).

Had I followed the horizon indicator and leveled the plane soley by
the HI, I would have been in a 20 degee pitch down and augured it in.
There was nothing accurate about my HI and it was my seat of the pants
feeling that set all sorts of alarms and bells out in my head..

It was the seat of my pants that said no, don't trust the instrument,
something just doesn't feel right and start looking at my secondary
instruments for assistance. I saw my VSI at a 700 foot climb rate and
90 knot airspeed. In my Sundowner, that is my normal climb for 2000
feet MSL for a normal climb pitch.

My DG regressed on the climb, so I had no true knowledge that I was
even off the heading until I check the GPS ground track, and was only
10 degrees off my assigned heading. So, for bank information, I now
had to switch from my DG to my GPS track as the HI was useless and my
turn coordinator is out of my scan area.

It was at this point I notified ATC that I had no vacuum system so if
I had deviations, they would know something was not up to snuff on my
end.

Again, by flying by the seat of my pants and knowing how my plane
feels at given stages of flight, that really saved my skin especially
in the identify the problem stage!

Had I taken Mx's advice and your implied advice, it wouldn't be a
pretty picture if I "solely trusted my instruments" Had I trusted the
instruments, I would have lowered the nose, airspeed builds and the
rest is history.

Allen

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Applying power will not accelerate you downhill. Power controls altitude,
> pitch controls speed. At constant pitch, increased power produces increased
> lift, and thus produces a climb.

And once again you parrot something you've read without the slightest
understanding and absolutely no concept of context.

The real world is not one or zero with everything black or white.

Like a lot of what you spout, this is GENERALLY true, but not ALWAYS true.

<snip remaining babbling nonsense>

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Jay Honeck > wrote:
> >> > A blazingly stupid comment that shows you know nothing about real
> >> > flight.
> >
> >> I'll ask again: Can you fly safely with your eyes closed, relying only on
> >> sensations, and selectively ignoring or accepting the sensations you
> >> feel?
> >
> > What part of you must spend as much time as possible looking out the
> > window in VFR are you failing to understand?

> You guys are hilariously arguing right past each other. MX is arguing that
> you can't fly in IMC ("with your eyes closed") by the seat of your pants --
> which is 100% correct.

> You, on the other hand, jrespond by arguing that of COURSE you can fly by
> the seat of your pants, if only you look out the window!

If you'd have bothered to actually read the thread, VFR was specifically
under discussion.

MX shifts focus to suit his current arguement.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[More_Flaps]

On May 18, 1:59*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On May 17, 6:37 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > >> > A blazingly stupid comment that shows you know nothing about real
> > >> > flight.
>
> > >> I'll ask again: Can you fly safely with your eyes closed, relying only on
> > >> sensations, and selectively ignoring or accepting the sensations you
> > >> feel?
>
> > > What part of you must spend as much time as possible looking out the
> > > window in VFR are you failing to understand?
>
> > You guys are hilariously arguing right past each other. * MX is arguing that
> > you can't fly in IMC ("with your eyes closed") by the seat of your pants --
> > which is 100% correct.
> > You, on the other hand, jrespond by arguing that of COURSE you can fly by
> > the seat of your pants, if only you look out the window!
> > God almighty, keep it up -- it's "Who's on first" all over again, and some
> > pretty damned good Saturday night entertainment!
> > :-)
>
> After doing a weird manuever, it's hard to tell if you're
> in a banking turn or a spiral dive, that's how I learned.
> Maybe a good pilot could use VFR as a ref, but I was
> clued in by my IAS needle going into yellow.
>

BS! In VFR the position of the horizon tells you the difference. In
many planes there is no AH 'cos you don't need it for VFR!
The engine noise also tells you if you are descending or climging.

Cheers

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 17, 8:33 pm, More_Flaps > wrote:
> On May 18, 1:59 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
....
> > After doing a weird manuever, it's hard to tell if you're
> > in a banking turn or a spiral dive, that's how I learned.
> > Maybe a good pilot could use VFR as a ref, but I was
> > clued in by my IAS needle going into yellow.
>
> BS! In VFR the position of the horizon tells you the difference. In
> many planes there is no AH 'cos you don't need it for VFR!
> The engine noise also tells you if you are descending or climging.
> Cheers

What you say is true, for a good experienced pilot,
who have flown disorientation exersizes.
But I'll provide this challenge, block off the speedometer
in your car and I'll bet you'll have a problem driving.
What happens to me is I drift up to 80 MPH, then
go "holy poop".
Ken

[K l e i n[_2_]]

On May 17, 8:43*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> >Bottom line, in IMC your seat of pants sensation will save your butt,
> >but you got to use it by listening to what it's telling you, or more
> >importantly NOT telling you. (seat of the pants sensation)
>
> Gotcha. *That's quite a different "sensation" than the inner ear -- thanks
> for the clarification.
>
> However, I think many in this group are arguing right past MX, dismissing
> him out of hand simply because most of the respondents can't stand him.
> Your point that seat of the pants pressure sensations are used during
> instrument flight does not disprove MX's point about the necessity of
> relying primarily on your instruments for accurate information in IMC.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Jay, folks in this group dismiss his ideas about instrument flight in
the same way that someone who's been married for over 40 years would
dismiss a lecture on sexual technique from a 7 year old. Maybe the 7
year old is precocious and has read a lot of books and seen a lot of
magazines, but he still has nothing to offer to an experienced adult.
Pretty much the same thing applies to you in this regard as you have
only made it to somewhere between second and third base in the IFR
realm. There are a lot of people on this group who are quite
experienced in IFR flight and I might be one of them. But I still
welcome the opportunity to learn from those who have earned my
respect. The IFR virgins should shut up, listen and learn.

Next time you're at the airport after passing your IFR check ride and
you happen to bump into your Instrument Instructor, first thing he'll
ask you is "did you get it wet yet?"

K l e i n
Keep the dirty side down (unless you're at the top of a loop)

[Buster Hymen]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:becc28f3-ebc0-4793-
:

> On May 17, 8:33 pm, More_Flaps > wrote:
>> On May 18, 1:59 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> ...
>> > After doing a weird manuever, it's hard to tell if you're
>> > in a banking turn or a spiral dive, that's how I learned.
>> > Maybe a good pilot could use VFR as a ref, but I was
>> > clued in by my IAS needle going into yellow.
>>
>> BS! In VFR the position of the horizon tells you the difference. In
>> many planes there is no AH 'cos you don't need it for VFR!
>> The engine noise also tells you if you are descending or climging.
>> Cheers
>
> What you say is true, for a good experienced pilot,
> who have flown disorientation exersizes.
> But I'll provide this challenge, block off the speedometer
> in your car and I'll bet you'll have a problem driving.
> What happens to me is I drift up to 80 MPH, then
> go "holy poop".
> Ken

BULL ****.

There are only 3 required flight instruments. An AH is NOT one of them.
Many people learned to fly without an AH or DG. They were students, not
experienced pilots.

You are just as big an asshole as Anthony.

[WingFlaps]

On May 18, 7:54*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
*Fortunately, MSFS handles engine
> sounds in a fairly consistent and predictable way.

Yep, consistently unrealistic, with no prop noise at all.

Cheers.

[WingFlaps]

On May 18, 3:46*pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On May 17, 8:33 pm, More_Flaps > wrote:
>
> > On May 18, 1:59 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> ...
> > > After doing a weird manuever, it's hard to tell if you're
> > > in a banking turn or a spiral dive, that's how I learned.
> > > Maybe a good pilot could use VFR as a ref, but I was
> > > clued in by my IAS needle going into yellow.
>
> > BS! In VFR the position of the horizon tells you the difference. In
> > many planes there is no AH 'cos you don't need it for VFR!
> > The engine noise also tells you if you are descending or climging.
> > Cheers
>
> What you say is true, for a good experienced pilot,
> who have flown disorientation exersizes.
> But I'll provide this challenge, block off the speedometer
> in your car and I'll bet you'll have a problem driving.
> What happens to me is I drift up to 80 MPH, then
> go "holy poop".

As a matter of fact, during training my instructor regularly blanked
off the ASI in the circuit and yet I still managed to trim to the
correct final approach speed to within 4 knots (as revealed when the
papaer was removed). Explain that -and no I'm not a very gifted
pilot...

Cheers

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 17 May 2008 20:46:40 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
> wrote:

>What you say is true, for a good experienced pilot,
>who have flown disorientation exersizes.
>But I'll provide this challenge, block off the speedometer
>in your car and I'll bet you'll have a problem driving.
>What happens to me is I drift up to 80 MPH, then
>go "holy poop".

I disagree totally. You must be numb.

Both of my vehicles sound, feel, and act significantly different at 80
than they do at 65 MPH. In top gear of my Toyota, the RPM's are about
400 higher. On the same token, It's not all that difficult to tell
25 from 35, if I try.

The wind noise is different, the tach shows a different RPM, and the
corresponding engine pitch is noticeably different.

Back to the pilot...

The _change_ in sounds is a great clue, not just that it's all
different and steady.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Did you miss the part about the trim setting in a nose down position?
> The above answer is WRONG when you don't have the airplane configured
> correctly.

Sorry, I try to keep the airplane configured correctly, so I don't have much
experience with incorrect configurations.

All of the sources I've consulted contradict all that you are saying. I have
no reason to believe that you are more reliable than all those other sources.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > Applying power will not accelerate you downhill. Power controls altitude,
> > pitch controls speed. At constant pitch, increased power produces increased
> > lift, and thus produces a climb.
>
> And once again you parrot something you've read without the slightest
> understanding and absolutely no concept of context.

Show the error.

> Like a lot of what you spout, this is GENERALLY true, but not ALWAYS true.

It's considerably truer than the assertions with which I compared it.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The fly by the seat of my pants did not feel like I had a 20 to 30
> degree pitch up which my horizon indicator showed (which was
> waaaaaaaaay more then Vx pitch).
>
> Had I followed the horizon indicator and leveled the plane soley by
> the HI, I would have been in a 20 degee pitch down and augured it in.
> There was nothing accurate about my HI and it was my seat of the pants
> feeling that set all sorts of alarms and bells out in my head..

You were lucky. Most people who have trusted the seat of their pants in IMC
are dead. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to press your luck.

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>
>> > Applying power will not accelerate you downhill. Power controls
>> > altitude,
>> > pitch controls speed. At constant pitch, increased power produces
>> > increased
>> > lift, and thus produces a climb.
>>
>> And once again you parrot something you've read without the slightest
>> understanding and absolutely no concept of context.
>
> Show the error.
>

Please explain how increased power can increase lift without first producing
increased velocity.

If the nose is pointed down (going downhill) , and you increase power, you
WILL descend faster.

It's one thing to blindly parrot something, but when you modify it without
understanding it, you risk saying something incredibly stupid.

[Mxsmanic]

K l e i n writes:

> Jay, folks in this group dismiss his ideas about instrument flight in
> the same way that someone who's been married for over 40 years would
> dismiss a lecture on sexual technique from a 7 year old. Maybe the 7
> year old is precocious and has read a lot of books and seen a lot of
> magazines, but he still has nothing to offer to an experienced adult.

If I do indeed repeat what I read, and the information came from reliable
sources and was correct when I read it, why would it cease to be correct when
I repeat it?

I prefer reliable sources to self-proclaimed pilots blowing smoke on a
newsgroup. When the latter start arguing with the former, I know I've
stumbled losers.

When I read something here that I haven't seen before, I look it up. If what
I've read here correlates well with my other sources, I assume it is correct;
if it conflicts dramatically with my other sources, I assume it is incorrect.
Many "pilots" here say things that conflict dramatically with all my other
sources; I discard what they say. A few say things that do not conflict with
my other sources; I accept what they say.

I won't name "pilots" who are constantly saying incorrect things, as that
would embarrass them, and additionally they are legion. However, I can name
one pilot who regularly echoes what my other sources say: Dudley. (He's not
the only one, simply the first one who came to mind.) While he seems to find
me just as irritating as so many other people here, when I check up on what he
says I usually find strong positive correlations. Even so, if he says
something that conflicts with my other sources, I will still call him on it.
And conversely, if one of the losers on the group manages to say something
that can be independently verified, I'll still accept it (but that doesn't
happen very often).

If I dispute something that someone says, it means that they've said something
that conflicts when other sources I've consulted. No amount of personal
attack or other diversionary tactics will cause me to forget the conflict, so
I'm not sure why anyone bothers with that.

> Pretty much the same thing applies to you in this regard as you have
> only made it to somewhere between second and third base in the IFR
> realm.

What you're really saying is that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid.

What you need to do, if you wish to persuade refractory persons like myself,
is explain and support your assertions. Simply saying that someone else is
wrong makes absolutely no dent on people like me. You have to be able to
substantiate your assertion. If you cannot, it goes directly into the
bitbucket. I'm not interested in hearing about your credentials, experience,
or other questionable claims to fame. I'm only interested in hearing direct
support of your assertions. If you don't have that, I will ignore those
assertions, even if you're Chuck Yeager.

People who really do know things are always able to explain those things and
are generally willing to do so. People who don't know things always insist
that you take them at their word because they are so enormously competent (in
their own minds).

> There are a lot of people on this group who are quite
> experienced in IFR flight and I might be one of them. But I still
> welcome the opportunity to learn from those who have earned my
> respect. The IFR virgins should shut up, listen and learn.

You don't have to earn my respect; you just have to be right. If I find that
you are not right, I won't listen to you. If I find that you are right, I'll
listen. It doesn't matter what experience you have. What matters is what you
actually know.

And I suggest that others here regard me in the same way. It will save them
from looking stupid when I say something that is demonstrably correct and they
feel compelled to disagree publicly with it just because I'm the one who said
it.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Mxsmanic > wrote:
> K l e i n writes:
>
>> Jay, folks in this group dismiss his ideas about instrument flight in
>> the same way that someone who's been married for over 40 years would
>> dismiss a lecture on sexual technique from a 7 year old. Maybe the 7
>> year old is precocious and has read a lot of books and seen a lot of
>> magazines, but he still has nothing to offer to an experienced adult.
>
> If I do indeed repeat what I read, and the information came from reliable
> sources and was correct when I read it, why would it cease to be correct when
> I repeat it?

Because you do a crappy job of repeating things.

You discard qualifiers, you remove necessary context, and you fail to
understand the domain of applicability of the things you repeat. Whether
this happens because you lack the experience to know which bits are
important or because you just like to cause a ruckus, I couldn't say.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Your point that seat of the pants pressure sensations are used during
> instrument flight does not disprove MX's point about the necessity of
> relying primarily on your instruments for accurate information in IMC.

> Actually my point does!

>The fly by the seat of my pants did not feel like I had a 20 to 30
>degree pitch up which my horizon indicator showed (which was
>waaaaaaaaay more then Vx pitch).

Again, you're arguing about a different topic -- flight in IMC without a
vacuum system. This is often classified as an "emergency", and you must use
everything you can to get out of it -- including your "seat of the pants".

In normal instrument flight, pilots are trained to ignore what their body is
telling them. The fact that you were able to use your body's sensations to
escape from a very serious instrument failure is a tribute to your piloting
skills. You may also wish to purchase a lottery ticket, because not all
vacuum failures end so well.

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Michael Ash" wrote:

> You discard qualifiers, you remove necessary context, and you fail to
> understand the domain of applicability of the things you repeat. Whether
> this happens because you lack the experience to know which bits are
> important or because you just like to cause a ruckus, I couldn't say.

Third, and most likely alternative: he's just stupid.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>Pretty much the same thing applies to you in this regard as you have
>only made it to somewhere between second and third base in the IFR
>realm. There are a lot of people on this group who are quite
>experienced in IFR flight and I might be one of them. But I still
>welcome the opportunity to learn from those who have earned my
>respect. The IFR virgins should shut up, listen and learn.

Good observation. I usually subscribe to this approach, when the topic of
instrument filght comes up, since I *am* a newbie in that realm. I've only
shot 54 instrument approaches under the hood, and have maybe fifty hours
total simulated IMC, which pales into insignificance when compared with
someone who flies instruments daily.

However, in this case MX is parroting "the book" on instrument flight, while
several others are arguing counter to "the book". IMHO this is a case
where the messenger is being killed despite the fact that the message is
correct.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> Please explain how increased power can increase lift without first producing
> increased velocity.

I never claimed that power alone would produce increased lift. However, an
increase in power will normally produce an increase in speed, all else being
equal, and so an increase in lift will result.

> If the nose is pointed down (going downhill) , and you increase power, you
> WILL descend faster.

Your increased speed will produce more lift, which will tend to raise the
aircraft, slowing the rate of descent and potentially leveling the aircraft or
producing a climb. For any given setting of AOA and thrust, the aircraft will
tend to converge on a specific density altitude. If AOA is held and thrust is
increased, the aircraft will converge on a higher final altitude than it would
if thrust were not increased. Increasing power (and thus thrust) at constant
AOA will produce a positive change in climb rate, because it increases the
speed of air flowing over the wings.

[Peter Clark]

On Sat, 17 May 2008 15:43:54 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>On May 17, 5:30*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> MSFS aircraft are properly maintained by default.
>
>So is my airplane down to every AD and every scheduled maintenance for
>the past 6 years and replaced faulty instruments. I have the bills to
>prove it, will you pay for them?
>
>Things break in flight as it happened to me
>
>Lets face it, MSFS does simulate some things, but what I experienced
>Saturday, I have never encountered in MSFS.
>
>Is that a flaw in real life or Microsoft? Do I need to reboot my life?

He wouldn't understand MTBF if it came and bit him in the ass. Another
thing the simulator has the ability to do, but because he doesn't
comprehend it doesn't use.

[Mxsmanic]

Michael Ash writes:

> Because you do a crappy job of repeating things.

No. It's because some people reject anything I say in a knee-jerk emotional
reaction. They are more concentrated on me than on my words. Sometimes they
argue with established facts simply because I'm the one who posted them.

> You discard qualifiers, you remove necessary context, and you fail to
> understand the domain of applicability of the things you repeat.

I don't do it any differently than most people do.

> Whether this happens because you lack the experience to know which bits are
> important or because you just like to cause a ruckus, I couldn't say.

It's neither. Some people simply look for some way to argue with what I say,
even when I'm simply repeated well-established facts. I've occasionally made
test posts here that prove it, literally lifting statements from reliable
sources and posting them under my own name, and watching the amusing reaction
of the usual suspects.

[Steve Foley]

"Peter Clark" > wrote in message
...

>
> He wouldn't understand MTBF if it came and bit him in the ass. Another
> thing the simulator has the ability to do, but because he doesn't
> comprehend it doesn't use.

I'm pretty sure MX has claimed that ANY failure is a design flaw.

It explains why he doesn't work for Honeywell anymore.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> What you need to do, if you wish to persuade refractory persons like
> myself,
> is explain and support your assertions.

Pilots are an interesting breed. I've met dozens (hundreds?) of them over
the years who will state something as fact, but will not (or can not)
explain themselves when questioned. The whole attitude is that they are so
incredibly experienced that no one should deign question their authority on
the matter.

