Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Hi folks;
Please bear with me on this post. I've just spent the entire day
thinking about some things and have a few what I hope will be accepted
as friendly thoughts to share.

Keep in mind if you're reading this that what I'm going to say isn't
meant to be critical of anyone in any way and that I totally respect the
right of everyone on this forum to make up their own mind on these issues.

What I'd like to share with you are simply my own thoughts on some
things. All of what I'm saying here is simply how I personally view the
issues involved.
So bear with me as I try and get this stuff down without ****ing off
half the world in the process.

First of all, I've been reading a thread here where pilots are dealing
with Mxsmanic on the issue of physical sensation vs instruments in an
IFR environment, specifically when certain instrument failures are
either involved or suspected.
Without getting into a whole magilla concerning right and wrong, simply
let me say that in my opinion physical sensation should never, and I
repeat it again so that there's NO mistake....NEVER be used to verify or
augment an instrument reading. In my opinion, this is what proper scan
technique is all about. You verify instruments CONSTANTLY using other
instruments, right on down to primary panel if necessary, but in my
opinion, the basic concept of ignoring physical cues and sensations
while on instruments is a sound principle ans should be followed to the
letter.
Now, on to the subject of Mxsmanic.
I have no idea whether Mxsmanic was posting from knowledge or from a
source when he posted on the above issue, but in my opinion he was right
in what he was saying about physical sensation vs IFR procedure, and
yes, I am aware Mxsmanic doesn't fly.
Please know I'm not faulting those who take him on. That's between you
and Mxsmanic. If it's your choice to answer this person the way some of
you have chosen (and I've been just as guilty myself on occasion) then
that is your choice, and I'll make no attempt here to play internet cop
or even to try to change your mind. This is a matter of individual
choice, but I will try and explain to you how I personally will be
attempting to deal with Usenet from now on. If some of you follow my
lead, I'll be grateful, but if you don't, I won't attempt to chastise
you. It's totally an individual decision.

What I'm going to try and do on the forum from now on is to treat every
post I see and have addressed to me as an individual post. If the person
posting to me is respectful and polite, I won't care if it's someone I
like or dislike. I won't care if it's someone who blasted me with a
flame thrower the last time around. If that specific post is respectful,
I'll be answering that post in kind. If it isn't, I'll make a decision
to engage or pass based on my mood at the moment, but hopefully I'll be
able to pass on it. I'm going to try anyway.

Look guys and dolls, this forum is a great place to exchange
information. Most of us have enjoyed it here for eons. I for one don't
want to see this forum die out from becoming nothing more than an
exchange of venom from angry people.
What I'm saying here gang is that I for one have decided that unless
someone posts something disrespectful to me personally, I intend to give
people a decent shot...and yes, that goes for Mxsmanic and any other
simulator pilot who shows up here with a respectful on topic post.

Like I said gang, it's everybody's personal decision to make. I'm simply
stating here what I'm going to do myself. I'll not be ragging on those
who don't think the way I do on these issues.
I am hopeful however, that Mxsmanic and those who have been his
adversaries will simply read what I've said here and say nothing to each
other about it but rather simply and silently take a few steps backward
and consider re-engaging with each other, each giving a little without
saying or admitting they are giving a little.
Who knows; I'll be giving it a shot anyway.

My best to everybody here; friends, old enemies, and yes, Mxsmanic too.
--
Dudley Henriques

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
<...>
> Without getting into a whole magilla concerning right and wrong, simply
> let me say that in my opinion physical sensation should never, and I
> repeat it again so that there's NO mistake....NEVER be used to verify or
> augment an instrument reading. In my opinion, this is what proper scan
> technique is all about. You verify instruments CONSTANTLY using other
> instruments, right on down to primary panel if necessary, but in my
> opinion, the basic concept of ignoring physical cues and sensations while
> on instruments is a sound principle ans should be followed to the letter.
<...>
I won't argue with a single word of that.

But...