Of course, it seems funny that someone of this mindset might frequent a
*newsgroup* -- where the free-flow of information is the whole point. But,
like I said, pilots are an interesting breed.

Trouble is, MX, I'm afraid you have burnt too many bridges behind you to
expect any further cooperation here. This thread is evidence that your
message is no longer important to many posters here, even when what you're
saying precisely parrots Bob Gardner's excellent book "The Complete
Instrument Pilot".

Since you're already semi-anonymous, you might try laying low for a few
weeks and coming back under a new name? Hell, you might even try using
your own?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Cameron Horton]

On Sat, 17 May 2008 19:24:38 GMT, Benjamin Dover wrote:

> Hey,

*PLONK*

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> Your increased speed will produce more lift, which will tend to raise the
> aircraft, slowing the rate of descent and potentially leveling the
> aircraft or
> producing a climb. For any given setting of AOA and thrust, the aircraft
> will
> tend to converge on a specific density altitude. If AOA is held and
> thrust is
> increased, the aircraft will converge on a higher final altitude than it
> would
> if thrust were not increased. Increasing power (and thus thrust) at
> constant
> AOA will produce a positive change in climb rate, because it increases the
> speed of air flowing over the wings.

This is much less inaccurate than your other statement.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Fortunately, MSFS handles engine
> sounds in a fairly consistent and predictable way.

>Yep, consistently unrealistic, with no prop noise at all.

The sound quality in MSFS is remarkably good -- in SOME of the aircraft, and
with the proper equipment.

For example, our sim set-up at the hotel has a full surround-sound system
with sub-woofer. When you wind up the Merlin in the P-51, it sings. When
you pull it back to idle, you can hear wind noise. When you kill the
engine, you can hear the prop windmilling.

And the rumble of the big radial engines in the Grumman Goose is wonderfully
done.

An indication of the importance of sound in the sim -- it's MUCH harder to
fly the sim with the sound turned off. You don't realize how often you use
aural cues in flight until they're not there. (Which, BTW, makes me really
admire the deaf pilots of the world. Back before the troll wars reduced
this group, there used to be a regular poster here named Henry Kisor who
belonged to the deaf pilot's association, and I was always impressed that he
was able to fly so well without aural cues. But I digress...)

Of course, if you're relying on your desktop computer's speaker, you're
absolutely correct -- the sounds are not there. But the sim software *is*
creating the proper sounds, mostly, but it does require a good quality
system to hear it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> Third, and most likely alternative: he's just stupid.

MX is many things. Persistent, stubborn, blunt, thick-skinned, willing to
argue that black-eyed-peas are really black-eyed-beans, yes. Occasionally
annoying, often entertaining (mostly because of the responses he obtains),
always willing to come back for more. He's like a Weebil that won't fall
down.

But stupid? I don't think so.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Pilots are an interesting breed. I've met dozens (hundreds?) of them over
> the years who will state something as fact, but will not (or can not)
> explain themselves when questioned. The whole attitude is that they are so
> incredibly experienced that no one should deign question their authority on
> the matter.

Pilots are not unique in this respect. Many people are this way. It is a
common personality characteristic, but not a universal one.

I don't understand this characteristic fully, as I do not share it. If I tell
someone something I know, I rather expect him to look it up, as I would. It's
surprising if he takes it as gospel. I am not offended if he choses to verify
what I say.

> Trouble is, MX, I'm afraid you have burnt too many bridges behind you to
> expect any further cooperation here. This thread is evidence that your
> message is no longer important to many posters here, even when what you're
> saying precisely parrots Bob Gardner's excellent book "The Complete
> Instrument Pilot".

Bob Gardner is occasionally on this group himself (or at least someone
claiming to be him is). I wonder if he would feel compelled to argue with me
as well.

The stuff I have from Bob Gardner is so well-worn that the pages are starting
to fall out, and I still have more on my wish list at Amazon.

Anyway, I'm not worried about burnt bridges. All newsgroups have a steady
turnover, so there are always new people to talk to. People with the attitude
you describe are generally incompetent, so if they choose not to enter into
discussion, so much the better. And there are always a few people who don't
suffer from these problems and _do_ know what they are talking about, and will
discuss aviation objectively no matter what the brat pack does.

> Since you're already semi-anonymous, you might try laying low for a few
> weeks and coming back under a new name? Hell, you might even try using
> your own?

I've been using this pseudonym for years and I don't see any reason to change.
I keep it to be slightly more anonymous, although anyone who expends even a
modicum of effort can find out who I actually am. I originally adopted it to
protect my erstwhile employer.

I find that, over time, a gradual filtering process occurs: the stupid people
stop talking to me entirely (which is fine) as they exhaust themselves with
their own tantrums, the average people get over their emotional reactions and
become more civil and eventually engage in useful interaction, and the smart
people never suffer from these issues to begin with. Sometimes people who
behaved foolishly at first become embarrassed by their initial behavior and
tell me "well, you've changed," when in fact _they_ have changed in their
interactions with me (I haven't changed in decades).

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> This is much less inaccurate than your other statement.

No, it is simply more detailed, which makes it harder for you to use incorrect
assumptions in an attempt to discredit it. Everyone pilot knows (or should
know) that if you increase power, you climb, all else being equal. (I know
what someone will say about this, too, but I won't deprive him of the
satisfaction of playing the game.)

[terry]

On May 18, 11:01*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > Third, and most likely alternative: he's just stupid.
>
> MX is many things. Persistent, stubborn, blunt, thick-skinned, willing to
> argue that black-eyed-peas are really black-eyed-beans, yes. * Occasionally
> annoying, often entertaining (mostly because of the responses he obtains),
> always willing to come back for more. *He's like a Weebil that won't fall
> down.
>
> But stupid? * I don't think so.
> --
I agree , definately not stupid, probably well above average IQ .A
vertible human sponge of information. But sadly lacking the social
skills necessary to function in any meaningful way to be be able to do
anything useful with the knowledge he has soaked up. The problem with
getting all of your information from books and the internet as
distinct from actually doing anything in real life is that you just
dont know what you dont know. You and I could read 100 books on
neurosurgery but we would realise from our other life experiences that
it would be futile to get into an argument with a neurosurgeon on how
to perform a labotomy. But not our Anthony, he just doesnt have the
life experience outside his virtural existance to realise just how
little he really knows about anything. Its sad really. I wish I could
help him, its a shame some local pilot hasnt tried to take him under
their wing and give him a taste of real life.
Terry

[Peter Clark]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 12:34:26 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>>Pretty much the same thing applies to you in this regard as you have
>>only made it to somewhere between second and third base in the IFR
>>realm. There are a lot of people on this group who are quite
>>experienced in IFR flight and I might be one of them. But I still
>>welcome the opportunity to learn from those who have earned my
>>respect. The IFR virgins should shut up, listen and learn.
>
>Good observation. I usually subscribe to this approach, when the topic of
>instrument filght comes up, since I *am* a newbie in that realm. I've only
>shot 54 instrument approaches under the hood, and have maybe fifty hours
>total simulated IMC, which pales into insignificance when compared with
>someone who flies instruments daily.
>
>However, in this case MX is parroting "the book" on instrument flight, while
>several others are arguing counter to "the book". IMHO this is a case
>where the messenger is being killed despite the fact that the message is
>correct.

No, it's a case of applicability and context. You train to ignore
your inner ear, but there are plenty of other sensations and cues
which you do pay attention to whether VMC or IMC. Blanket statements
and inability to accept correction or understand the context of the
book is his issue, and regardless of what name he comes back as (which
he won't do because he's too stubourn to know when to leave) the same
issue will always be there. He needs to go back to the sim groups and
stay where his simulator only posting is on topic.

[[email protected]]

On May 18, 7:26*am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> In normal instrument flight, pilots are trained to ignore what their body is
> telling them. *

Ahh, one minor detail as you are partially correct above, or I had a
great instructor as I sure didn't learn this on my own.

Ignore what your head sez (leans), but not what your seat of your
pants (positive or negative G's) And this is normal full panel
instrument flying.

In IMC, the airplane is just an extension of your body and you get
very intimate to what it's trying to tell you.

To better equate it to you as a VFR pilot, it is no different then the
last 6 inches of flight on landing :-) If you ignore the negative G's
in your rear end on landing 6 inches above the runway, you will come
down with a thump. If you feel too much positive G's in the seat of
your pants on landing, you will float. When you hit that sweet spot
between the two, you won't even know the wheels touch terra firma.
Instrument flying is no different whether you be in level flight or on
an actual approach.

> The fact that you were able to use your body's sensations to
> escape from a very serious instrument failure is a tribute to your piloting
> skills. *You may also wish to purchase a lottery ticket, because not all
> vacuum failures end so well.

I may need that lottery ticket, not for surviving the problem, but the
cost of a new regulator! Pump is fine, but the regulator does not
appear to be regulating! 1.2 AMU is a preliminary estimate.

While I would love to say it's my piloting skills, it really starts
with the quality training I received from the get go. I just took my
training to heart.

[[email protected]]

On May 18, 7:34*am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> *I've only
> shot 54 instrument approaches under the hood, and have maybe fifty hours
> total simulated IMC, which pales into insignificance when compared with
> someone who flies instruments daily.

PLEASE, PLEASE go out with an IA pilot and touch a cloud! It's the
folks that don't actively touch a cloud that gets in the most trouble,
not the ones that do it daily. You have the means to do this, so
really there is no excuse for you..

I put this in my original post and will reiterate it, ias it is sooooo
important! I have taken VFR pilots and IA students up and even been
safety pilot with newly minted pilots who never touched a cloud DURING
an approach.

The hood, blinders what ever you wish to call it doesn't compare to
the real deal. MSFS doesn't compare to the real deal.

A couple of the pilots had NO clue what it was inside IMC, and came
out of it whiter then the cloud. Not because of turbulence mind you,
but the fact they did not know which way was up or down. For the
instrument pilot where I was safety, he was behind his airplane,
enough to on the edge of dangerous. Not from his flying skills, but
not knowing in detail what the procedures are in the ATC system AND
making it work for him. He was getting a little overwhelmed just
getting to his first fix!

What is failing to be recognized in this entire thread is the workload
is upped exponentially on instrument approaches. It's not a matter of
picking up an approach plate, launching into the white wild yonder and
flying a set of needles. It's not just a matter of flying needles.
It's a mental process that will wear you down if you are not on top of
your game and part of that game is feeling intimately (not verbal /
non instrmententation) what your plane is telling you.

It takes a combination of trusting the instruments, but also your
senses. If you blindly trust your instruments without consideration
they may fail, you will be a statistic.

If you "trust but verify your instruments" you will be here to share
your experiences. Part of that verification BEGINS with the seat of
your pants feeling.

Out of 825+ flight hours I have flown, 59.4 were in IMC, so I would
believe I am reasonably qualified to stress the importance of the
above based on personal experience even though I am not an instructor.

Mx BLANKET statement is dangerous at best, flat out wrong would be
more like it.

[[email protected]]

On May 18, 1:03*am, WingFlaps > wrote:

> As *a matter of fact, during training my instructor regularly blanked
> off the ASI in the circuit and yet I still managed to trim to the
> correct final approach speed to within 4 knots (as revealed when the
> papaer was removed). Explain that -and no I'm not a very gifted
> pilot...

Very good excercise IMHO.

Friend of mine posted in these forums that the pitot tube ingested a
bug. While he may have had better odds hitting the lottery, things
happen IN FLIGHT.

[More_Flaps]

On May 19, 12:56*am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > Fortunately, MSFS handles engine
> > sounds in a fairly consistent and predictable way.
> >Yep, consistently unrealistic, with no prop noise at all.
>
> The sound quality in MSFS is remarkably good -- in SOME of the aircraft, and
> with the proper equipment.
>
> For example, our sim set-up at the hotel has a full surround-sound system
> with sub-woofer. *When you wind up the Merlin in the P-51, it sings. *When
> you pull it back to idle, you can hear wind noise. *When you kill the
> engine, you can hear the prop windmilling.
>
> And the rumble of the big radial engines in the Grumman Goose is wonderfully
> done.
>
> An indication of the importance of sound in the sim -- it's MUCH harder to
> fly the sim with the sound turned off. *You don't realize how often you use
> aural cues in flight until they're not there. *(Which, BTW, makes me really
> admire the deaf pilots of the world. *Back before the troll wars reduced
> this group, there used to be a regular poster here named Henry Kisor who
> belonged to the deaf pilot's association, and I was always impressed that he
> was able to fly so well without aural cues. *But I digress...)
>
> Of course, if you're relying on your desktop computer's speaker, you're
> absolutely correct -- the sounds are not there. *But the sim software *is*
> creating the proper sounds, mostly, but it does require a good quality
> system to hear it.
> --


Nope, I detect there is no change in prop sound when you load it up
and my computer does have a sound card. Maybe you are using one of
Mx's famous add ons, but can you hear the prop disk meet off axis
air?.

Cheers

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> Everyone pilot knows (or should know) that if you increase power, you
> climb, all else being equal.

You should have quit while you were ahead, or at least not so far behind.

[F. Baum]

On May 17, 9:12*pm, " > wrote:
> On May 17, 9:43*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> Again, by flying by the seat of my pants and knowing how my plane
> feels at given stages of flight, that really saved my skin especially
> in the identify the problem stage!
>
Al, you crack me up ! You gotta tell us how you developed this 6th
sence that allows you to fly approaches by the seat of your pants. Jay
is right on this one. Granted, if this MX person would go for a plane
ride once in a while most of what he argues here would be self
evident. You on the other hand , claiming that superior sense and
skill got you through an instrument failure, is just macho bravado.
Got a good chuckle by what you consider a low approach, 1000ft ceiling
is VFR man ;). Furthermore, a sim is a very usefull tool. Why do you
think the airlines use them. All of the sims that I have flown have
been harder to fly than the real A/C. Dont get me wrong, I am glad
that you made it through OK but lighten up <G>
>
> Allen

Frank

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> If you "trust but verify your instruments" you will be here to share
> your experiences. Part of that verification BEGINS with the seat of
> your pants feeling.

Since the instruments are the most reliable source of information, "verifying"
them against any other source serves no purpose.

> Out of 825+ flight hours I have flown, 59.4 were in IMC, so I would
> believe I am reasonably qualified to stress the importance of the
> above based on personal experience even though I am not an instructor.

Perhaps when you have 500 hours in IMC, you'll place more trust in your
instruments and be less inclined to think that you can fly IFR by feel.

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 18, 11:14*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Perhaps when you have 500 hours in IMC, you'll place more trust in your
> instruments and be less inclined to think that you can fly IFR by feel.

You do that, and you will be a statistic. Amount of hours in IMC
have nothing to do with it.

Complacency has no room in a cockpit of a real airplane.

MSFS, yes you can be complacent, no big deal. In a real airplane that
leaves the real ground, it doesn't work that way, VFR or IFR.

TRUST BUT VERIFY..............

I talk from experience from using MSFS and flying a real airplane. Can
you?

[F. Baum]

On May 18, 6:26*am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
> Again, you're arguing about a different topic -- flight in IMC without a
> vacuum system. *This is often classified as an "emergency", and you must use
> everything you can to get out of it -- including your "seat of the pants".

Jay, good observation here but Al is still wrong. As you probably
remember from training you have primary and secondary instruments for
climbs, turns, decents, etc. To claim to be able to replace any of
these with your superior senses is not correct and a bad habit.
>
> In normal instrument flight, pilots are trained to ignore what their body is
> telling them.

Exactly. As you move up in the approach categories this becomes more
important because you have much less time between being on course and
a full scale deflection. On a A3 Hud you even initiate the flare by a
prompt on the combiner. Other than a little bit of control feedback
seat of the pants is pretty much out the window.

> ;-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Noel]

In article <lMVXj.169277$yE1.70867@attbi_s21>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > Third, and most likely alternative: he's just stupid.
>
> MX is many things. ....
>
> But stupid? I don't think so.

If it is not a troll, then it doesn't appear to be able to learn.

Is that not one definition of stupid?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberman writes:

> Complacency has no room in a cockpit of a real airplane.

In hard IMC, going by the book is the proper procedure. Flying by feel is
dangerous.

> I talk from experience from using MSFS and flying a real airplane.

A lot of accident pilots have had either or both. I really cannot see any
reason to lend credence to your assertion.

[[email protected]]

On May 18, 11:02*am, "F. Baum" > wrote:
> You on the other hand , claiming that superior sense and
> skill got you through an instrument failure, is just macho bravado.

Never said it got me through it, but I did say it was an additional
tool in my took kit. It was a combination of everything, not one
thing. To ignore senses or the seat of your pants in IMC is just in
my opinion not good flying. No different then landing a plane at
night when you are feeling your way down to the ground.

> Got a good chuckle by what you consider a low approach, 1000ft ceiling
> is VFR man ;).

Where did I say it was a low approach? I use 1000 foot ceilings as a
benchmark as many pilots don't or will not fly down to minimums in
actual conditions.

Thankfully, I had an instructor in my training, I did go down to ILS
minimums and have made several GPS and VOR Alpha's down to minimums on
my own without any problems.. It becomes a non event at the end, but
thrilling as you slide down the approach path. It's the end result we
all look for but it doesn't just come by tracking needles.

>*Furthermore, a sim is a very usefull tool. Why do you
> think the airlines use them. All of the sims that I have flown have
> been harder to fly than the real A/C. Dont get me wrong, I am glad
> that you made it through OK but lighten up <G>

Airliners us FULL MOTION sims, not a desktop MSFS. HUGE difference.
From what I gather, Jay's simulator is not a full motion sim.

To equate a desktop MSFS to any type of IMC flying is reckless IMHO.

To not depend on senses and totally rely on instruments without an
expectation that **they could fail** is reckless. If you fly a real
plane, you should know this. Nobody expects the unexpected to happen,
but if you fly your plane like **it could happen** then you are better
prepared. I call it an insurance policy that you hope you don't have
to cash in.

[[email protected]]

On May 18, 11:33*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> A lot of accident pilots have had either or both. *I really cannot see any
> reason to lend credence to your assertion.

Don't care what you think, I care what other students see and want to
be sure they know what you say is WRONG.

[[email protected]]

On May 18, 11:47*am, " > wrote:

>*It's the end result we
> all look for but it doesn't just come by tracking needles.

Missed one word in my original post....

It doesn't just come by ONLY tracking needles.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 18, 3:54 am, B A R R Y > wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 20:46:40 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
> > wrote:
> >What you say is true, for a good experienced pilot,
> >who have flown disorientation exersizes.
> >But I'll provide this challenge, block off the speedometer
> >in your car and I'll bet you'll have a problem driving.
> >What happens to me is I drift up to 80 MPH, then
> >go "holy poop".
>
> I disagree totally. You must be numb.
>
> Both of my vehicles sound, feel, and act significantly different at 80
> than they do at 65 MPH. In top gear of my Toyota, the RPM's are about
> 400 higher. On the same token, It's not all that difficult to tell
> 25 from 35, if I try.
>
> The wind noise is different, the tach shows a different RPM, and the
> corresponding engine pitch is noticeably different.
>
> Back to the pilot...
>
> The _change_ in sounds is a great clue, not just that it's all
> different and steady.

Yeah you've got it right.
This was wifes new Gran Caravan, almost dead quiet
inside and I was unfamiliar with it. Your thesis hinges
on a familiarity with craft.
Ken

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On May 18, 8:36*am, terry > wrote:
> On May 18, 11:01*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:> > Third, and most likely alternative: he's just stupid.
>
> > MX is many things. Persistent, stubborn, blunt, thick-skinned, willing to
> > argue that black-eyed-peas are really black-eyed-beans, yes. * Occasionally
> > annoying, often entertaining (mostly because of the responses he obtains),
> > always willing to come back for more. *He's like a Weebil that won't fall
> > down.
>
> > But stupid? * I don't think so.
> > --
>
> I agree , definately not stupid, probably well above average IQ .A
> vertible human sponge of information. But sadly lacking the social
> skills necessary to function in any meaningful way to be be able to do
> anything useful with the knowledge he has soaked up. *The problem with
> getting all of your information from books *and the internet as
> distinct from actually doing anything in real life is that you just
> dont know what you dont know. *You and I could read 100 books on
> neurosurgery but we would realise from our other life experiences that
> it would be futile to get into an argument with a neurosurgeon on how
> to perform a labotomy. *But not our Anthony, he just doesnt have the
> life experience outside his virtural existance to realise just how
> little he really knows about anything. Its sad really. *I wish I could
> help him, its a shame some local pilot hasnt tried to take him under
> their wing and give him a taste of real life.
> Terry

Umm...no.

You started out this paragraph in defense of Mx, and then make a
retraction midway through:

You write:

> A
> vertible human sponge of information. But sadly lacking the social
> skills necessary to function in any meaningful way to be be able to do
> anything useful with the knowledge he has soaked up.

Then you write:

> But not our Anthony, he just doesnt have the
> life experience outside his virtural existance to realise just how
> little he really knows about anything

So first you imply that he knows much (relatively speaking). Then you
imply that he knows little (relatively speaking).

Which is it?

As far as social graces go, assuming that he is correct on some
things, which I must clearly state, I do not know, and is verbally
abused by those who disagree with him, then who is lacking in social
grace.

I too have met some freakishly bright people in my life, some with
multiple advanced degress from top university, and those people will
often listen to utter jibberish by a 17 or 18 year-old about things
that they have being doing research about for 30+ years, and not
insult that person, not once. To give you an example...ahem...

In electrical engineering, there are formulas that govern what happens
to a slab of plastic if it is lubricated and placed between two metal
place, a voltage being applied to the plates. The slab will have a
tendency to move. One can make artificial muscles from this, which
would aid the prosthetic word considerably.

Anyhow, one day while studying these formulas, I became so excited
about the potential for artificial muscles, I bounced around the EE
department at my university, until I found on prof who was expert in
this type of technology. He sat quietly, probably a good 10-12 minutes
behind his desk, as I ranted about the design (flaw) and the
mathematics (also flawed), and just smiled. After I finished, I said,
"Ok, I guess you're smiling because my math is flawed but..." and he
reaches down, grabs a magazine, tosses it into my lap, and on front
cover, there is picture of Japanese researchers, making artificial
muscles, using exact same method, but different types of metals.

Here you have, a giant in the field, listening to someone who is so
green that he botches the Biot-Savart Law, not being condescending,
not interrupting me saying, "You got it all wrong, dummy", just
smiling. I never pursued the idea, but I will never forget that Prof.

If experienced pilots, especially in real life, would adopt this
attitude, young pilots would be more inclined to finish flight
training, I think.

There is also another option, which one pilot at my flight school
refused to use, which is, when asked something that is not understood,
like the internals of VOR tranmitter/receiver, to simply say, "I don't
know."

-Le Chaud Lapinn-

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Airliners us FULL MOTION sims, not a desktop MSFS. HUGE difference.

One of the reasons why full-motion sims work is that it's very easy to fool
human senses. Remember, full-motion sims don't actually go anywhere, but to
the people inside, they certainly feel as though they do.

> To equate a desktop MSFS to any type of IMC flying is reckless IMHO.

One advantage to MSFS is that it forces you to use instruments in IMC.
Depending heavily on instruments isn't necessarily an advantage for VFR, but
it's very important for IFR.

> To not depend on senses and totally rely on instruments without an
> expectation that **they could fail** is reckless.

Not at all. If you're unwilling to put complete trust in your instruments,
you shouldn't be flying IFR. If they fail, well, you might never get back
home.

> If you fly a real
> plane, you should know this. Nobody expects the unexpected to happen,
> but if you fly your plane like **it could happen** then you are better
> prepared. I call it an insurance policy that you hope you don't have
> to cash in.

Given the fact that losing instruments in IMC is extraordinarily dangerous, it
would be better advised to take care to minimize the chances that they will
fail than to fantasize that it will be possible to fly and land safely without
them if they do fail.

[Mxsmanic]

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

> Here you have, a giant in the field, listening to someone who is so
> green that he botches the Biot-Savart Law, not being condescending,
> not interrupting me saying, "You got it all wrong, dummy", just
> smiling. I never pursued the idea, but I will never forget that Prof.
>
> If experienced pilots, especially in real life, would adopt this
> attitude, young pilots would be more inclined to finish flight
> training, I think.

The problem is that the vast majority of pilots aren't even remotely "giants
in their field." A true world-class expert has nothing to prove to anyone and
isn't likely to be insecure, but a low-time pilot with more ego than
competence is likely to be very insecure and very eager to prove that he knows
more than other people do. It's not limited to aviation, of course.

> There is also another option, which one pilot at my flight school
> refused to use, which is, when asked something that is not understood,
> like the internals of VOR tranmitter/receiver, to simply say, "I don't
> know."

A person has to be pretty secure to be able to say that. Many people aren't.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Don't care what you think, I care what other students see and want to
> be sure they know what you say is WRONG.

Smart students will look things up, rather than believe you or me. If they
look things up, they'll find out who's right, although it's not really
important to keep score.

[Peter Clark]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 10:45:29 -0700 (PDT), Le Chaud Lapin
> wrote:


>
>Here you have, a giant in the field, listening to someone who is so
>green that he botches the Biot-Savart Law, not being condescending,
>not interrupting me saying, "You got it all wrong, dummy", just
>smiling. I never pursued the idea, but I will never forget that Prof.

The problem here is that we *DID* that with him. Last year. To
extrapolate your story with him, what he proceeds to then do is tell
the Prof. that the Prof. is wrong and because he read it in a book
somwhere and played with a computer game that the Prof.'s real world
experience and knowledge is inaccurate. That's when the Prof. would
have told him to leave and find someone else to annoy. That's what
we've been attempting to do, but he won't listen. The Prof. would
have called campus police by now.

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Clark writes:

> The problem here is that we *DID* that with him. Last year. To
> extrapolate your story with him, what he proceeds to then do is tell
> the Prof. that the Prof. is wrong and because he read it in a book
> somwhere and played with a computer game that the Prof.'s real world
> experience and knowledge is inaccurate.

Whom do you have in mind when you say Prof? Are there world-renowned giants
in the field of aviation participating in these threads?

Low-time pilots who fly one hour a month with the ink still wet on their
licenses don't count as giants in the field.

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 18, 1:29*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Given the fact that losing instruments in IMC is extraordinarily dangerous, it
> would be better advised to take care to minimize the chances that they will
> fail than to fantasize that it will be possible to fly and land safely without
> them if they do fail.

Ummm, there was no fantasy about what happened to me on Friday.

And it's not extraordinary dangerous to lose your HI and DG if you
take the proactive approach in the what if scenario.while flying. I
am here to prove that.

We practice this in our Instrument air training, but you don't know it
since you never have taken flying lessons.

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 18, 1:33*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Smart students will look things up, rather than believe you or me.

Smart students get in real airplanes and will be able to confirm
everything I have posted..

Last I knew there was no requirement for a license to play MSFS nor is
there any formal training courses nor does it replace getting in a
real C152 or C172 for training..

[Benjamin Dover]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:lMVXj.169277$yE1.70867@attbi_s21:

>> Third, and most likely alternative: he's just stupid.
>
> MX is many things. Persistent, stubborn, blunt, thick-skinned, willing
> to argue that black-eyed-peas are really black-eyed-beans, yes.
> Occasionally annoying, often entertaining (mostly because of the
> responses he obtains), always willing to come back for more. He's
> like a Weebil that won't fall down.
>
> But stupid? I don't think so.

You're both ****ing idiots.

[romeomike]

wrote:

>
> While I would love to say it's my piloting skills, it really starts
> with the quality training I received from the get go. I just took my
> training to heart.

Might be helpful to you to go up with another instructor who is more
experienced at confusing your rear-end sensations while under the hood
with failed instruments. You might change your mind about how dependable
they are. The change in those sensations might give you some information
in the initial instant of change, but after that they are more likely to
confuse you to death. I would suggest that if you are doing a proper
instrument scan you shouldn't need any physical sensations, except for
being able to see the instruments.

Seems to me that, in an effort to pummel the idiot MX, people are
getting too hot under the collar and backing themselves into corners.

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:

> Since the instruments are the most reliable source of information,
> "verifying"
> them against any other source serves no purpose.
>

That's a hell of a statement.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> This is much less inaccurate than your other statement.
>
> No, it is simply more detailed, which makes it harder for you to use
> incorrect assumptions in an attempt to discredit it. Everyone pilot
> knows (or should know) that if you increase power, you climb, all else
> being equal. (I know what someone will say about this, too, but I
> won't deprive him of the satisfaction of playing the game.)

You're a moron.

[Buster Hymen]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:4wVXj.115096$TT4.56541@attbi_s22:

> Since you're already semi-anonymous, you might try laying low for a few
> weeks and coming back under a new name? Hell, you might even try using
> your own?

No mater what Anthony does in the future, his style will give him away and
everyone will remember how he came into this group. He won't be given
another chance.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> Pilots are an interesting breed. I've met dozens (hundreds?) of them
>> over the years who will state something as fact, but will not (or can
>> not) explain themselves when questioned. The whole attitude is that
>> they are so incredibly experienced that no one should deign question
>> their authority on the matter.
>
> Pilots are not unique in this respect. Many people are this way. It
> is a common personality characteristic, but not a universal one.
>
> I don't understand this characteristic fully, as I do not share it.
> If I tell someone something I know, I rather expect him to look it up,
> as I would. It's surprising if he takes it as gospel. I am not
> offended if he choses to verify what I say.
>
>> Trouble is, MX, I'm afraid you have burnt too many bridges behind you
>> to expect any further cooperation here. This thread is evidence
>> that your message is no longer important to many posters here, even
>> when what you're saying precisely parrots Bob Gardner's excellent
>> book "The Complete Instrument Pilot".
>
> Bob Gardner is occasionally on this group himself (or at least someone
> claiming to be him is). I wonder if he would feel compelled to argue
> with me as well.
>
> The stuff I have from Bob Gardner is so well-worn that the pages are
> starting to fall out, and I still have more on my wish list at Amazon.
>
> Anyway, I'm not worried about burnt bridges. All newsgroups have a
> steady turnover, so there are always new people to talk to. People
> with the attitude you describe are generally incompetent, so if they
> choose not to enter into discussion, so much the better. And there
> are always a few people who don't suffer from these problems and _do_
> know what they are talking about, and will discuss aviation
> objectively no matter what the brat pack does.
>
>> Since you're already semi-anonymous, you might try laying low for a
>> few weeks and coming back under a new name? Hell, you might even
>> try using your own?
>
> I've been using this pseudonym for years and I don't see any reason to
> change. I keep it to be slightly more anonymous, although anyone who
> expends even a modicum of effort can find out who I actually am. I
> originally adopted it to protect my erstwhile employer.
>
> I find that, over time, a gradual filtering process occurs: the stupid
> people stop talking to me entirely (which is fine) as they exhaust
> themselves with their own tantrums, the average people get over their
> emotional reactions and become more civil and eventually engage in
> useful interaction, and the smart people never suffer from these
> issues to begin with. Sometimes people who behaved foolishly at first
> become embarrassed by their initial behavior and tell me "well, you've
> changed," when in fact _they_ have changed in their interactions with
> me (I haven't changed in decades).
>

You're a moron Anthony.

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberman writes:

> Ummm, there was no fantasy about what happened to me on Friday.
>
> And it's not extraordinary dangerous to lose your HI and DG if you
> take the proactive approach in the what if scenario.while flying. I
> am here to prove that.
>
> We practice this in our Instrument air training, but you don't know it
> since you never have taken flying lessons.

What's the tail number of your aircraft, so I can recognize it in the NTSB
report?

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberman writes:

> Smart students get in real airplanes and will be able to confirm
> everything I have posted.

Getting in a real airplane won't help. You don't learn to fly by trial and
error.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> That's a hell of a statement.

Safety first.

[[email protected]]

On May 18, 2:08*pm, romeomike > wrote:

> The change in those sensations might give you some information
> in the initial instant of change, but after that they are more likely to
> confuse you to death.

And this is the entire point I am trying to drive across. The absence
of a sensation is more important then no sensation in an IMC
environment.

I am not talking about unusual attitudes as it would be too late then,
as obviously if you get yourself in an unusual attitude situation, you
were ignoring signs WELL BEFORE that happens. I am talking VERY
SUBTLE changes that you have to be acutely aware of before it
exasperates into an unusual attitude situation which INCLUDES scanning
all instruments AND feeling results of power adjustments..

Nowhere am I saying it's a primary decision making process, but if you
make an input such as add power, you should feel something in the seat
of your pants. If you reduce power, you should feel a negative G type
feeling. If you don't, something is radically wrong. It is a TOOL
for verifying instrumentation as demonstrated in my Friday
situation..

You can't tell me that if you are on an ILS approach and you find
yourself sliding below glideslope that by adding power you don't feel
it in the seat of your pants AND find that comforting.

Add power and then don't get that seat of the pants feeling, you best
start looking at instruments, trim settings or more importantly OUT
the WINDOW for icing.

If you don't feel it, then you really are missing one of the finer
tools of flying as IFR flying is not all gauges. All gauge flying
can be done on a desktop MSFS. Knock yourself out on that, but that
doesn't give you the leans, nor any physiological sensations for
control input which is vital to feel in addition to scanning the
instruments..

AGAIN, it's a tool to supplement and VERIFY what your eyes do indeed
see, not a replacement.

All of my postings are toward IA pilots, not VFR pilots. VFR pilots
won't have the skills to work a partial panel situation as quickly as
a IA pilot and if a VFR pilot finds them in IMC AND a partial panel
situation, then they really are having a bad day.

IA pilots with a vacuum failure, it is a nuisance but not a life
endangering situation PROVIDING they use all their training resources
and of course the remainder of the airplane systems are still fully
functional.

[[email protected]]

On May 18, 3:10*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> What's the tail number of your aircraft, so I can recognize it in the NTSB
> report?

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N1943L

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 18, 3:11*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Getting in a real airplane won't help. *You don't learn to fly by trial and
> error.

WRONG

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 18, 3:11*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Steve Foley writes:
> > That's a hell of a statement.
>
> Safety first.

Yep, go ahead, try leveling off with an AI ERRONEOUSLY showing a 20
pitch up. Go ahead and trust that instrument.

Hey try it in your simulator. I bet you will crash and burn in your
simulated environment.

Not for me thanks in a real airplane. I will trust but verify every
time I leave terra firma including using the seat of my pants to
verify power inputs..

This method has worked for me in the past six years of my instrument
flying, and I sure won't change it because you say put my life in
instruments without crosschecking and verifying it. Don't get me
wrong, I am still a student every time I walk on the ramp, and got
plenty to learn and open to it, but when you tell me what I feel and
do is incorrect and you have never experience the sensation of flight
in a GA plane, you have NO credibility.

With your attitude, I am glad you are using a simulator, as you
wouldn't survive the basic 180 turn for VFR pilots much less slogging
along in the clag for a couple of hours to terminate that flight with
an approach that required procedure turns and circle to land that was
one of my major accomplishments in my small corner of the world..

[george]

On May 18, 6:03 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:

> As a matter of fact, during training my instructor regularly blanked
> off the ASI in the circuit and yet I still managed to trim to the
> correct final approach speed to within 4 knots (as revealed when the
> papaer was removed). Explain that -and no I'm not a very gifted
> pilot...
>
Power setting and attitude ?

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Lieberman writes:
>
>> Smart students get in real airplanes and will be able to confirm
>> everything I have posted.
>
> Getting in a real airplane won't help. You don't learn to fly by
> trial and error.
>

Another moronic statement by the web's biggest ****ing moron.

[Benjamin Dover]

A Lieberman > wrote in news:239a8887-7f34-42e4-b1c1-
:

> With your attitude, I am glad you are using a simulator, as you
> wouldn't survive the basic 180 turn for VFR pilots much less slogging
> along in the clag for a couple of hours to terminate that flight with
> an approach that required procedure turns and circle to land that was
> one of my major accomplishments in my small corner of the world..

This newsgroup would be much better off if Anthony did try his piloting
skills in a real airplane. He'll be dead and we'll be rid of him.

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberman writes:

> WRONG

Learning by trial and error is a poor policy when errors can be fatal.

[george]

On May 19, 8:55 am, Benjamin Dover > wrote:

> This newsgroup would be much better off if Anthony did try his piloting
> skills in a real airplane. He'll be dead and we'll be rid of him.

No. That would mean that he's destroyed an aircraft.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 18, 1:50 pm, george > wrote:
> On May 18, 6:03 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> > As a matter of fact, during training my instructor regularly blanked
> > off the ASI in the circuit and yet I still managed to trim to the
> > correct final approach speed to within 4 knots (as revealed when the
> > papaer was removed). Explain that -and no I'm not a very gifted
> > pilot...
>
> Power setting and attitude ?

LOL George, WingFlaps, is pulling your middle keg,
it's a common BS scenario.
With ASI out, use the back-up stall buzzer on final,
then 4 knot accuracy is easy...duh.
Ken

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 13:19:14 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

>On May 18, 3:10*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> What's the tail number of your aircraft, so I can recognize it in the NTSB
>> report?
>
>http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N1943L


Hey! I know an owner of 1958L, another Sundowner.

I wonder if you plane remembers his from the assembly line? <G>

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 14:00:48 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
> wrote:


>With ASI out, use the back-up stall buzzer on final,
>then 4 knot accuracy is easy...duh.

On final?

Have you ever really landed an airplane?

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberman writes:

> Yep, go ahead, try leveling off with an AI ERRONEOUSLY showing a 20
> pitch up. Go ahead and trust that instrument.

The AI is the most reliable instrument on most aircraft, after the magnetic
compass. And of course you'll want two, just in case one fails, for IFR.

> Hey try it in your simulator. I bet you will crash and burn in your
> simulated environment.