That doesn't make physical sensations irrelevent or unimportant. In fact, it
is the MISLEADING sensations that are very important in the sense that, if
you don't have significant experience "playing over" them, one typically
ends up dead (in real life). Sitting on your lazy boy, those sensations
don't happen - you always feel "coordinated" - you don't get disoriented,
you don't experience vertigo - which makes flying in simulated IMC stupid
easy compared to real life.

And, I would argue that _no_ _ammount_ of desktop simulation will _ever_
prepare you for the assult on your senses that can happen when things aren't
going well in real life soup.

One may think that one can handle real IMC based on desktop experience - but
without realizing just how difficult it is to ignore your inner ear
screaming lies at you, one doesn't really have any idea what flying real IMC
is like - I would bet that an experienced "sim only" pilot would pull the
wings off in less than 3 minutes in real life.


--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
> <...>
>> Without getting into a whole magilla concerning right and wrong,
>> simply let me say that in my opinion physical sensation should never,
>> and I repeat it again so that there's NO mistake....NEVER be used to
>> verify or augment an instrument reading. In my opinion, this is what
>> proper scan technique is all about. You verify instruments CONSTANTLY
>> using other instruments, right on down to primary panel if necessary,
>> but in my opinion, the basic concept of ignoring physical cues and
>> sensations while on instruments is a sound principle ans should be
>> followed to the letter.
> <...>
> I won't argue with a single word of that.
>
> But...
>
> That doesn't make physical sensations irrelevent or unimportant. In
> fact, it is the MISLEADING sensations that are very important in the
> sense that, if you don't have significant experience "playing over"
> them, one typically ends up dead (in real life). Sitting on your lazy
> boy, those sensations don't happen - you always feel "coordinated" - you
> don't get disoriented, you don't experience vertigo - which makes flying
> in simulated IMC stupid easy compared to real life.
>
> And, I would argue that _no_ _ammount_ of desktop simulation will _ever_
> prepare you for the assult on your senses that can happen when things
> aren't going well in real life soup.
>
> One may think that one can handle real IMC based on desktop experience -
> but without realizing just how difficult it is to ignore your inner ear
> screaming lies at you, one doesn't really have any idea what flying real
> IMC is like - I would bet that an experienced "sim only" pilot would
> pull the wings off in less than 3 minutes in real life.
>
>
I believe you and I are in complete agreement. Perhaps something being
misread.
The understanding of sensations and how they interact with the IFR
experience is of paramount importance. In fact, a lack of this
understanding can get you killed quicker than anything else I can think
of at the moment.
Where I was referring to the sensations issue was directly concerned
with one pilot who commented that verifying an instrument reading with a
physical sensation was important. My point was that instrument
verification should be done against other instruments with the EXCLUSION
of physical sensation from that equation.

--
Dudley Henriques

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 18, 5:34*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> Where I was referring to the sensations issue was directly concerned
> with one pilot who commented that verifying an instrument reading with a
> physical sensation was important. My point was that instrument
> verification should be done against other instruments with the EXCLUSION
> of physical sensation from that equation.

I think my point was when there is an action, there should be a
reaction, and if I don't feel the reaction (which is faster then
registering on the instrument), then I need to explore further.

I am talking the very subtle changes, not changes requiring large
power changes.

For example, I come down the ILS at 90 knots with 1900 rpm. If
headwinds cause my groundspeed to drop below 90 knots and I add lets
say 25 RPM to recapture the glideslope and I DON"T feel it in my seat
of the pants, first place I will look is the temperature probe.
Again, talking subtle 25 RPM just finger tip touch to the controls.

If I feel the extra oomph / firmness in my seat of the pants with the
extra 25 RPM and the glideslope starts to recapture, that is a
verification of my action and reaction.

Again, very subtle changes I am look and feeling for. I am not saying
make turns by the seat of my pants, primarily verifying actions of
power settings.

In my Friday incident, I could tell my attitude indicator of 20 to 30
degree pitch up AND not feeling the extra G's in my rear end, that
something was discrepant having flown this plane for over 600 hours..
That had me going to my backup instruments IMMEDIATELY (VSI and
airspeed) for my analysis and quickly identifying the vacuum as
suspect..