Hmm. I'll try it sometime.

> This method has worked for me in the past six years of my instrument
> flying ...

It always seems to work ... until the day that it doesn't.

> Don't get me
> wrong, I am still a student every time I walk on the ramp, and got
> plenty to learn and open to it, but when you tell me what I feel and
> do is incorrect and you have never experience the sensation of flight
> in a GA plane, you have NO credibility.

Well, read a book. Talk to a CFI. It's your life, not mine.

[terry]

On May 19, 7:08*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Lieberman writes:
> > Yep, go ahead, try leveling off with an AI ERRONEOUSLY showing a 20
> > pitch up. *Go ahead and trust that instrument.
>
> The AI is the most reliable instrument on most aircraft, after the magnetic
> compass. *And of course you'll want two, just in case one fails, for IFR..
>
Would love to know what your sources are on that information MX. in
all the aircraft I have flown both the AI and DI were powered from the
same vacuum pump and the pump is the most common cause of failure of
gyroscopic instruments. How do I know that? not from any books I have
read, and I have many on aviation, but from first hand advice from
several flying instructors, and actually had a vacuum pump failure in
a Warrior on one of my PPL flight tests ( and you are not allowed to
ask why I had more than one test :<) )
Terry
PPL Downunder

[terry]

On May 19, 3:45*am, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On May 18, 8:36*am, terry > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 18, 11:01*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:> > Third, and most likely alternative: he's just stupid.
>
> > > MX is many things. Persistent, stubborn, blunt, thick-skinned, willing to
> > > argue that black-eyed-peas are really black-eyed-beans, yes. * Occasionally
> > > annoying, often entertaining (mostly because of the responses he obtains),
> > > always willing to come back for more. *He's like a Weebil that won't fall
> > > down.
>
> > > But stupid? * I don't think so.
> > > --
>
> > I agree , definately not stupid, probably well above average IQ .A
> > vertible human sponge of information. But sadly lacking the social
> > skills necessary to function in any meaningful way to be be able to do
> > anything useful with the knowledge he has soaked up. *The problem with
> > getting all of your information from books *and the internet as
> > distinct from actually doing anything in real life is that you just
> > dont know what you dont know. *You and I could read 100 books on
> > neurosurgery but we would realise from our other life experiences that
> > it would be futile to get into an argument with a neurosurgeon on how
> > to perform a labotomy. *But not our Anthony, he just doesnt have the
> > life experience outside his virtural existance to realise just how
> > little he really knows about anything. Its sad really. *I wish I could
> > help him, its a shame some local pilot hasnt tried to take him under
> > their wing and give him a taste of real life.
> > Terry
>
> Umm...no.
>
> You started out this paragraph in defense of Mx, and then make a
> retraction midway through:
>
> You write:
>
> > A
> > vertible human sponge of information. But sadly lacking the social
> > skills necessary to function in any meaningful way to be be able to do
> > anything useful with the knowledge he has soaked up.
>
> Then you write:
>
> > But not our Anthony, he just doesnt have the
> > life experience outside his virtural existance to realise just how
> > little he really knows about anything
>
> So first you imply that he knows much (relatively speaking). *Then you
> imply that he knows little (relatively speaking).
>
> Which is it?
>
What I am saying is that he knows lots of stuff, but does not know how
to connect it together or use it in any practical way, or in context
as others have put it. In just about any endeavour there is a
body of know how that you just wont get from reading. No matter how
much information he reads and even retains about flying, he would not
be able to fly a real plane without learning physically how to fly a
real plane, because he knows so little about flying a real plane.
Terry

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Lieberman writes:
>
>> WRONG
>
> Learning by trial and error is a poor policy when errors can be fatal.
>

You're a clueless moron.

[Benjamin Dover]

george > wrote in news:0dca79db-786f-471b-beec-
:

> On May 19, 8:55 am, Benjamin Dover > wrote:
>
>> This newsgroup would be much better off if Anthony did try his piloting
>> skills in a real airplane. He'll be dead and we'll be rid of him.
>
> No. That would mean that he's destroyed an aircraft.
>

As bad as that is, it would be worth the price.

[Buster Hymen]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:86f3c535-1fcd-4dbf-
:

> On May 18, 1:50 pm, george > wrote:
>> On May 18, 6:03 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>
>> > As a matter of fact, during training my instructor regularly blanked
>> > off the ASI in the circuit and yet I still managed to trim to the
>> > correct final approach speed to within 4 knots (as revealed when the
>> > papaer was removed). Explain that -and no I'm not a very gifted
>> > pilot...
>>
>> Power setting and attitude ?
>
> LOL George, WingFlaps, is pulling your middle keg,
> it's a common BS scenario.
> With ASI out, use the back-up stall buzzer on final,
> then 4 knot accuracy is easy...duh.
> Ken
>

Ken, you stupid mother ****er, not all aircraft have a stall buzzer. Some
are not even required to have one.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 18, 2:19 pm, terry > wrote:
> On May 19, 7:08 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:> A Lieberman writes:
> > > Yep, go ahead, try leveling off with an AI ERRONEOUSLY showing a 20
> > > pitch up. Go ahead and trust that instrument.
>
> > The AI is the most reliable instrument on most aircraft, after the magnetic
> > compass. And of course you'll want two, just in case one fails, for IFR.
>
> Would love to know what your sources are on that information MX. in
> all the aircraft I have flown both the AI and DI were powered from the
> same vacuum pump and the pump is the most common cause of failure of
> gyroscopic instruments. How do I know that? not from any books I have
> read, and I have many on aviation, but from first hand advice from
> several flying instructors, and actually had a vacuum pump failure in
> a Warrior on one of my PPL flight tests ( and you are not allowed to
> ask why I had more than one test :<) )
> Terry
> PPL Downunder

I like the Mxsmanic type. We could get him into the
right seat of some fella puttin in hours for a split on
the rent & gas.
Ten minutes later, I figure the Left-seater would say
SHUT the F##K UP, I'm trying to drive the friggin
airplane. I'd love a tape recording of that, bla-bla-bla.
Seriously MX, you oughta jump into the right seat
for some fun.
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On May 17, 6:37 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>> >> > A blazingly stupid comment that shows you know nothing about
>> >> > real flight.
>>
>> >> I'll ask again: Can you fly safely with your eyes closed, relying
>> >> only on sensations, and selectively ignoring or accepting the
>> >> sensations you feel?
>>
>> > What part of you must spend as much time as possible looking out
>> > the window in VFR are you failing to understand?
>>
>> You guys are hilariously arguing right past each other. MX is
>> arguing that you can't fly in IMC ("with your eyes closed") by the
>> seat of your pants -- which is 100% correct.
>> You, on the other hand, jrespond by arguing that of COURSE you can
>> fly by the seat of your pants, if only you look out the window!
>> God almighty, keep it up -- it's "Who's on first" all over again, and
>> some pretty damned good Saturday night entertainment!
>> :-)
>
> After doing a weird manuever, it's hard to tell if you're
> in a banking turn or a spiral dive, that's how I learned.
> Maybe a good pilot could use VFR as a ref, but I was
> clued in by my IAS needle going into yellow.
>
> I was a fairly good gymnast, so my orientational
> skills are likely a bit better than average.
> Ken
>

Really>? Then which planet are you on today?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:becc28f3-ebc0-
:

> On May 17, 8:33 pm, More_Flaps > wrote:
>> On May 18, 1:59 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> ...
>> > After doing a weird manuever, it's hard to tell if you're
>> > in a banking turn or a spiral dive, that's how I learned.
>> > Maybe a good pilot could use VFR as a ref, but I was
>> > clued in by my IAS needle going into yellow.
>>
>> BS! In VFR the position of the horizon tells you the difference. In
>> many planes there is no AH 'cos you don't need it for VFR!
>> The engine noise also tells you if you are descending or climging.
>> Cheers
>
> What you say is true, for a good experienced pilot,
> who have flown disorientation exersizes.
> But I'll provide this challenge, block off the speedometer
> in your car and I'll bet you'll have a problem driving.
> What happens to me is I drift up to 80 MPH, then
> go "holy poop".


you're a moron.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:86f3c535-1fcd-
:

> On May 18, 1:50 pm, george > wrote:
>> On May 18, 6:03 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>>
>> > As a matter of fact, during training my instructor regularly
blanked
>> > off the ASI in the circuit and yet I still managed to trim to the
>> > correct final approach speed to within 4 knots (as revealed when
the
>> > papaer was removed). Explain that -and no I'm not a very gifted
>> > pilot...
>>
>> Power setting and attitude ?
>
> LOL George, WingFlaps, is pulling your middle keg,
> it's a common BS scenario.
> With ASI out, use the back-up stall buzzer on final,
> then 4 knot accuracy is easy...duh


Just when you think he can't say anything more stupid, he does.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:abc4c280-5dce-
:

> On May 18, 3:54 am, B A R R Y > wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 20:46:40 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >What you say is true, for a good experienced pilot,
>> >who have flown disorientation exersizes.
>> >But I'll provide this challenge, block off the speedometer
>> >in your car and I'll bet you'll have a problem driving.
>> >What happens to me is I drift up to 80 MPH, then
>> >go "holy poop".
>>
>> I disagree totally. You must be numb.
>>
>> Both of my vehicles sound, feel, and act significantly different at
80
>> than they do at 65 MPH. In top gear of my Toyota, the RPM's are
about
>> 400 higher. On the same token, It's not all that difficult to tell
>> 25 from 35, if I try.
>>
>> The wind noise is different, the tach shows a different RPM, and the
>> corresponding engine pitch is noticeably different.
>>
>> Back to the pilot...
>>
>> The _change_ in sounds is a great clue, not just that it's all
>> different and steady.
>
> Yeah you've got it right.
> This was wifes new Gran Caravan, almost dead quiet
> inside and I was unfamiliar with it. Your thesis hinges
> on a familiarity with craft.

And there he goes again... It's like a graveyard spiral of stupid.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:%FLXj.168576$yE1.70999@attbi_s21:

>>> I fly by feel. I orient myself visually, either looking out the
>>> window or looking
>>> at the instruments. I navigate visually. But I FLY by feel.
>>
>> How many seconds can you fly by feel before you get into trouble.
>
> Initially we were talking about instrument flight. Somehow, several
> posts upstream this got conflated into instrument flight after a
> vacuum failure -- a completely different kettle of fish.
>
> IMHO (and this from a 1300-hour VFR pilot and aircraft owner who
> stopped just short of taking the IFR flight test in '02) MX's
> assertions regarding ignoring physical sensations mesh perfectly with
> everything I've been taught about instrument flight.




Now that I believe. Two compleat idiots slurping each other.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Lieberman writes:
>
>> Read my ILS rational, where you feel the applied power to capture the
>> glide slope. If you don't feel it in the seat of your pants, you got
>> a bigger issue. If you are above the glide slope, and you reduce
>> power, the lack of pressure in your butt should happen, but if the
>> opposite happens, you have a problem.
>
> To capture the glide slope, you watch the needles on your instruments.
>
>> Good example, though not likely, but very possible is having the trim
>> set in the nose down position rather then nose up. Apply power and
>> instead of maintaining level altitude, you just accelerated downhill
>> and you wouldn't get that firm seat of the pants feeling.
>
> Applying power will not accelerate you downhill. Power controls
> altitude, pitch controls speed. At constant pitch, increased power
> produces increased lift, and thus produces a climb.
>
>> The building airspeed and the ABSENCE of an expected seat of the
>> pants feeling doesn't bode well. This would be an extreme example,
>> but very pluasible.
>
> Just look at the instruments, and forget the seat of the pants. Your
> altimeter will tell you about changes in altitude, and your airspeed
> indicator will tell you about changes in speed.
>
>> Remember, that the above sensations helps CONFIRM the instruments,
>> NOT the other way around.
>
> No. The instruments confirm. The instruments are the final
> authority. If you are looking at the instruments to begin with (as
> you will be in IMC), you don't need anything else, and paying
> attention to sensations of movement will only get you into trouble.
>
>> You can't.
>
> Yes, you can. You can fly entirely with instruments. You _have to_
> fly entirely with instruments in IMC. Doing anything else is
> dangerous.
>
>> It's a combination that makes it all work.
>
> No combination is necessary.
>
>> If you put 100 percent faith in instruments and ignore what I am
>> describing above, then you are failing to recognize instrumentation
>> or airplane setting errors, and that will lead to a not so good
>> ending.
>
> Failing instruments in IMC usually lead to a not-so-good ending. The
> seat of your pants won't help you.
>
>> It's a combination of instruments AND what you feel in the seat of
>> your pants (NOT your inner ear feelings) that makes a difference
>> between landing at minimums or butching up an approach.
>
> No, it's instruments.
>
>> Again, go up with an IA rated pilot, see what the real deal is all
>> about. That hood just doesn't do it any justice, nor will any MSFS
>> desktop simulator do it.
>
> This is unrelated to simulations or hoods. In the real world, in IMC,
> you fly by instruments.
>
>> Look at the cowling, and it was straight
>> and level relative to the camera, but in reality, I was in a climbing
>> right turn.
>
> If the cowling starts to move while you're flying, you have worse
> problems than just failing instruments.
>
>> In my case, I verified the VSI reading with the feeling in my rear
>> end.
>
> Your rear end is useless for measuring rate of climb.


Just try getting kicked in the ass and see....

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:aJMXj.168650$yE1.132961@attbi_s21:

>>Bottom line, in IMC your seat of pants sensation will save your butt,
>>but you got to use it by listening to what it's telling you, or more
>>importantly NOT telling you. (seat of the pants sensation)
>
> Gotcha. That's quite a different "sensation" than the inner ear --
> thanks for the clarification.
>
> However, I think many in this group are arguing right past MX,
> dismissing him out of hand simply because most of the respondents
> can't stand him. Your point that seat of the pants pressure sensations
> are used during instrument flight does not disprove MX's point about
> the necessity of relying primarily on your instruments for accurate
> information in IMC. #



That wasn;'t his point, fjukkwit. and people dismiss him because he's
wrong.

You just like him because you're trying to slurp a k00k in order to gain
an ally.


Bertie

[romeomike]

wrote:

>
> If you don't feel it, then you really are missing one of the finer
> tools of flying as IFR flying is not all gauges. All gauge flying

Well, of course you're going to feel all kinds of stuff while flying
instruments: turbulence, control inputs, power setting
changes...whatever, but IMHO they are just as likely to bite you as save
you. A good scan is what saves your butt, of both primary and secondary
instruments. At least that's my experience with single and multi engine
solo IFR. But there are many here with a lot more experience than either
of us. I keep wondering where they are. Probably got tired of the
endless name calling. :-(

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On May 18, 2:19 pm, terry > wrote:
>> On May 19, 7:08 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:> A Lieberman
>> writes:
>> > > Yep, go ahead, try leveling off with an AI ERRONEOUSLY showing a
>> > > 20 pitch up. Go ahead and trust that instrument.
>>
>> > The AI is the most reliable instrument on most aircraft, after the
>> > magnetic compass. And of course you'll want two, just in case one
>> > fails, for IFR.
>>
>> Would love to know what your sources are on that information MX. in
>> all the aircraft I have flown both the AI and DI were powered from
>> the same vacuum pump and the pump is the most common cause of failure
>> of gyroscopic instruments. How do I know that? not from any books I
>> have read, and I have many on aviation, but from first hand advice
>> from several flying instructors, and actually had a vacuum pump
>> failure in a Warrior on one of my PPL flight tests ( and you are not
>> allowed to ask why I had more than one test :<) )
>> Terry
>> PPL Downunder
>
> I like the Mxsmanic type. We could get him into the
> right seat of some fella puttin in hours for a split on
> the rent & gas.
> Ten minutes later, I figure the Left-seater would say
> SHUT the F##K UP, I'm trying to drive the friggin
> airplane. I'd love a tape recording of that, bla-bla-bla.
> Seriously MX, you oughta jump into the right seat
> for some fun.
> Ken
>

the pilot would just put you out. Good time to try out your new theory
on stealth dive bomibng for your next guv'mint contract.


Bertie

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 18, 2:07 pm, B A R R Y > wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 14:00:48 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
>
> > wrote:
> >With ASI out, use the back-up stall buzzer on final,
> >then 4 knot accuracy is easy...duh.
>
> On final?
> Have you ever really landed an airplane?

Yeah, I use the manuals IAS and InDescent
indicator recommendations, with an eye on
attitude and adjust to the runway numbers,
with the expanding keystone, (the airstrip is
an expanding quadrangle, even in sims).
I'll float down to 37 KIAS alone in a 150 using
the stall horn frequency and amplitude, for fun.

Landing is my fav especially with serious X-wind.
Coming in with 30 deg crab, and waltz the machine
gently over the numbers is like dancing with a
beautiful woman, and then the flare, either way,
it's a rush when it all harmonizes.
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:mnVXj.115088$TT4.68884@attbi_s22:

>>Pretty much the same thing applies to you in this regard as you have
>>only made it to somewhere between second and third base in the IFR
>>realm. There are a lot of people on this group who are quite
>>experienced in IFR flight and I might be one of them. But I still
>>welcome the opportunity to learn from those who have earned my
>>respect. The IFR virgins should shut up, listen and learn.
>
> Good observation. I usually subscribe to this approach, when the
> topic of instrument filght comes up, since I *am* a newbie in that
> realm. I've only shot 54 instrument approaches under the hood, and
> have maybe fifty hours total simulated IMC, which pales into
> insignificance when compared with someone who flies instruments daily.
>
> However, in this case MX is parroting "the book" on instrument flight,
> while several others are arguing counter to "the book".
No he isn't, and no they aren't.


Fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Buster Hymen > wrote in
02:

> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
> :
>
>>>
>>> I look out the window to see what has
>>> changed.
>>
>>
>> What, so looking over at the boulangerie across the road tells you
>> what, exactly?
>>>
>
> Bertie, according to the on line 3D map of Paris I just looked at,
> across the street from 29 Rue du General Bertrand looks like another
> apartment building. But if one turn's left from 29 Rue du General
> Bertrand and crosses Rue de Sevres, you are at Hopital Necker, which
> is for sick children. Anthony is probably in the hospital's long term
> care facility for adults who are developmentally 7 years old and have
> no hope of progressing.
>
>
>

You are a google god.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Lieberman writes:
>
>> MSFS don't simulate fouled plugs BTW, or any other engine anomaly
that
>> can be encountered in the real world flying.
>
> MSFS aircraft are properly maintained by default.
>

Bwawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwh awhahwhahwhhahwhahwhah
whawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwh awhahwhahwhhahwhahwhah
whawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwh awhahwhahwhhahwhahwhah
whawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwh awhahwhahwhhahwhahwhah
whawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwh awhahwhahwhhahwhahwhah
whawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwh awhahwhahwhhahwhahwhah
whawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwh awhahwhahwhhahwhahwhah
whawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwh awhahwhahwhhahwhahwhah
whawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwh awhahwhahwhhahwhahwhah
whawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhawhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwh


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> The fly by the seat of my pants did not feel like I had a 20 to 30
>> degree pitch up which my horizon indicator showed (which was
>> waaaaaaaaay more then Vx pitch).
>>
>> Had I followed the horizon indicator and leveled the plane soley by
>> the HI, I would have been in a 20 degee pitch down and augured it in.
>> There was nothing accurate about my HI and it was my seat of the
>> pants feeling that set all sorts of alarms and bells out in my head..
>
> You were lucky. Most people who have trusted the seat of their pants
> in IMC are dead. It probably wouldn't be a good idea to press your
> luck.
>

You are an idiot and you have no idea of what you're talking about.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:jgVXj.115081$TT4.973@attbi_s22:

>> Your point that seat of the pants pressure sensations are used during
>> instrument flight does not disprove MX's point about the necessity of
>> relying primarily on your instruments for accurate information in
>> IMC.
>
>> Actually my point does!
>
>>The fly by the seat of my pants did not feel like I had a 20 to 30
>>degree pitch up which my horizon indicator showed (which was
>>waaaaaaaaay more then Vx pitch).
>
> Again, you're arguing about a different topic -- flight in IMC without
> a vacuum system. This is often classified as an "emergency", and you
> must use everything you can to get out of it -- including your "seat
> of the pants".
>
> In normal instrument flight, pilots are trained to ignore what their
> body is telling them.

No, they aren't, they re trained to ignore their inner ear., period.




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Airliners us FULL MOTION sims, not a desktop MSFS. HUGE difference.
>
> One of the reasons why full-motion sims work is that it's very easy to
> fool human senses. Remember, full-motion sims don't actually go
> anywhere, but to the people inside, they certainly feel as though they
> do.
>
>> To equate a desktop MSFS to any type of IMC flying is reckless IMHO.
>
> One advantage to MSFS is that it forces you to use instruments in IMC.
> Depending heavily on instruments isn't necessarily an advantage for
> VFR, but it's very important for IFR.
>
>> To not depend on senses and totally rely on instruments without an
>> expectation that **they could fail** is reckless.
>
> Not at all. If you're unwilling to put complete trust in your
> instruments, you shouldn't be flying IFR. If they fail, well, you
> might never get back home.

Wrong again, fukkwit. And i fly instruments almost every day.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:lMVXj.169277$yE1.70867@attbi_s21:

>> Third, and most likely alternative: he's just stupid.
>
> MX is many things. Persistent, stubborn, blunt, thick-skinned, willing
> to argue that black-eyed-peas are really black-eyed-beans, yes.
> Occasionally annoying, often entertaining (mostly because of the
> responses he obtains), always willing to come back for more. He's
> like a Weebil that won't fall down.
>
> But stupid? I don't think so.


Well, relative to you, of course not.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:mIVXj.169271$yE1.120501@attbi_s21:

>> Fortunately, MSFS handles engine
>> sounds in a fairly consistent and predictable way.
>
>>Yep, consistently unrealistic, with no prop noise at all.
>
> The sound quality in MSFS is remarkably good -- in SOME of the
> aircraft, and with the proper equipment.
>
> For example, our sim set-up at the hotel has a full surround-sound
> system with sub-woofer. When you wind up the Merlin in the P-51, it
> sings. When you pull it back to idle, you can hear wind noise. When
> you kill the engine, you can hear the prop windmilling.
>
> And the rumble of the big radial engines in the Grumman Goose is
> wonderfully done.
>
> An indication of the importance of sound in the sim -- it's MUCH
> harder to fly the sim with the sound turned off. You don't realize
> how often you use aural cues in flight until they're not there.
> (Which, BTW, makes me really admire the deaf pilots of the world.
> Back before the troll wars reduced this group, there used to be a
> regular poster here named Henry Kisor who belonged to the deaf pilot's
> association, and I was always impressed that he was able to fly so
> well without aural cues. But I digress...)
>
> Of course, if you're relying on your desktop computer's speaker,
> you're absolutely correct -- the sounds are not there. But the sim
> software *is* creating the proper sounds, mostly, but it does require
> a good quality system to hear it.



Bull****.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:ce3a7db9-d346-
:

> On May 18, 2:07 pm, B A R R Y > wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 May 2008 14:00:48 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >With ASI out, use the back-up stall buzzer on final,
>> >then 4 knot accuracy is easy...duh.
>>
>> On final?
>> Have you ever really landed an airplane?
>
> Yeah, I use the manuals IAS and InDescent
> indicator recommendations, with an eye on
> attitude and adjust to the runway numbers,
> with the expanding keystone, (the airstrip is
> an expanding quadrangle, even in sims).
> I'll float down to 37 KIAS alone in a 150 using
> the stall horn frequency and amplitude, for fun.
>
> Landing is my fav especially with serious X-wind.
> Coming in with 30 deg crab, and waltz the machine
> gently over the numbers is like dancing with a
> beautiful woman, and then the flare, either way,
> it's a rush when it all harmonizes.


Good grief.



Bertie
>

[Mxsmanic]

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> And i fly instruments almost every day.

How do you fly instruments that don't work?

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> writes:
>
> > Airliners us FULL MOTION sims, not a desktop MSFS. HUGE difference.
>
> One of the reasons why full-motion sims work is that it's very easy to fool
> human senses. Remember, full-motion sims don't actually go anywhere, but to
> the people inside, they certainly feel as though they do.
>
> > To equate a desktop MSFS to any type of IMC flying is reckless IMHO.
>
> One advantage to MSFS is that it forces you to use instruments in IMC.
> Depending heavily on instruments isn't necessarily an advantage for VFR, but
> it's very important for IFR.
>
> > To not depend on senses and totally rely on instruments without an
> > expectation that **they could fail** is reckless.
>
> Not at all. If you're unwilling to put complete trust in your instruments,
> you shouldn't be flying IFR. If they fail, well, you might never get back
> home.
>
> > If you fly a real
> > plane, you should know this. Nobody expects the unexpected to happen,
> > but if you fly your plane like **it could happen** then you are better
> > prepared. I call it an insurance policy that you hope you don't have
> > to cash in.
>
> Given the fact that losing instruments in IMC is extraordinarily dangerous, it
> would be better advised to take care to minimize the chances that they will
> fail than to fantasize that it will be possible to fly and land safely without
> them if they do fail.

Who remembers the crash in the States where an aircraft engineer had
left the pitot and or static air vents taped up.

Crashed into the sea I think - all dead.

Basically - pilots failed to correctly interpret the instruments. Had
they determined what insruments were reading correctly, they could've
put the thing down (they were attempting to return to the field).

IIRC, they could have used the GPS for airspeed (IIRC, the airspeed
indicator partly worked (they got an airspeed active out of it!) - and
probably thought it was correct - during flight it was all over the
place IIRC. And the radar altimeter would have been working just fine.
Several navs would have been good, VOR, DME, ILS etc. Shaker of course
too!

Anyone remember some more details?

--
Duncan

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
> > This is much less inaccurate than your other statement.
>
> No, it is simply more detailed, which makes it harder for you to use incorrect
> assumptions in an attempt to discredit it. Everyone pilot knows (or should
> know) that if you increase power, you climb, all else being equal. (I know
> what someone will say about this, too, but I won't deprive him of the
> satisfaction of playing the game.)

You can't make such a basic statement like that. You *need* to say yer
straight and level.

--
Duncan

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> IIRC, they could have used the GPS for airspeed (IIRC, the airspeed
> indicator partly worked (they got an airspeed active out of it!) - and
> probably thought it was correct - during flight it was all over the
> place IIRC. And the radar altimeter would have been working just fine.
> Several navs would have been good, VOR, DME, ILS etc. Shaker of course
> too!

The GPS would only give ground speed, not airspeed, but that would be better
than nothing. The RA would only be useful below 2500 feet AGL. But the other
stuff would be working.

> Anyone remember some more details?

Aeroperu had a problem with this.

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Doe writes:

> You can't make such a basic statement like that. You *need* to say yer
> straight and level.

Satisfied?

[Mike Isaksen]

"Dave Doe" wrote
> Who remembers the crash in the States where an aircraft
> engineer had left the pitot and or static air vents taped up.
>
> Crashed into the sea I think - all dead.
>
> Duncan

I believe this was South or Latin America, and the plane came back from
getting washed??? Ports still covered to prevent water infiltration. Was it
a B757 maybe???

[More_Flaps]

On May 19, 8:50*am, george > wrote:
> On May 18, 6:03 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> > As *a matter of fact, during training my instructor regularly blanked
> > off the ASI in the circuit and yet I still managed to trim to the
> > correct final approach speed to within 4 knots (as revealed when the
> > papaer was removed). Explain that -and no I'm not a very gifted
> > pilot...
>
> Power setting and attitude ?

You betcha and feel of the controls.

Cheers

[More_Flaps]

On May 19, 9:00*am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On May 18, 1:50 pm, george > wrote:
>
> > On May 18, 6:03 pm, WingFlaps > wrote:
>
> > > As *a matter of fact, during training my instructor regularly blanked
> > > off the ASI in the circuit and yet I still managed to trim to the
> > > correct final approach speed to within 4 knots (as revealed when the
> > > papaer was removed). Explain that -and no I'm not a very gifted
> > > pilot...
>
> > Power setting and attitude ?
>
> LOL George, WingFlaps, is pulling your middle keg,
> it's a common BS scenario.
> With ASI out, use the back-up stall buzzer on final,
> then 4 knot accuracy is easy...duh.
> Ken

Nope, no buzzer and not near stall..

Cheers

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>Nope, I detect there is no change in prop sound when you load it up
>and my computer does have a sound card. Maybe you are using one of
>Mx's famous add ons, but can you hear the prop disk meet off axis
>air?.

When you load it up, yes. Off-axis air (what a great way to describe that,
BTW!), nope.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>I may need that lottery ticket, not for surviving the problem, but the
>cost of a new regulator! Pump is fine, but the regulator does not
>appear to be regulating! 1.2 AMU is a preliminary estimate.

$1200 for the *regulator*? Damn...that sucks.

Almost as bad as my stupid Piper stall indicator switch -- $1300 back in
1999 money! What a rip... (Luckily I found a "serviceable" used unit for
"only" $450...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Dave Doe writes:
>
> > You can't make such a basic statement like that. You *need* to say yer
> > straight and level.
>
> Satisfied?

When you stop posting/replying in such a truculent tendentious and pious
manner.

--
Duncan

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Dave Doe writes:
>
> > IIRC, they could have used the GPS for airspeed (IIRC, the airspeed
> > indicator partly worked (they got an airspeed active out of it!) - and
> > probably thought it was correct - during flight it was all over the
> > place IIRC. And the radar altimeter would have been working just fine.
> > Several navs would have been good, VOR, DME, ILS etc. Shaker of course
> > too!
>
> The GPS would only give ground speed, not airspeed, but that would be better
> than nothing. The RA would only be useful below 2500 feet AGL. But the other
> stuff would be working.

The other poster got it right methinks, pretty sure it was a 757.

re your reply...
* ground speed would be just fine, even in a 30kt wind aloft - compared
to an airspeed indicator going all over the place.
* they'd just taken off, so the radar altimeter's going to provide some
very useful info.

>
> > Anyone remember some more details?
>
> Aeroperu had a problem with this.

As the other poster mentioned, he thought it was 'down south' too -
should be a database entry for it somewhere.

--
Duncan

[Marty Shapiro]

Dave Doe > wrote in
. nz:

> In article >,
> says...
>> Dave Doe writes:
>>
>> > IIRC, they could have used the GPS for airspeed (IIRC, the airspeed
>> > indicator partly worked (they got an airspeed active out of it!) -
>> > and probably thought it was correct - during flight it was all over
>> > the place IIRC. And the radar altimeter would have been working
>> > just fine. Several navs would have been good, VOR, DME, ILS etc.
>> > Shaker of course too!
>>
>> The GPS would only give ground speed, not airspeed, but that would be
>> better than nothing. The RA would only be useful below 2500 feet
>> AGL. But the other stuff would be working.
>
> The other poster got it right methinks, pretty sure it was a 757.
>
> re your reply...
> * ground speed would be just fine, even in a 30kt wind aloft -
> compared to an airspeed indicator going all over the place.
> * they'd just taken off, so the radar altimeter's going to provide
> some very useful info.
>
>>
>> > Anyone remember some more details?
>>
>> Aeroperu had a problem with this.
>
> As the other poster mentioned, he thought it was 'down south' too -
> should be a database entry for it somewhere.
>

There is an entry in the NTSB data base, but all it does is refer to the
DGTA in Peru and gives a telephone number and fax number. The entry can be
found at http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X06864&key=1


--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[John Godwin]

More_Flaps > wrote in

:

> Nope, no buzzer and not near stall..

Yep .. particularly if your airplane doesn't have a stall buzzer.

--

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:Vz6Yj.170152$yE1.82992@attbi_s21:

>>Nope, I detect there is no change in prop sound when you load it up
>>and my computer does have a sound card. Maybe you are using one of
>>Mx's famous add ons, but can you hear the prop disk meet off axis
>>air?.
>
> When you load it up, yes. Off-axis air (what a great way to describe
> that, BTW!), nope.

What a cretin.


Bertie

[Todd Langren]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:qK6Yj.115998$TT4.10739@attbi_s22:

>>I may need that lottery ticket, not for surviving the problem, but the
>>cost of a new regulator! Pump is fine, but the regulator does not
>>appear to be regulating! 1.2 AMU is a preliminary estimate.
>
> $1200 for the *regulator*? Damn...that sucks.
>
> Almost as bad as my stupid Piper stall indicator switch -- $1300 back
> in 1999 money! What a rip... (Luckily I found a "serviceable" used
> unit for "only" $450...)

Guess your mexican slaves didn't get a bonus that month, eh?

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
> > That's a hell of a statement.
>
> Safety first.

I was really referring the fact that an absolute statement was made without
any qualifiers that may have made it correct.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

> Hmm...someone should write an email to FAA warning them that they
> should warn readers that the HoAK should not be read by any aspiring
> pilot who has not yet been properly instructed of its contents by
> human.
>
> But then, if the instructor is to tell all to the student that is in
> the book, then there is no point in writing the book.
>
> Maybe it should be retitled...
>
> "Refresher Handbook For Pilot's Who Already Learned This Stuff From A
> Person. But Not Anyone Else.."
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

That's not what I said at all. But should you ever start learning to fly
I think you will find that you will go back and reread it with a whole
new understanding of what you are reading.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote in
m:

> Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
>
>> Hmm...someone should write an email to FAA warning them that they
>> should warn readers that the HoAK should not be read by any aspiring
>> pilot who has not yet been properly instructed of its contents by
>> human.
>>
>> But then, if the instructor is to tell all to the student that is in
>> the book, then there is no point in writing the book.
>>
>> Maybe it should be retitled...
>>
>> "Refresher Handbook For Pilot's Who Already Learned This Stuff From A
>> Person. But Not Anyone Else.."
>>
>> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
> That's not what I said at all. But should you ever start learning to
fly
> I think you will find that you will go back and reread it with a
whole
> new understanding of what you are reading.

Ya gotta love an optimist.


Bertie

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gatt writes:
>
>> The ones that are ignored are different sensations and typically have to
>> do with equilibrium and the inner ear. Examples are somatogravic and
>> coriolis and inversion illusions. If your ass leaves the seat or
>> compresses into it, however, it's not something you ignore.
>
> Yes, it is, because it is no more reliable than any other sensation.


DON'T CONTRADICT ME. I FLY PLANES AND YOU PLAY VIDEO GAMES. IF YOU
DON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "GRAVITY" AND A "SENSATION", THEN GO
JUMP OFF A BRIDGE.


> But they may not be what you think they are, either.
>
> What people are asserting here is 180 degrees different from what I read in
> all the literature.

I QUOTED YOU THE LITERATURE. SPECIFICALLY, FAA-H-8083-3A: IE, The
Federal Aviation Administration Airplane Flying Handbook, chapter 3, page 2.

The FAA knows a whole hell of a lot more about flying than you,
regardless of what you claim you've read.

-C
Commercial Pilot, Instrument, ASEL
Advanced Ground Instructor

[gatt[_3_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> What people are asserting here is 180 degrees different from what I
>>> read in all the literature. You cannot fly by the seat of your pants.
>>> You can't fly based on sensations. They are too unreliable.
>>> Conversely, you can fly without sensations, as long as you have visual
>>> and/or instrument information.
>>>
>>
>> You're a moron. You're not competent to read with comprehension.
>> Anthony, you don't know **** from shinola.
>
> Presuming we're talking about IFR flight, what, precisely, do you find
> incorrect in MX's paragraph, above?

Well, for starters, you cannot fly without sensations unless you're
defying gravity and centrifugal/centripetal force. Fighter pilots
would probably think it very cool if they could ignore stuff like tunnel
vision and brownout.

Jay, I mentioned this to him earlier and he ignored it.

There's a difference between gravitational forces acting on a body and
inner-ear and other physiological effects such as somatogravic illusion.

The pilot feels the same forces acting on an airplane, so if you feel
G-forces and you are compressed into your seat, you know you're pulling
G's.

If your chart suddenly flies off the dashpanel and your luggage starts
floating around behind the rear seats, are these items experiencing
sensations, or physics?

As I told him, if you jump off of a building you will quickly learn the
difference between physiological illusion and physical sensation. It is
the latter that cannot be denied.


-c

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> A Lieberman writes:
>
>> Flying by sensation Jay. To make a blank statement you cannot fly in
>> IMC by sensations is flat out wrong.
>
> It's entirely right. You cannot trust sensations in IMC. You must trust your
> instruments.

GRAVITY IS NOT A SENSATION.

>> While you have to ignore SOME sensations while flying inside a cloud,
>> some sensations give you warning of impending danger.
>
> The instruments do a better job of that, and they are consistent and reliable.


That's right. Instruments never fail, and gravity is prone to error.

[gatt[_3_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:

> I pretty much agree with MX, the human inertial nav
> is clumsy, we didn't have the evolution of birds.
> An example is a "spiral dive", it's actually quite benign
> from the standpoint of inertial inputs, it's better to use
> instruments.


And if you auger into granite at 200 knots, just ignore the "sensation"
and you'll be fine.

-c

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>> When you catch an updraft coming over a ridge, do you wait for the altimeter
>> to tell you you're climbing? Or do you slightly lower the nose based on
>> FEELING the additional lift?
>
> I look out the window and/or check the instruments to see what has changed.


No you don't. You don't fly. You have no windows to look out of.

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>> That sensation tells you that you are coordinated, which is the point.
>
> No, it does not. Other things can produce the same sensation.


Like what. What other things?


-c
Commercial Pilot, Instrument, ASEL
Advanced Ground Instructor

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin writes:
That, coupled with the delay inherent in the
> response of many engines and the delay in the airframe's reaction, makes it
> easier to fly if the engine can be heard. Fortunately, MSFS handles engine
> sounds in a fairly consistent and predictable way.