It's not that I even remotely navigated by the seat of my pants, but
something was amiss was felt.

I absolutely agree based on time and time again history, that any
feelings in the head absolutely has to be ignored, instruments are
there for that, but for verification of power adjustments, I see no
reason why AS A TOOL, the feeling in your rear end cannot be used as a
verification of the reaction of your actioin (adding or reducing
power).

The feeling of the seat of your pants is NOT to be used in determining
upright status in IMC, that I will say, and don't want to mislead
anybody that I condone that, just using it to verify my action of
power is working and the reaction of instrumentation TRENDS are
following what my seat of the pants feel is.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 18, 3:34 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
> > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
> > <...>
> >> Without getting into a whole magilla concerning right and wrong,
> >> simply let me say that in my opinion physical sensation should never,
> >> and I repeat it again so that there's NO mistake....NEVER be used to
> >> verify or augment an instrument reading. In my opinion, this is what
> >> proper scan technique is all about. You verify instruments CONSTANTLY
> >> using other instruments, right on down to primary panel if necessary,
> >> but in my opinion, the basic concept of ignoring physical cues and
> >> sensations while on instruments is a sound principle ans should be
> >> followed to the letter.
> > <...>
> > I won't argue with a single word of that.
>
> > But...
>
> > That doesn't make physical sensations irrelevent or unimportant. In
> > fact, it is the MISLEADING sensations that are very important in the
> > sense that, if you don't have significant experience "playing over"
> > them, one typically ends up dead (in real life). Sitting on your lazy
> > boy, those sensations don't happen - you always feel "coordinated" - you
> > don't get disoriented, you don't experience vertigo - which makes flying
> > in simulated IMC stupid easy compared to real life.
>
> > And, I would argue that _no_ _ammount_ of desktop simulation will _ever_
> > prepare you for the assult on your senses that can happen when things
> > aren't going well in real life soup.
>
> > One may think that one can handle real IMC based on desktop experience -
> > but without realizing just how difficult it is to ignore your inner ear
> > screaming lies at you, one doesn't really have any idea what flying real
> > IMC is like - I would bet that an experienced "sim only" pilot would
> > pull the wings off in less than 3 minutes in real life.
>
> I believe you and I are in complete agreement. Perhaps something being
> misread.
> The understanding of sensations and how they interact with the IFR
> experience is of paramount importance. In fact, a lack of this
> understanding can get you killed quicker than anything else I can think
> of at the moment.
> Where I was referring to the sensations issue was directly concerned
> with one pilot who commented that verifying an instrument reading with a
> physical sensation was important. My point was that instrument
> verification should be done against other instruments with the EXCLUSION
> of physical sensation from that equation.

When I was a kid, I was spun to dizzy, and
then staggered when I tried to walk. IIRC it
took a concentrated focus on some point to
sustain balance, which is me in VFR, but that
doesn't work in a fog.
Another thing I noticed is flying VFR with a lot
of turbulence, (especially with towering cumulus)
screwed my inner ear.
(That is my weakness).