No it doesn't, and this is not rec.aviation.simulation.

-c
Pilot, MSFS player.

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Did you read my post? Did you forget the fact my vacuum system wasn't
>> working? How can I trust the instruments?
>
> You don't need vacuum for electric instruments.

Once again you're totally clueless. Your Directional Gyro is vacuum
driven. If you only needed electric instruments to fly, your primary
instruments wouldn't be pitot-static. If you have an electrical
problem, bus failure or inflight fire, you might lose all your
electrical instruments.


> If you have no instruments and you're in IMC, you have a big problem.

Only if you don't know how to use your radios and know which senses to
trust.

>> Not when the vacuum system is broke. I just experienced it
>> yesterday.
>
> Don't fly IFR until it's fixed.

The problem likely happened while he was in flight. In the real world,
you don't get to hit "ALT" and fiddle with your settings until things works.

Ah, why do I bother with you? You ask questions just to contradict
literally everybody who answers them regardless of the experience they
have or the official sources they quote.


-c

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> To capture the glide slope, you watch the needles on your instruments.


That's right. Bill Gates just miracles the rest of the approach into
place.

> Applying power will not accelerate you downhill.

Point one of your toy airplanes into an 70-degree descent and apply full
power.

Student pilots, consult your FAA Airplane Flying Handbook, Chapter 3,
Page 19:

"Through a wide range of nose-low attitudes, a descent is the only
possible condition of flight. The addition of power at these attitudes
will only result in a greater rate of descent at a faster airspeed."

By the way, I'm no longer talking to MXNumbnuts here. He's a washout
and a non-pilot. I'm talking to student pilots who might be led astray
by his ignorance and misinformation.


-Chris Gattman
Commercial Pilot, Instrument, ASEL
Advanced Ground Instructor

[Steve Foley]

"gatt" > wrote in message
. ..

> Point one of your toy airplanes into an 70-degree descent and apply full
> power.
>

I did that last night in MSFS.

They got it wrong.

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>> Did you miss the part about the trim setting in a nose down position?
>> The above answer is WRONG when you don't have the airplane configured
>> correctly.
>
> Sorry, I try to keep the airplane configured correctly, so I don't have much
> experience with incorrect configurations.
>
> All of the sources I've consulted contradict all that you are saying. I have
> no reason to believe that you are more reliable than all those other sources.

Name one.

For example, I continue to name and quote the FAA Airplane Flying
Handbook, FAA-H-8083-3A, and you don't respond to those posts.
Meanwhile, you don't cite your sources, so I suspect that you are a liar.

-c

[gatt[_3_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> In normal instrument flight, pilots are trained to ignore what their
> body is telling them.

Not exactly. I was told to understand and be able to recognize various
physiological illusions, but I was told NOT to ignore others.

For example, if my ears--my body--tell me that the prop or engine is
winding up, I might be experiencing a change in power, airspeed or a
rapid descent even though the pitot-static instruments are not moving?

To extend this logic, if my eyes--my body--tell me that there's a
mountain in my way, do I ignore it just because the altitude indicator
is stuck on 12,000?

If my nose--my body--smells smoke or burning oil but the engine
instruments don't show a problem, do I ignore my senses?

If all of a sudden I feel like I weigh 500 pounds or an unbelted
passenger is floating around the cabin, odds are something isn't right.

-c
Commercial Pilot, Instrument, ASEL
Advanced Ground Instructor

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Steve Foley writes:

>
>> If the nose is pointed down (going downhill) , and you increase power, you
>> WILL descend faster.
>
> Your increased speed will produce more lift, which will tend to raise the
> aircraft, slowing the rate of descent and potentially leveling the aircraft or
> producing a climb.


So just remember, everybody, if you're at 500 feet in a spiral dive,
and/or you're 500RPM past VNE, just increase power.

Alternatively, you can hit PAUSE, push the MAP icon and simply add a few
thousand feet to your altitude.

"Through a wide range of nose-low attitudes, a descent is the only
possible condition of flight. The addition of power at these attitudes
will only result in a greater rate of descent at a faster airspeed."
FAA-H-8083-3A 3-19.

But, hey, what does the Federal Aviation Administration know about anything?

-c

[gatt[_3_]]

terry wrote:
> On May 18, 11:01 pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>>> Third, and most likely alternative: he's just stupid.
>> MX is many things. Persistent, stubborn, blunt, thick-skinned, willing to
>> argue that black-eyed-peas are really black-eyed-beans, yes. Occasionally
>> annoying, often entertaining (mostly because of the responses he obtains),
>> always willing to come back for more. He's like a Weebil that won't fall
>> down.
>>
>> But stupid? I don't think so.
>> --
> I agree , definately not stupid, probably well above average IQ .A
> vertible human sponge of information.

What he lacks--among a lot of things--is the ability to take the
information that he learns into a true understanding of those concepts.

The power-is-altitude thing is an example. If you point a Cessna 172 or
a 747 straight at the ground and apply full power, there are a couple of
very obvious reasons why this will not result in a climb, and these can
even be demonstrated in a flight simulator.

-c

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:

>> Out of 825+ flight hours I have flown, 59.4 were in IMC, so I would
>> believe I am reasonably qualified to stress the importance of the
>> above based on personal experience even though I am not an instructor.
>
> Perhaps when you have 500 hours in IMC,

Perhaps when you have .005 hours in IMC, anybody here will give a damn
what you suggest.

-c

[gatt[_3_]]

A Lieberman wrote:
> On May 18, 11:14 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
mplacency has no room in a cockpit of a real airplane.
>
> MSFS, yes you can be complacent, no big deal. In a real airplane that
> leaves the real ground, it doesn't work that way, VFR or IFR.
>
> TRUST BUT VERIFY..............
>
> I talk from experience from using MSFS and flying a real airplane. Can
> you?

I can, Lieberman.

You are correct.

-c

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Le Chaud Lapin writes:

>> If experienced pilots, especially in real life, would adopt this
>> attitude, young pilots would be more inclined to finish flight
>> training, I think.
>
> The problem is that the vast majority of pilots aren't even remotely "giants
> in their field."


And you aren't even remotely in their field at all. But a lot of them
are in yours.

Glad we could clear that up.

-c
Commercial/Instrument Pilot, Ground Instructor, MSFS enthusiast.

[gatt[_3_]]

wrote:
> On May 18, 3:10 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> What's the tail number of your aircraft, so I can recognize it in the NTSB
>> report?
>
> http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N1943L
>

So, what's the tail number of your aircraft, Anthony?

-c

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> A Lieberman writes:
>
>> Yep, go ahead, try leveling off with an AI ERRONEOUSLY showing a 20
>> pitch up. Go ahead and trust that instrument.
>
> The AI is the most reliable instrument on most aircraft, after the magnetic
> compass. And of course you'll want two, just in case one fails, for IFR.


HAHAAA!!! Even the aircraft in Flight Simulator don't have redundant
AIs and compasses.

Now he's simply flailing.


-c

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> Once again you're totally clueless. Your Directional Gyro is vacuum
> driven. If you only needed electric instruments to fly, your primary
> instruments wouldn't be pitot-static. If you have an electrical
> problem, bus failure or inflight fire, you might lose all your
> electrical instruments.

You think it terms of tiny airplanes. You can drive instruments in other ways
besides with vacuum.

> Only if you don't know how to use your radios and know which senses to
> trust.

No. Radios or not, if you have no instruments in IMC, you're doomed. Your
radio will not help you, and you cannot trust your senses.

> The problem likely happened while he was in flight. In the real world,
> you don't get to hit "ALT" and fiddle with your settings until things works.

In the real world, you find the nearest available airport and land. It's very
dangerous to fly IFR without all instruments in good working order.

> You ask questions just to contradict
> literally everybody who answers them regardless of the experience they
> have or the official sources they quote.

At least a few of the people here are going to learn the essential rules of
IFR the hard way. I will be gracious enough, however, to not say "I told you
so" to their surviving family members.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> GRAVITY IS NOT A SENSATION.

So?

> That's right. Instruments never fail, and gravity is prone to error.

Your physical sensations will fail on every single flight into IMC. The
instruments will not. Trust your instruments. If you cannot entrust your
life to your instruments, don't fly in IMC.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> For example, I continue to name and quote the FAA Airplane Flying
> Handbook, FAA-H-8083-3A, and you don't respond to those posts.
> Meanwhile, you don't cite your sources, so I suspect that you are a liar.

If I cared nothing about others, I'd suggest that you go up and do some flying
in IMC to make me a liar.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> If all of a sudden I feel like I weigh 500 pounds or an unbelted
> passenger is floating around the cabin, odds are something isn't right.

Your instruments will tell you if something isn't right.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> So, what's the tail number of your aircraft, Anthony?

I have several, but since I only use them in simulation, they won't appear in
an NTSB report (and some of them are already assigned to other aircraft in the
FAA database).

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> The power-is-altitude thing is an example. If you point a Cessna 172 or
> a 747 straight at the ground and apply full power, there are a couple of
> very obvious reasons why this will not result in a climb, and these can
> even be demonstrated in a flight simulator.

Examine the trajectory and you will see that it's not a straight line.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> HAHAAA!!! Even the aircraft in Flight Simulator don't have redundant
> AIs and compasses.

Mine have back-up AIs and altimeters, and sometimes other back-ups, depending
on the aircraft.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> Like what. What other things?

A climb. You cannot tell whether you are climbing or turning based on
sensations alone in IMC. You might be in a coordinated turn, or you might be
in an accelerating climb.

Additionally, your body will only sense the beginning of a change in
acceleration, and only if it exceeds a certain threshold. You cannot tell how
much you are accelerating based on sensation alone, nor can you accurately
gauge the exact magnitude of the acceleration.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> DON'T CONTRADICT ME. I FLY PLANES AND YOU PLAY VIDEO GAMES. IF YOU
> DON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "GRAVITY" AND A "SENSATION", THEN GO
> JUMP OFF A BRIDGE.

Sounds like an epitaph. Be careful up there.

> I QUOTED YOU THE LITERATURE. SPECIFICALLY, FAA-H-8083-3A: IE, The
> Federal Aviation Administration Airplane Flying Handbook, chapter 3, page 2.

I've read the literature, thanks.

> The FAA knows a whole hell of a lot more about flying than you,
> regardless of what you claim you've read.

No doubt. But I'm not debating this with the FAA.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> GRAVITY IS NOT A SENSATION.
>
> So?
>
>> That's right. Instruments never fail, and gravity is prone to error.
>
> Your physical sensations will fail on every single flight into IMC

Nope, wrong, fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> For example, I continue to name and quote the FAA Airplane Flying
>> Handbook, FAA-H-8083-3A, and you don't respond to those posts.
>> Meanwhile, you don't cite your sources, so I suspect that you are a
>> liar.
>
> If I cared nothing about others, I'd suggest that you go up and do
> some flying in IMC to make me a liar.
>

I have, you are.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> If all of a sudden I feel like I weigh 500 pounds or an unbelted
>> passenger is floating around the cabin, odds are something isn't right.
>
> Your instruments will tell you if something isn't right.
>

Not always. Though to be fair my bull****ometer is through the red line.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> So, what's the tail number of your aircraft, Anthony?
>
> I have several,


No you don't.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> The power-is-altitude thing is an example. If you point a Cessna 172
>> or a 747 straight at the ground and apply full power, there are a
>> couple of very obvious reasons why this will not result in a climb,
>> and these can even be demonstrated in a flight simulator.
>
> Examine the trajectory and you will see that it's not a straight line.
>

Wrong again.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> HAHAAA!!! Even the aircraft in Flight Simulator don't have
>> redundant AIs and compasses.
>
> Mine have back-up AIs and altimeters, and sometimes other back-ups,
> depending on the aircraft.
>

No it doesn;t it doesnt have anything. it's not an airplane.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> Like what. What other things?
>
> A climb. You cannot tell whether you are climbing or turning based on
> sensations alone in IMC. You might be in a coordinated turn, or you
> might be in an accelerating climb.

You are an idiot.


Bertie

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 19, 6:16 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
....
> No. Radios or not, if you have no instruments in IMC, you're doomed. Your
> radio will not help you, and you cannot trust your senses.

I disagee. If all Instruments go dead, go to
magnetic compass for heading, even in a fog, that's
SOP. Maintaining altitude is "seat of pants" thing, so
what? Set cruise RPM and feel airspeed.
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On May 19, 6:16 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> ...
>> No. Radios or not, if you have no instruments in IMC, you're doomed.
>> Your radio will not help you, and you cannot trust your senses.
>
> I disagee. If all Instruments go dead, go to
> magnetic compass for heading, even in a fog, that's
> SOP.


No, it isn't.

Maintaining altitude is "seat of pants" thing, so
> what? Set cruise RPM and feel airspeed.

Another idiot. Between the two of you you couldn't get a chuck glider
airborne.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On May 17, 7:59 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> I was a fairly good gymnast, so my orientational
> skills are likely a bit better than average.
> Ken

Your superior orientational skills are just as useless as
everyone else's ordinary orientational skills when in IMC.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> DON'T CONTRADICT ME. I FLY PLANES AND YOU PLAY VIDEO GAMES. IF YOU
>> DON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "GRAVITY" AND A "SENSATION", THEN
>> GO JUMP OFF A BRIDGE.
>
> Sounds like an epitaph. Be careful up there.
>
>> I QUOTED YOU THE LITERATURE. SPECIFICALLY, FAA-H-8083-3A: IE, The
>> Federal Aviation Administration Airplane Flying Handbook, chapter 3,
>> page 2.
>
> I've read the literature, thanks.
>
>> The FAA knows a whole hell of a lot more about flying than you,
>> regardless of what you claim you've read.
>
> No doubt. But I'm not debating this with the FAA.
>

You aren't debating, period, you're just being an asshole, as always.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

wrote in news:a5fa9e6d-deab-47d8-92ab-
:

> On May 17, 7:59 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>> I was a fairly good gymnast, so my orientational
>> skills are likely a bit better than average.
>> Ken
>
> Your superior orientational skills are just as useless as
> everyone else's ordinary orientational skills when in IMC.
>

I'd say they were even more useless, exceptionally useless!



Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Ken S. Tucker writes:

> I disagee. If all Instruments go dead, go to
> magnetic compass for heading, even in a fog, that's
> SOP.

If you have a compass, all instruments are not dead.

However, that won't be enough in IMC.

> Maintaining altitude is "seat of pants" thing, so
> what? Set cruise RPM and feel airspeed.

That isn't possible.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Ken S. Tucker writes:
>
>> I disagee. If all Instruments go dead, go to
>> magnetic compass for heading, even in a fog, that's
>> SOP.
>
> If you have a compass, all instruments are not dead.
>
> However, that won't be enough in IMC.

Do tel, what is, fjukkwit?


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On May 18, 3:19 pm, terry > wrote:

> Would love to know what your sources are on that information MX. in
> all the aircraft I have flown both the AI and DI were powered from the
> same vacuum pump and the pump is the most common cause of failure of
> gyroscopic instruments. How do I know that? not from any books I have
> read, and I have many on aviation, but from first hand advice from
> several flying instructors, and actually had a vacuum pump failure in
> a Warrior on one of my PPL flight tests ( and you are not allowed to
> ask why I had more than one test :<) )

We have no vacuum pump failures anymore. Just gyro failures.
Cessna now requires a pump replacement every 500 hours, or a pump with
an inspection port that can be replaced when the vanes wear to certain
point, which takes around 1100 hours on a Lyc, less on a Continental
because of the higher rotational spped of the pump on the Cont. It's
almost always vanes worn beyond limits that cause pump failure, or
rotten and breaking-up vac hoses that release junk into the pump and
lunch it. Cessan wants those hoses replaced every 10 years. Now you
know why.
Of course, so many owners and mechanics ignore the
manufacturer's requirements that pump failures will continue to be a
major problem.

Dan

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 19, 6:54 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker writes:
> > I disagee. If all Instruments go dead, go to
> > magnetic compass for heading, even in a fog, that's
> > SOP.
>
> If you have a compass, all instruments are not dead.

Well duh, it's a magnetic compass in a fluid.

> However, that won't be enough in IMC.

Is for me.

> > Maintaining altitude is "seat of pants" thing, so
> > what? Set cruise RPM and feel airspeed.
>
> That isn't possible.

Sure it is.
As long as you're not accelerating, which is something
that can be sensed by audio RPM , the magnetic
compass can operate as an artificial horizon too,
because it's like a plumb-bob.
It's of course, independant of operating systems.

IIRC, the magnetic compass is on pre-flight check
list, date of calibration and ascertain operation on
taxi.
Ken

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On May 19, 6:54 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker writes:
>>> I disagee. If all Instruments go dead, go to
>>> magnetic compass for heading, even in a fog, that's
>>> SOP.
>> If you have a compass, all instruments are not dead.
>
> Well duh, it's a magnetic compass in a fluid.
>
>> However, that won't be enough in IMC.
>
> Is for me.
>
>>> Maintaining altitude is "seat of pants" thing, so
>>> what? Set cruise RPM and feel airspeed.
>> That isn't possible.
>
> Sure it is.
> As long as you're not accelerating, which is something
> that can be sensed by audio RPM , the magnetic
> compass can operate as an artificial horizon too,
> because it's like a plumb-bob.
> It's of course, independant of operating systems.
>
> IIRC, the magnetic compass is on pre-flight check
> list, date of calibration and ascertain operation on
> taxi.
> Ken


Instrument Flying Made Easy~

Most people wish to fly on the old gauges at one time or another but are
prevented by the high cost of the instruments necessary for this form of
flight. The following is a more or less known and extremely simple
method which may be used by all.

Place a live cat on the cockpit floor, because a cat always remains
upright, he or she can be used in lieu of a needle and ball instrument.
Merely watch to see which way he leans to determine if a wing is low and
if so, which one. This will enable you to your aircraft level in route
with complete accuracy and confidence.

A duck is used for final instrument approach and landing, because of the
fact that any sensible old duck will refuse to fly under instrument
conditions, it is only necessary to hurl your duck out of the cockpit
window and follow her to the ground.

There are some limitations on the cat and duck method, but by rigidly
adhering to the following check list a degree of success will be
achieved which will not only startle you, but will astonish your
passengers as well, and may have an occasional tower operator with an
open mouth.

· Get a wide-awake cat, most cats do not want to stand up all the time,
so it may be necessary to carry a fierce dog along to keep the cat at
attention.

· Make sure your cat is clean, dirty cats will spend all the time
washing. Trying to follow a washing cat usually results in a slow roll
followed by an inverted spin. You will see that this is most unprofessional.

· Old cats are the best, young cats have nine lives, but an old used up
cat with only one life left has just as much to loose and will be more
dependable.

· Avoid stray cats. Try to get one with good character because you may
want to spend time with her.

· Beware of cowardly ducks, if the duck discovers that you are using the
cat to stay upright, she will refuse to leave the airplane without the
cat. Ducks are no better on instruments than you are.

· Get a duck with good eyes. Near sighted ducks sometimes fail to
recognize that they are on the old gauges and will go flogging into the
nearest hill. Very near sighted ducks will not realize that they have
been thrown out and will descend to the ground in a sitting position.
This is a most difficult maneuver to follow in an airplane.

· Choose your duck carefully, it is easy to confuse ducks with geese.
Many large birds look alike. While they are very competent instrument
fliers, geese seldom want to go in the same direction that you do. If
your duck seems to be taking a heading to Ireland or Sweden, you may be
safe in assuming that someone has given you a goose.

(Can't recall the source, but I've always thought it was funny :-)


--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

Ken S. Tucker writes:

> Well duh, it's a magnetic compass in a fluid.

The fluid can leak out.

> Is for me.

You're brave.

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student gatt > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> gatt writes:
>>
>>> The ones that are ignored are different sensations and typically have to
>>> do with equilibrium and the inner ear. Examples are somatogravic and
>>> coriolis and inversion illusions. If your ass leaves the seat or
>>> compresses into it, however, it's not something you ignore.
>>
>> Yes, it is, because it is no more reliable than any other sensation.
>
> DON'T CONTRADICT ME. I FLY PLANES AND YOU PLAY VIDEO GAMES.

Congratulations, now you look like an arrogant asshole.

Of course so does MX, but at least he's an *entertaining* arrogant
asshole.

I find it to be tremendously ironic that these recent monster threads
revolving around MX have led me to killfile several people who respond to
him but not to killfile him. His stuff is frequently worth reading, if
only for the entertainment value, whereas the responses are frequently
acidic and worthless.

If you get to the point where you're typing in all caps, or having to wave
your certificates in his face, take a moment to step back and think about
whether your reply adds any value to the group. MX's destructiveness comes
only from the kind of replies he is able to make people post. If we could
all avoid posting that kind of reply, his destructiveness will recede to
"merely" being an obnoxious poster.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 19, 8:22 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker writes:
> > Well duh, it's a magnetic compass in a fluid.
>
> The fluid can leak out.

Good point: ((note to Ken: wear Depends)).

> > Is for me.
>
> You're brave.

Not really, it's the instrument of last resort.
Ken

[Helen Waite]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> You think it terms of tiny airplanes. You can drive instruments in
> other ways besides with vacuum.
>

Your problem is that you have a tiny brain. More like a micro brain.

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> "Partial panel" is a staple of IFR training, and the filght test.

Partial panel is also a reason to land at the first opportunity.

> I've never played with VATSIM, so here's a question you might be
> qualified to answer......Can you play with partial panel emergencies
> on VATSIM. That might actually be kinda fun.

VATSIM allows emergencies within reason. You can declare an emergency, but
unlike real life, ATC has the option to decline the emergency if it is too
busy to handle it. The reason for this rule is that some pilots would tend to
declare emergencies excessively otherwise. As it is, total engine failures
are suspiciously more common on the network than in real life. But most
people behave.

[More_Flaps]

On May 20, 3:22*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker writes:
> > Well duh, it's a magnetic compass in a fluid.
>
> The fluid can leak out.
>

Then you would not have taken off, its a required instrument...

Cheers

[More_Flaps]

On May 20, 2:54*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On May 19, 6:54 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> Ken S. Tucker writes:
> >>> I disagee. If all Instruments go dead, *go to
> >>> magnetic compass for heading, even in a fog, that's
> >>> SOP.
> >> If you have a compass, all instruments are not dead.
>
> > Well duh, it's a magnetic compass in a fluid.
>
> >> However, that won't be enough in IMC.
>
> > Is for me.
>
> >>> Maintaining altitude is "seat of pants" thing, so
> >>> what? Set cruise RPM and feel airspeed.
> >> That isn't possible.
>
> > Sure it is.
> > As long as you're not accelerating, which is something
> > that can be sensed by audio RPM , the magnetic
> > compass can operate as an artificial horizon too,
> > because it's like a plumb-bob.
> > It's of course, independant of operating systems.
>
> > IIRC, the magnetic compass is on pre-flight check
> > list, date of calibration and ascertain operation on
> > taxi.
> > Ken
>
> Instrument Flying Made Easy~
>
> Most people wish to fly on the old gauges at one time or another but are
> prevented by the high cost of the instruments necessary for this form of
> flight. The following is a more or less known and extremely simple
> method which may be used by all.
>
> Place a live cat on the cockpit floor, because a cat always remains
> upright, he or she can be used in lieu of a needle and ball instrument.
> Merely watch to see which way he leans to determine if a wing is low and
> if so, which one. This will enable you to your aircraft level in route
> with complete accuracy and confidence.
>
> A duck is used for final instrument approach and landing, because of the
> fact that any sensible old duck will refuse to fly under instrument
> conditions, it is only necessary to hurl your duck out of the cockpit
> window and follow her to the ground.
>
> There are some limitations on the cat and duck method, but by rigidly
> adhering to the following check list a degree of success will be
> achieved which will not only startle you, but will astonish your
> passengers as well, and may have an occasional tower operator with an
> open mouth.
>
> · Get a wide-awake cat, most cats do not want to stand up all the time,
> so it may be necessary to carry a fierce dog along to keep the cat at
> attention.
>
> · Make sure your cat is clean, dirty cats will spend all the time
> washing. Trying to follow a washing cat usually results in a slow roll
> followed by an inverted spin. You will see that this is most unprofessional.
>
> · Old cats are the best, young cats have nine lives, but an old used up
> cat with only one life left has just as much to loose and will be more
> dependable.
>
> · Avoid stray cats. Try to get one with good character because you may
> want to spend time with her.
>
> · Beware of cowardly ducks, if the duck discovers that you are using the
> cat to stay upright, she will refuse to leave the airplane without the
> cat. Ducks are no better on instruments than you are.
>
> · Get a duck with good eyes. Near sighted ducks sometimes fail to
> recognize that they are on the old gauges and will go flogging into the
> nearest hill. Very near sighted ducks will not realize that they have
> been thrown out and will descend to the ground in a sitting position.
> This is a most difficult maneuver to follow in an airplane.
>
> · Choose your duck carefully, it is easy to confuse ducks with geese.
> Many large birds look alike. While they are very competent instrument
> fliers, geese seldom want to go in the same direction that you do. If
> your duck seems to be taking a heading to Ireland or Sweden, you may be
> safe in assuming that someone has given you a goose.
>
> (Can't recall the source, but I've always thought it was funny :-)
>
>
Don't forget the canary CO detector, although you may have a problem
keeping the cat away from it. A basset hound is also a good airspeed
monitor as they love to stick their noses out the window and the
flapping ears tell you fast you are going. Again the cat may be a
distraction for the dog.

Cheers

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> For example, I continue to name and quote the FAA Airplane Flying
>> Handbook, FAA-H-8083-3A, and you don't respond to those posts.
>> Meanwhile, you don't cite your sources, so I suspect that you are a
>> liar.
>
> If I cared nothing about others, I'd suggest that you go up and do
> some flying in IMC to make me a liar.

Most of us have. You are a liar. You don't know **** from shinola.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> HAHAAA!!! Even the aircraft in Flight Simulator don't have
>> redundant AIs and compasses.
>
> Mine have back-up AIs and altimeters, and sometimes other back-ups,
> depending on the aircraft.

The only thing you have backed up is your toilet.

[Scott Skylane]

Nomen Nescio wrote:

> Don't confuse memory with IQ. I know a lot of people who remember
> damn near everything. They couldn't use any of that info to think their
> way out of a paper bag, though.
>
> I see MX as a 500 gig hard drive,
> connected to a Commodore 64 computer.
/snip/

Idiot Savant?

Or just the best damn troll that this group has seen in a long, long
time, perhaps ever?

Happy Flying
Scott Skylane

[Benjamin Dover]

Nomen Nescio > wrote in
:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: terry >
>
>>I agree , definately not stupid, probably well above average IQ .A
>>vertible human sponge of information.
>
> Don't confuse memory with IQ. I know a lot of people who remember
> damn near everything. They couldn't use any of that info to think their
> way out of a paper bag, though.
>
> I see MX as a 500 gig hard drive,
> connected to a Commodore 64 computer.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: N/A
>
> iQCVAwUBSDKLXZMoscYxZNI5AQH2KQP7BI98CQbElcyWYdFdu3 FVNJksc6bCo/vJ
> LGEsqcI66/lX0RvarwY8XRwfJ54l29Ak6F3zwx2n33cs69uj1Fe5wVlEGqL6 CzOH
> 3rPJ7iBss5DcCaGW/mJdgNKmgPGYsx8MebOlqcrSnA1/Qb14OoLE/P94Sia9Uf7S
> vVSX1PvE5HU=
> =tns8
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>

More like connected to a TRS 80.

[John Godwin]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:a15da157-a236-
:

> Well duh, it's a magnetic compass in a fluid.

While flying in IMC, I had a compass seal fail 10 miles from my
destination ... gawd, smelly compass fluid all over the cockpit.

--

[John Godwin]

Benjamin Dover > wrote in
:

> More like connected to a TRS 80.

Nah, more like a Mits 8080

--

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:a15da157-a236-
:

> On May 19, 6:54 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker writes:
>> > I disagee. If all Instruments go dead, go to
>> > magnetic compass for heading, even in a fog, that's
>> > SOP.
>>
>> If you have a compass, all instruments are not dead.
>
> Well duh, it's a magnetic compass in a fluid.

Not after Ken drinks the fluid, of course.
>
>> However, that won't be enough in IMC.
>
> Is for me.


Oh please do go out and fly instruments with just a whiskey compass,
fjukktard, Please make sure it's not a good airplane you take with you
to the grave.
>
>> > Maintaining altitude is "seat of pants" thing, so
>> > what? Set cruise RPM and feel airspeed.
>>
>> That isn't possible.
>
> Sure it is.
> As long as you're not accelerating, which is something
> that can be sensed by audio RPM , the magnetic
> compass can operate as an artificial horizon too,
> because it's like a plumb-bob.
> It's of course, independant of operating systems.
>

Heeeee Haaaw!



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Ken S. Tucker writes:
>
>> Well duh, it's a magnetic compass in a fluid.
>
> The fluid can leak out.

What? Your TV screen is that realistic?



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Scott Skylane > wrote in news:x5-
ions:

> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
>> Don't confuse memory with IQ. I know a lot of people who remember
>> damn near everything. They couldn't use any of that info to think
their
>> way out of a paper bag, though.
>>
>> I see MX as a 500 gig hard drive,
>> connected to a Commodore 64 computer.
> /snip/
>
> Idiot Savant?
>
> Or just the best damn troll that this group has seen in a long, long
> time, perhaps ever?
>
Neither. Though you are close with the former. He's mildly autistic,
amongst other things. Many people who are autistic would have been
classified as idiot savant and display unique abilities, but Anthony
doesn't have any of those. What he does have is an ability to filter out
anything that doesn't mesh with his book learned information and a
complete inability to relate to other humans. It'd be sad if he weren't
such an asshole into the bargain.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Nomen Nescio > wrote in
:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: "Jay Honeck" >
>
>>Pilots are an interesting breed. I've met dozens (hundreds?) of them
>>over the years who will state something as fact, but will not (or can
>>not) explain themselves when questioned. The whole attitude is that
>>they are so incredibly experienced that no one should deign question
>>their authority on the matter.
>>
>>Of course, it seems funny that someone of this mindset might frequent
>>a *newsgroup* -- where the free-flow of information is the whole
>>point. But, like I said, pilots are an interesting breed.
>>
>>Trouble is, MX, I'm afraid you have burnt too many bridges behind you
>>to expect any further cooperation here. This thread is evidence that
>>your message is no longer important to many posters here, even when
>>what you're saying precisely parrots Bob Gardner's excellent book "The
>>Complete Instrument Pilot".
>>
>>Since you're already semi-anonymous, you might try laying low for a
>>few weeks and coming back under a new name? Hell, you might even try
>>using your own?
>>--
>>Jay Honeck
>
> Ya know, Jay, For months I've been thinking that Bertie was a little
> off base with his "you're an idiot" replies to your posts.
> After reading this, and a few other replies you've made to this
> thread, I'm re-evaluating and beginning to question whether he may
> just be somewhat more perceptive than I am.

Don't beat yourself up. I've been k00k spotting for years.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> "Partial panel" is a staple of IFR training, and the filght test.
>
> Partial panel is also a reason to land at the first opportunity.
>

No ****. how is it NASA hasn't snapped you up?




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Michael Ash > wrote in
:

> In rec.aviation.student gatt > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> gatt writes:
>>>
>>>> The ones that are ignored are different sensations and typically
>>>> have to do with equilibrium and the inner ear. Examples are
>>>> somatogravic and coriolis and inversion illusions. If your ass
>>>> leaves the seat or compresses into it, however, it's not something
>>>> you ignore.
>>>
>>> Yes, it is, because it is no more reliable than any other sensation.
>>
>> DON'T CONTRADICT ME. I FLY PLANES AND YOU PLAY VIDEO GAMES.
>
> Congratulations, now you look like an arrogant asshole.
>
> Of course so does MX, but at least he's an *entertaining* arrogant
> asshole.
>
> I find it to be tremendously ironic that these recent monster threads
> revolving around MX have led me to killfile several people who respond
> to him but not to killfile him. His stuff is frequently worth reading,
> if only for the entertainment value, whereas the responses are
> frequently acidic and worthless.
>
> If you get to the point where you're typing in all caps, or having to
> wave your certificates in his face, take a moment to step back and
> think about whether your reply adds any value to the group. MX's
> destructiveness comes only from the kind of replies he is able to make
> people post. If we could all avoid posting that kind of reply, his
> destructiveness will recede to "merely" being an obnoxious poster.
>

If you could get everyone to stop posting to him it'd be a usenet first.



Bertie

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> You can declare an emergency, but
> unlike real life, ATC has the option to decline the emergency if it is too
> busy to handle it.

What happens if you do not follow their instructions?

Do they have a virtual destruct button to remove you from their airspace?

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Tue, 13 May 2008 05:55:52 -0700 (PDT), "F. Baum" >
wrote:

>On May 13, 6:01*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Well, I only use the airplane's clock in flight, and there's precious
>> little need for that these days ( I was recently asked why I punch the
>> stopwatch passing the marker by a training captain not too long ago) The
>> wris****ch is only as a backup in flight. It doesn't have a stop watch
>> function at all, though I probably would have one if the airplane didn't
>> have one for flying instruments.
>
>The Boeings have nice clocks although like you said, they dont get
>used much. All the holds are DME based and I cant remember the last
>time anyone here timed an approach. I do wear a $30 timex, but thats
>just to make sure I show up on time. It is actually a whatch someone
>on this list recomended (I knew I wasnt just waisting my time on this
>list).
>F Baum

the average quartz movement is at least 5 times the accuracy of the
worlds best mechanical movement.
quartz with a limibright dial face does it for me.
Stealth Pilot

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Tue, 13 May 2008 19:19:47 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>This is not aimed at Dan, but instead, everyone that has put up a response
>to the lame thread about pilot's watches, started by MX.
>
>Don't you all have a life?
>
>It is bad enough that people reply to MX butt-lick on real topics, but to
>respond to the most often posted, lamest thread, (since the dreaded down
>wind turn)....
>
>I simply have no words to express my disgust.
>
>Are you all that lonely?
>
>What am I missing? There are some people that I respect, or used to, that
>are included in this thread.
>
>COME ON, PEOPLE ! ! ! WAKE UP ! ! !
>
>That sucking sound is the life being drained from this group.
>
>RESIST THE URGE TO PARTICIPATE in ANY thread that has his participation.
>
>I'm With Jay. I'm outta here.
>
>It has been a nice ride; too bad a butt-lick ex-american, in paris, has the
>ability to destroy a great forum.
>
>Wake up. I won't be the last to leave, I'm sure.
>
>Last one out, turn out the lights.
>
>Sigh.

get stuffed.
I was agreeing with a comment made by the bunyip.
bang on the money bertie.

Stealth Pilot

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 13 May 2008 19:19:47 -0400, "Morgans"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>This is not aimed at Dan, but instead, everyone that has put up a
>>response to the lame thread about pilot's watches, started by MX.
>>
>>Don't you all have a life?
>>
>>It is bad enough that people reply to MX butt-lick on real topics, but
>>to respond to the most often posted, lamest thread, (since the dreaded
>>down wind turn)....
>>
>>I simply have no words to express my disgust.
>>
>>Are you all that lonely?
>>
>>What am I missing? There are some people that I respect, or used to,
>>that are included in this thread.
>>
>>COME ON, PEOPLE ! ! ! WAKE UP ! ! !
>>
>>That sucking sound is the life being drained from this group.
>>
>>RESIST THE URGE TO PARTICIPATE in ANY thread that has his
>>participation.
>>
>>I'm With Jay. I'm outta here.
>>
>>It has been a nice ride; too bad a butt-lick ex-american, in paris,
>>has the ability to destroy a great forum.
>>
>>Wake up. I won't be the last to leave, I'm sure.
>>
>>Last one out, turn out the lights.
>>
>>Sigh.
>
> get stuffed.
> I was agreeing with a comment made by the bunyip.
> bang on the money bertie.

Real money or Castlemaine XXXX tokens?


Bertie

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

> the magnetic compass can operate as an artificial
> horizon too, because it's like a plumb-bob.


Good gawd.

There truly must be no saturation limit for cluelessness.


--
Dan

"Did you just have a stroke and not tell me?"
- Jiminy Glick

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Thu, 15 May 2008 14:05:43 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> Im gonna beg to differ with this one. A year ago or so I answered one
>>of his posts , which I ussually dont do, that had something to do with
>>airliners and balanced field length. He wrote back that I was wrong
>>and some theory that since pilots fly airliners into terain their
>>answers cannot be trusted. And I was polite to the guy ! (You are the
>>only one I call names on this list ;))
>>Frank
>
>"Frank, you ignorant slut. The only abortion I would have approved of
>would've been on your mother, when she was pregnant with you..."
>
>(My apologies to Saturday Night Live, circa 1975, Dan Akroyd vs. Jane
>Curtin)
>
>:-)
>
>Anywho, I'm not saying MX is right, nor am I saying he's not necessarily a
>troll, in the classic sense of the word. I *am* saying he's primarily
>on-topic, occasionally asks really good questions, and is never overtly
>rude.
>
>In this forum, nowadays, that's as good as it gets.

Jay, honestly you are a dunce.
Mx is one of the most amazing slow learners in history.
most of his supposedly "interesting" questions come from such a
profound lack of any real understanding that it amazes me that he
continues to breathe.
you are both in the idiot brigade.