I was very lucky that after just a couple of hours,
my flight instructor got me going on IFR.
He knew I had a basic handle on geometry and
algebra so he was the type to promote the advance
early on in instruction.
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On May 18, 3:34 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
>> > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > <...>
>> >> Without getting into a whole magilla concerning right and wrong,
>> >> simply let me say that in my opinion physical sensation should
>> >> never, and I repeat it again so that there's NO mistake....NEVER
>> >> be used to verify or augment an instrument reading. In my opinion,
>> >> this is what proper scan technique is all about. You verify
>> >> instruments CONSTANTLY using other instruments, right on down to
>> >> primary panel if necessary, but in my opinion, the basic concept
>> >> of ignoring physical cues and sensations while on instruments is a
>> >> sound principle ans should be followed to the letter.
>> > <...>
>> > I won't argue with a single word of that.
>>
>> > But...
>>
>> > That doesn't make physical sensations irrelevent or unimportant. In
>> > fact, it is the MISLEADING sensations that are very important in
>> > the sense that, if you don't have significant experience "playing
>> > over" them, one typically ends up dead (in real life). Sitting on
>> > your lazy boy, those sensations don't happen - you always feel
>> > "coordinated" - you don't get disoriented, you don't experience
>> > vertigo - which makes flying in simulated IMC stupid easy compared
>> > to real life.
>>
>> > And, I would argue that _no_ _ammount_ of desktop simulation will
>> > _ever_ prepare you for the assult on your senses that can happen
>> > when things aren't going well in real life soup.
>>
>> > One may think that one can handle real IMC based on desktop
>> > experience - but without realizing just how difficult it is to
>> > ignore your inner ear screaming lies at you, one doesn't really
>> > have any idea what flying real IMC is like - I would bet that an
>> > experienced "sim only" pilot would pull the wings off in less than
>> > 3 minutes in real life.
>>
>> I believe you and I are in complete agreement. Perhaps something
>> being misread.
>> The understanding of sensations and how they interact with the IFR
>> experience is of paramount importance. In fact, a lack of this
>> understanding can get you killed quicker than anything else I can
>> think of at the moment.
>> Where I was referring to the sensations issue was directly concerned
>> with one pilot who commented that verifying an instrument reading
>> with a physical sensation was important. My point was that instrument
>> verification should be done against other instruments with the
>> EXCLUSION of physical sensation from that equation.
>
> When I was a kid, I was spun to dizzy, and
> then staggered when I tried to walk.


shaken hard a lot too, I'm willing to bet.


bertie

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

A Lieberman wrote:
> On May 18, 5:34 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> Where I was referring to the sensations issue was directly concerned
>> with one pilot who commented that verifying an instrument reading with a
>> physical sensation was important. My point was that instrument
>> verification should be done against other instruments with the EXCLUSION
>> of physical sensation from that equation.
>
> I think my point was when there is an action, there should be a
> reaction, and if I don't feel the reaction (which is faster then
> registering on the instrument), then I need to explore further.
>
> I am talking the very subtle changes, not changes requiring large
> power changes.
>
> For example, I come down the ILS at 90 knots with 1900 rpm. If
> headwinds cause my groundspeed to drop below 90 knots and I add lets
> say 25 RPM to recapture the glideslope and I DON"T feel it in my seat
> of the pants, first place I will look is the temperature probe.
> Again, talking subtle 25 RPM just finger tip touch to the controls.
>
> If I feel the extra oomph / firmness in my seat of the pants with the
> extra 25 RPM and the glideslope starts to recapture, that is a
> verification of my action and reaction.
>
> Again, very subtle changes I am look and feeling for. I am not saying
> make turns by the seat of my pants, primarily verifying actions of
> power settings.
>
> In my Friday incident, I could tell my attitude indicator of 20 to 30
> degree pitch up AND not feeling the extra G's in my rear end, that
> something was discrepant having flown this plane for over 600 hours..
> That had me going to my backup instruments IMMEDIATELY (VSI and
> airspeed) for my analysis and quickly identifying the vacuum as
> suspect..
>
> It's not that I even remotely navigated by the seat of my pants, but
> something was amiss was felt.
>
> I absolutely agree based on time and time again history, that any
> feelings in the head absolutely has to be ignored, instruments are
> there for that, but for verification of power adjustments, I see no
> reason why AS A TOOL, the feeling in your rear end cannot be used as a
> verification of the reaction of your actioin (adding or reducing
> power).
>
> The feeling of the seat of your pants is NOT to be used in determining
> upright status in IMC, that I will say, and don't want to mislead
> anybody that I condone that, just using it to verify my action of
> power is working and the reaction of instrumentation TRENDS are
> following what my seat of the pants feel is.