Stealth Pilot

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Fri, 16 May 2008 06:15:27 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

writes:
>
>> There's a right way and several wrong ways to do just about
>> anything. Would you like to go under the knife wielded by a surgeon
>> who learned his craft on a surgery simulator? Ride in a bus driven by
>> a guy who learned to drive on a desktop sim?
>
>Ask some professionals if they've ever used simulation, and you may be
>surprised. It isn't limited to pilot training.
>
>> We use sims in flight training. The big difference is that the
>> student is under the tutelage of an instructor who has spent
>> considerable time learning things the right way himself, and
>> understands the importance of the student's learning things properly.
>> The student already has actual flight time when he sits at the sim and
>> so understands much more about what he's doing. And why it needs to be
>> done a certain way. If he doesn't do thing right, he'll not pass the
>> flight tests and will likely be an incompetent pilot.
>
>Do you have test performance figures and accident rates for pilots who had
>used a desktop simulator vs. those who had not, prior to in-aircraft training?

mx you're being a ****wit again.
the man posted competent information and you have not.
mx you are wrong in your assumptions. totally wrong.

Stealth Pilot

[Steve Foley]

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message

> Jay, honestly you are a dunce.
> Mx is one of the most amazing slow learners in history.

She's not really a slow learner. She just will not admit when she is wrong.
There are times when she will make an incredibly ignorant remark, goes head
to head with anyone attempting to correct her, yet stops making the same
ignorant statement.

She doesn't post here to learn. She is posting here to ''try to compel us to
whing for ourselves'. Her self-portrait on wikipedia really explains this:

"I like to engage people in discussions when I detect that they cling to
opinions that they are unable to defend (opinions based on emotion, opinions
adopted wholesale from others, etc.), in order to try to compel them to
think for themselves."

She also admits to using "language intended by its author to produce
inflammatory reactions." This was after calling light aircraft tin-cans.

It is fun to point out her incorrect statements and watch her backpeddal.

There is a word that describes her perfectly. Five letters, starts with a T.

[Steve Foley]

whing ->> think

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:R8zYj.3270$Zy1.781@trndny05...
> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
>
> > Jay, honestly you are a dunce.
> > Mx is one of the most amazing slow learners in history.
>
> She's not really a slow learner. She just will not admit when she is
wrong.
> There are times when she will make an incredibly ignorant remark, goes
head
> to head with anyone attempting to correct her, yet stops making the same
> ignorant statement.
>
> She doesn't post here to learn. She is posting here to ''try to compel us
to
> whing for ourselves'. Her self-portrait on wikipedia really explains this:
>
> "I like to engage people in discussions when I detect that they cling to
> opinions that they are unable to defend (opinions based on emotion,
opinions
> adopted wholesale from others, etc.), in order to try to compel them to
> think for themselves."
>
> She also admits to using "language intended by its author to produce
> inflammatory reactions." This was after calling light aircraft tin-cans.
>
> It is fun to point out her incorrect statements and watch her backpeddal.
>
> There is a word that describes her perfectly. Five letters, starts with a
T.
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in
news:R8zYj.3270$Zy1.781@trndny05:

> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
>
>> Jay, honestly you are a dunce.
>> Mx is one of the most amazing slow learners in history.
>
> She's not really a slow learner. She just will not admit when she is
> wrong. There are times when she will make an incredibly ignorant
> remark, goes head to head with anyone attempting to correct her, yet
> stops making the same ignorant statement.
>
> She doesn't post here to learn. She is posting here to ''try to compel
> us to whing for ourselves'. Her self-portrait on wikipedia really
> explains this:
>
> "I like to engage people in discussions when I detect that they cling
> to opinions that they are unable to defend (opinions based on emotion,
> opinions adopted wholesale from others, etc.), in order to try to
> compel them to think for themselves."
>
> She also admits to using "language intended by its author to produce
> inflammatory reactions." This was after calling light aircraft
> tin-cans.
>
> It is fun to point out her incorrect statements and watch her
> backpeddal.
>
> There is a word that describes her perfectly. Five letters, starts
> with a T.
>
>

Pretty sure the fem lames aren't going to do too much damage to someone
who is proud of being asexual..



Bertie

[Steve Foley]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>
> Pretty sure the fem lames aren't going to do too much damage to someone
> who is proud of being asexual..
>

He/She/It has denied being Anthony Atkielski, so we really have no way to
tell.

1) Anthony Atkielski published a blog (aprenta.blogspot.com)

2) MX denies having ever written a blog

Therefore MX denies being Anthony Atlielski

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in news:YwzYj.3273
$Zy1.1619@trndny05:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>
>> Pretty sure the fem lames aren't going to do too much damage to
someone
>> who is proud of being asexual..
>>
>
> He/She/It has denied being Anthony Atkielski, so we really have no way
to
> tell.
>
> 1) Anthony Atkielski published a blog (aprenta.blogspot.com)
>
> 2) MX denies having ever written a blog
>
> Therefore MX denies being Anthony Atlielski
>
>

Ah, OK. Fair enough!


Bertie

[B A R R Y]

On Tue, 20 May 2008 06:32:27 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>
>There truly must be no saturation limit for cluelessness.


Thinking of what my a compass looks like in even minor bumps, much
less turbulence, I enjoyed the "compass as an AI" solution! <G>

Off to find a wide-awake cat and a ****ed-off duck.

Do we have to undershoot or overshoot the cat on north or south
headings?

[Steve Foley]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
>
> Do we have to undershoot or overshoot the cat on north or south
> headings?

Don't shoot the cat, or someone will call the SPCA

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

B A R R Y > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 20 May 2008 06:32:27 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>There truly must be no saturation limit for cluelessness.
>
>
> Thinking of what my a compass looks like in even minor bumps, much
> less turbulence, I enjoyed the "compass as an AI" solution! <G>]


Can you inagine? You might as well read tea leaves to decide where up
is.
>
> Off to find a wide-awake cat and a ****ed-off duck.
>
> Do we have to undershoot or overshoot the cat on north or south
> headings?

Groan!

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gatt writes:
>
>> Once again you're totally clueless. Your Directional Gyro is vacuum
>> driven. If you only needed electric instruments to fly, your primary
>> instruments wouldn't be pitot-static. If you have an electrical
>> problem, bus failure or inflight fire, you might lose all your
>> electrical instruments.
>
> You think it terms of tiny airplanes.


Bertie doesn't, and he agrees with me: You're clueless.


-c

[[email protected]]

On May 19, 8:43 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> > That isn't possible.
>
> Sure it is.
> As long as you're not accelerating, which is something
> that can be sensed by audio RPM , the magnetic
> compass can operate as an artificial horizon too,
> because it's like a plumb-bob.
> It's of course, independant of operating systems.

You haven't flown, really, have you? If you had, you'd
know that the compass, being suspended from a pivot, is kept upright
by gravity, just like the ball in the turn coordinator stays in the
bottom of its tube by gravity. However, in a coordinated turn, the
TC's ball stays centered and the compass's card stays level with the
airplane's wings, not with the horizon. If it did we wouldn't need to
spend $900 on an attitude indicator; we could use the ball and
compass.
The compass reads all haywire during turns, too, not just
during acceleration. You can't use it to roll out on a heading. Timed
turns are for that.
Both you and Mx would be awful surprised the first time you
flew under the hood or in IMC. Vertigo, or what we call "crookedhead"
around here, would get you big time in no time. It surprises all new
guys, especially guys who "have it all figured out" and are trying to
teach the teachers. They come home with their tails between their
legs, same as the know-it-all trike pilot who has just had his first
taildragger experience.

Dan

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gatt writes:
>
>> For example, I continue to name and quote the FAA Airplane Flying
>> Handbook, FAA-H-8083-3A, and you don't respond to those posts.
>> Meanwhile, you don't cite your sources, so I suspect that you are a liar.
>
> If I cared nothing about others, I'd suggest that you go up and do some flying
> in IMC to make me a liar.

I do fly in IMC, liar.

-c

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gatt writes:
>
>> Like what. What other things?
>
> A climb. You cannot tell whether you are climbing or turning based on
> sensations alone in IMC.

You wouldn't know. You haven't done it.

I have. And...let me check...I'm still alive.

:O

Go play with your toy airplanes.

-c

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gatt writes:

>
>> The FAA knows a whole hell of a lot more about flying than you,
>> regardless of what you claim you've read.
>
> No doubt. But I'm not debating this with the FAA.

I quoted you chapter and verse directly from the FAA, and you
contradicted it, liar.

Bye now. Your opinions here are not worth further reading or discussion.

-c

[gatt[_3_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>>> Well duh, it's a magnetic compass in a fluid.
>> The fluid can leak out.
>
> What? Your TV screen is that realistic?

Shouldn't set Kool-Aid glasses on the monitor.

-c

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

wrote in news:1e17fe82-b0ac-4819-81f7-
:

> On May 19, 8:43 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
>> > That isn't possible.
>>
>> Sure it is.
>> As long as you're not accelerating, which is something
>> that can be sensed by audio RPM , the magnetic
>> compass can operate as an artificial horizon too,
>> because it's like a plumb-bob.
>> It's of course, independant of operating systems.
>
> You haven't flown, really, have you? If you had, you'd
> know that the compass, being suspended from a pivot, is kept upright
> by gravity, just like the ball in the turn coordinator stays in the
> bottom of its tube by gravity. However, in a coordinated turn, the
> TC's ball stays centered and the compass's card stays level with the
> airplane's wings, not with the horizon. If it did we wouldn't need to
> spend $900 on an attitude indicator; we could use the ball and
> compass.


It doesn't even stay level with the airplane! Compass dip will have it
doing all sorts of tricks. Trying to keep up with one of them in a turn
is very difficult to say the least. Even turning to a north or south
heading using lead lag should almost be classed as wishful thinking.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

gatt > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>>> Well duh, it's a magnetic compass in a fluid.
>>> The fluid can leak out.
>>
>> What? Your TV screen is that realistic?
>
> Shouldn't set Kool-Aid glasses on the monitor.
>

Hmm, maybe i should refill my wet compass with goofy grape next time...

Bertie

[gatt[_3_]]

Michael Ash wrote:
> In rec.aviation.student gatt > wrote:

> Congratulations, now you look like an arrogant asshole.
>
> Of course so does MX, but at least he's an *entertaining* arrogant
> asshole.

Sometimes you have to speak their language. My purpose wasn't to
entertain people. If you want, however, I'll tell you some knock-knock
jokes. I'm sure everybody appreciates your encouragement of his
behavior, by the way. Nice job, Ash.

> I find it to be tremendously ironic that these recent monster threads
> revolving around MX have led me to killfile several people who respond to
> him but not to killfile him.

That's your choice. Different people come to the forum for different
reasons. I'm here to share my experience and learn from the experience
of others, and I read a whole lot more than I post.

> If you get to the point where you're typing in all caps, or having to wave
> your certificates in his face, take a moment to step back and think about
> whether your reply adds any value to the group.

He came out here, asked the pilots a question then proceeded to refute
every single thing they said. Not just me ASEL pilots like me, but just
about everybody.

I answered his question initially because the question had value to the
student pilots in the student group. His utter nonsense that followed
merely adds misinformation and, perhaps, satisfies your entertainment
needs.

As to whether "waving certificates" in people's faces adds value, it's
not much different than sourcing an official or authoritative reference,
is it? If we were talking about combat it would be relevant for the
readers to understand that the people in the discussion are a video game
geek versus a combat veteran.

-c
Arrogant Asshole

[gatt[_3_]]

Nomen Nescio wrote:

>> A true world-class expert has nothing to prove to anyone and
>> isn't likely to be insecure, but a low-time pilot with more ego than
>> competence is likely to be very insecure and very eager to prove that he knows
>> more than other people do.
>
> Considering your attitude, and your ZERO time status, and typing while
> laughing my ass off, I think you've defined yourself, perfectly.

Yep. Dead ringer.

-c

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 20, 12:33 am, John Godwin > wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:a15da157-a236-
> :
>
> > Well duh, it's a magnetic compass in a fluid.
>
> While flying in IMC, I had a compass seal fail 10 miles from my
> destination ... gawd, smelly compass fluid all over the cockpit.

When thought through, the Mag-Comp is quite the
precision instrument. That fluid needs be able to
not freeze down to what, maybe -40F. (Ron from
Alaska might know). It also sits in an Arizona sun
and can't expand to burst, though yours (John)
may have.
It also has a viscosity that keeps the thing from
gyrating all over the place, the one we used had
a slow lag while banking, so if you wanted to come
to 180 level the wings for 178 and the thing creeps
to 180.
Ken

[[email protected]]

On May 20, 10:27 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:

> When thought through, the Mag-Comp is quite the
> precision instrument. That fluid needs be able to
> not freeze down to what, maybe -40F. (Ron from
> Alaska might know). It also sits in an Arizona sun
> and can't expand to burst, though yours (John)
> may have.
> It also has a viscosity that keeps the thing from
> gyrating all over the place, the one we used had
> a slow lag while banking, so if you wanted to come
> to 180 level the wings for 178 and the thing creeps
> to 180.
> Ken

Good grief. The compass has a diaphragm to take care of
expansion and contraction, and its fluid is just a solvent that has a
low freeze point. Even plain old gasoline has a low freeze point.
Nothing "precision" about that. And as for lag while banking, you
haven't studied the Private Pilot groundschool stuff about Northerly
Turning Error or anything else. You CANNOT use it to roll out on a
heading like you claim.
And you can't fly a 150 at 37 Kts indicated on approach. 150s
never had knotmeters. anyway. Had airspeed indicators calibrated in
MPH.
And what is an "indescent indicator?" Does it measure indecent
exposure, maybe?

Dan

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
news:YwzYj.3273$Zy1.1619@trndny05...
>
> He/She/It has denied being Anthony Atkielski, so we really have no way to
> tell.
>
> 1) Anthony Atkielski published a blog (aprenta.blogspot.com)
>
> 2) MX denies having ever written a blog
>
> Therefore MX denies being Anthony Atlielski
>

And with the proven desire both Bertie and his ilk (recruited by constant
cross posting), has shown in forging identities, Bertie's influence on the
noise level of this group is really the only thing we can be sure of.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised of MX's recent postings were not
forgeries by Bertie & Co, since he has such a hard time getting attention
otherwise.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> news:YwzYj.3273$Zy1.1619@trndny05...
>>
>> He/She/It has denied being Anthony Atkielski, so we really have no
>> way to tell.
>>
>> 1) Anthony Atkielski published a blog (aprenta.blogspot.com)
>>
>> 2) MX denies having ever written a blog
>>
>> Therefore MX denies being Anthony Atlielski
>>
>
> And with the proven desire both Bertie and his ilk (recruited by
> constant cross posting), has shown in forging identities, Bertie's
> influence on the noise level of this group is really the only thing we
> can be sure of.

As long as i have you anyway!

>
> I wouldn't be the least bit surprised of MX's recent postings were not
> forgeries by Bertie & Co, since he has such a hard time getting
> attention otherwise.
>

I don't forge, fjukkwit.

Put up or shut up.


If i've forged you and Databasix has ignored your protests, then
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet is the place you should be shrieking about it.
Databasix and/or Altopia would get a usenet death penalty and I'd be SOL
for usenet access.

So, if you're going to level forgery accusations you had better be prepared
to back them up.

Put up or shut up, asshole.



Bertie
>
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:093eece8-2816-
:

> On May 20, 12:33 am, John Godwin > wrote:
>> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:a15da157-a236-
>> :
>>
>> > Well duh, it's a magnetic compass in a fluid.
>>
>> While flying in IMC, I had a compass seal fail 10 miles from my
>> destination ... gawd, smelly compass fluid all over the cockpit.
>
> When thought through, the Mag-Comp is quite the
> precision instrument. That fluid needs be able to
> not freeze down to what, maybe -40F. (Ron from
> Alaska might know). It also sits in an Arizona sun
> and can't expand to burst, though yours (John)
> may have.
> It also has a viscosity that keeps the thing from
> gyrating all over the place, the one we used had
> a slow lag while banking, so if you wanted to come
> to 180 level the wings for 178 and the thing creeps
> to 180.
> Ken
>
Bwawhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhahwh!

Classic.


You sure your not Lou Costello?


Bertie

[Tina]

This is worth noting. Jay Somerset, who started this thread, said he
would no longer take part in this newsgroup.

Jay, thus far, is a man of his word. This 5/11 post was the last one
by that username. to the group. There is honor among posters!
Paraphrasing something often said, it's a superior poster who uses
superior judgment to avoid circumstances where his superior posting
skills are needed.

There may be a lesson here somewhere.






On May 11, 11:33 am, Jay Somerset > wrote:
> I give up -- not flying -- but subscribing to this NG. It is just too
> riddled with crap and backbiting, to the point that it carries little
> if any useful exchange of interest to active pilots. It isn't worth
> the effort any more, even with multiple kill files.
>
> So good riddance to 90+% of the posts, and the few idiots who have,
> managed to spoil the NG over the past couple of years, and farewell to
> those few remaining sensible contributors. I admire your patience and
> tolerance. Mine have given out!
> --
> Jay (remove dashes for legal email address)

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 20, 10:04 am, wrote:
> On May 20, 10:27 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
>
> > When thought through, the Mag-Comp is quite the
> > precision instrument. That fluid needs be able to
> > not freeze down to what, maybe -40F. (Ron from
> > Alaska might know). It also sits in an Arizona sun
> > and can't expand to burst, though yours (John)
> > may have.
> > It also has a viscosity that keeps the thing from
> > gyrating all over the place, the one we used had
> > a slow lag while banking, so if you wanted to come
> > to 180 level the wings for 178 and the thing creeps
> > to 180.
> > Ken
>
> Good grief. The compass has a diaphragm to take care of
> expansion and contraction, and its fluid is just a solvent that has a
> low freeze point. Even plain old gasoline has a low freeze point.

Mr. Potato Head, we don't put a big blob of flammable
material in a cock-pit, your sci-phy-math-chem education
is a functional Gr.10.

> Nothing "precision" about that. And as for lag while banking, you
> haven't studied the Private Pilot groundschool stuff about Northerly
> Turning Error or anything else. You CANNOT use it to roll out on a
> heading like you claim.

Duh, that's what your mag-field map is for,
it provides the mag-heading relative to true
north at the location you're at.
I flew alot in ontario and lines are a mess,
but that's not a big deal over ~ 50 miles.

My required instruction was to use
the mag-comp for IFR, including pitch level,
yaw constant, and nulled roll, it's a semi skill.
It has two spheres, one enclosing fixed to the
aircraft that is transparent, but demarkated,
and a internal floater also demarkated.
The relative equators is what's important.
Once the heading and throttle power is fixed,
align the equators to maintain a constant
pitch and altitude, and that will get you by in
foggy night, if you have a flashlight.
That's a 1 hour lesson, and I'd be happy to
instruct you on that, if you're qualified to
understand it.
I had a cool instructor and we'd play out worst
case scenerios, such as in a dark and stormy
foggy night with all normal instruments failed,
how do we get back to a base.

> And you can't fly a 150 at 37 Kts indicated on approach. 150s
> never had knotmeters. anyway. Had airspeed indicators calibrated in
> MPH.

LOL, Is that a MIAS instead of a KIAS?

> And what is an "indescent indicator?" Does it measure indecent
> exposure, maybe?

Depends on whether you're using the yoke or
the stick, which do you prefer?
Ken