Not faulting anyone. I just want to make it absolutely clear that in my
opinion, the ONLY relationship between physical sensation and IFR is in
understanding how physical sensations can harm you and how to deal with
them by instrument referencing all the way through the scan down to
primary panel.
I would NEVER attempt to verify an instrument reading by referencing a
physical sensation. In ANY situation where an instrument reading was
suspect, I would immediately extend my primary scan to include
peripheral instruments to verify the quality of the data that was
suspect. Under NO circumstance, would I EVER allow the time line
necessary to include a physical sensation in this equation. To do so in
my opinion is dangerous not only in a possible erroneous attitude input,
but as well extends the time line to a recovery input.
Physical sensation as relates to IFR is to be understood for it's
hazzards, but avoided when in the soup.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On May 18, 3:34 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> <...>
>>>> Without getting into a whole magilla concerning right and wrong,
>>>> simply let me say that in my opinion physical sensation should never,
>>>> and I repeat it again so that there's NO mistake....NEVER be used to
>>>> verify or augment an instrument reading. In my opinion, this is what
>>>> proper scan technique is all about. You verify instruments CONSTANTLY
>>>> using other instruments, right on down to primary panel if necessary,
>>>> but in my opinion, the basic concept of ignoring physical cues and
>>>> sensations while on instruments is a sound principle ans should be
>>>> followed to the letter.
>>> <...>
>>> I won't argue with a single word of that.
>>> But...
>>> That doesn't make physical sensations irrelevent or unimportant. In
>>> fact, it is the MISLEADING sensations that are very important in the
>>> sense that, if you don't have significant experience "playing over"
>>> them, one typically ends up dead (in real life). Sitting on your lazy
>>> boy, those sensations don't happen - you always feel "coordinated" - you
>>> don't get disoriented, you don't experience vertigo - which makes flying
>>> in simulated IMC stupid easy compared to real life.
>>> And, I would argue that _no_ _ammount_ of desktop simulation will _ever_
>>> prepare you for the assult on your senses that can happen when things
>>> aren't going well in real life soup.
>>> One may think that one can handle real IMC based on desktop experience -
>>> but without realizing just how difficult it is to ignore your inner ear
>>> screaming lies at you, one doesn't really have any idea what flying real
>>> IMC is like - I would bet that an experienced "sim only" pilot would
>>> pull the wings off in less than 3 minutes in real life.
>> I believe you and I are in complete agreement. Perhaps something being
>> misread.
>> The understanding of sensations and how they interact with the IFR
>> experience is of paramount importance. In fact, a lack of this
>> understanding can get you killed quicker than anything else I can think
>> of at the moment.
>> Where I was referring to the sensations issue was directly concerned
>> with one pilot who commented that verifying an instrument reading with a
>> physical sensation was important. My point was that instrument
>> verification should be done against other instruments with the EXCLUSION
>> of physical sensation from that equation.
>
> When I was a kid, I was spun to dizzy, and
> then staggered when I tried to walk. IIRC it
> took a concentrated focus on some point to
> sustain balance, which is me in VFR, but that
> doesn't work in a fog.
> Another thing I noticed is flying VFR with a lot
> of turbulence, (especially with towering cumulus)
> screwed my inner ear.
> (That is my weakness).
>
> I was very lucky that after just a couple of hours,
> my flight instructor got me going on IFR.
> He knew I had a basic handle on geometry and
> algebra so he was the type to promote the advance
> early on in instruction.
> Ken
I tend to keep things on the basic level with students. It helps to hide
my shortcomings :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Robert Moore wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote
>> Without getting into a whole magilla concerning right and wrong,
>> simply let me say that in my opinion physical sensation should never,
>> and I repeat it again so that there's NO mistake....NEVER be used to
>> verify or augment an instrument reading.
>
> Absolutely Correct Dudley! I have been an Instrument Instructor in
> the US Navy, in the Heavy Jet Airline Industry, and as a General
> Aviation CFII, and I can't believe what some of these amateur, mostly
> armchair pilots are posting as gospel.
>
> Bob Moore
> ATP CFII
> 22,000 hours when I stopped counting

I'm sincerely glad you checked in on this one Bob. Pilots with your
instrument experience make a HUGE difference in these discussions.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Jim Logajan]

Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> First of all, I've been reading a thread here where pilots are dealing
> with Mxsmanic on the issue of physical sensation vs instruments in an
> IFR environment, specifically when certain instrument failures are
> either involved or suspected.

The following doesn't address the thrust of your post, but rather a
different point I believe I saw in the same thread and would like to
comment on:

I only spot-checked that thread so I don't know what all the claims were
(or whether what follows has already been raised.) One of the few spot-
checked posts I saw had Mxsmanic wondering why physical sensation should be
considered so important to successful flight in VMC when such sensations
are inapplicable to radio control aircraft flight and even dangerous in IFR
flight in IMC.

It seemed a reasonable point, but after a bit of thought it seemed
logically flawed and potentially dangerous when applied to VFR flight in
VMC because:

1) When flying under VFR or IFR in VMC, "see and avoid" is a regulatory
requirement - and a dang good idea. Since the PIC already must spend a fair
amount of time maintaining a visual lookout in VMC to satisfy that safety
requirement, the PIC is better off taking advantage of visual cues and
physical sensations than entirely head-down ops. Spending most of the time
viewing instruments in a standard pattern increases the probability of mid-
air collisions. Which would ruin your whole day.

2) Radio control is inherently "see and avoid" and mostly in VMC. Also, I
believe scale matters. I.e. landing an R/C plane hard doesn't always break
it, but the equivalent hard landing in a full size plane would break it.
And even with the strength/scale advantage the accident rate in R/C
aircraft operations is extremely high relative to full-size flight ops and
wouldn't be tolerated in full size aircraft. So at best, R/C ops do not
appear to be applicable. The difficulty of R/C flight may even be
considered evidence in favor of the advantage of the physical sensations
and visual cues of first-person piloting.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 18, 4:09 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On May 18, 3:34 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
> >>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> <...>
> >>>> Without getting into a whole magilla concerning right and wrong,
> >>>> simply let me say that in my opinion physical sensation should never,
> >>>> and I repeat it again so that there's NO mistake....NEVER be used to
> >>>> verify or augment an instrument reading. In my opinion, this is what
> >>>> proper scan technique is all about. You verify instruments CONSTANTLY
> >>>> using other instruments, right on down to primary panel if necessary,
> >>>> but in my opinion, the basic concept of ignoring physical cues and
> >>>> sensations while on instruments is a sound principle ans should be
> >>>> followed to the letter.
> >>> <...>
> >>> I won't argue with a single word of that.
> >>> But...
> >>> That doesn't make physical sensations irrelevent or unimportant. In
> >>> fact, it is the MISLEADING sensations that are very important in the
> >>> sense that, if you don't have significant experience "playing over"
> >>> them, one typically ends up dead (in real life). Sitting on your lazy
> >>> boy, those sensations don't happen - you always feel "coordinated" - you
> >>> don't get disoriented, you don't experience vertigo - which makes flying
> >>> in simulated IMC stupid easy compared to real life.
> >>> And, I would argue that _no_ _ammount_ of desktop simulation will _ever_
> >>> prepare you for the assult on your senses that can happen when things
> >>> aren't going well in real life soup.
> >>> One may think that one can handle real IMC based on desktop experience -
> >>> but without realizing just how difficult it is to ignore your inner ear
> >>> screaming lies at you, one doesn't really have any idea what flying real
> >>> IMC is like - I would bet that an experienced "sim only" pilot would
> >>> pull the wings off in less than 3 minutes in real life.
> >> I believe you and I are in complete agreement. Perhaps something being
> >> misread.
> >> The understanding of sensations and how they interact with the IFR
> >> experience is of paramount importance. In fact, a lack of this
> >> understanding can get you killed quicker than anything else I can think
> >> of at the moment.
> >> Where I was referring to the sensations issue was directly concerned
> >> with one pilot who commented that verifying an instrument reading with a
> >> physical sensation was important. My point was that instrument
> >> verification should be done against other instruments with the EXCLUSION
> >> of physical sensation from that equation.
>
> > When I was a kid, I was spun to dizzy, and
> > then staggered when I tried to walk. IIRC it
> > took a concentrated focus on some point to
> > sustain balance, which is me in VFR, but that
> > doesn't work in a fog.
> > Another thing I noticed is flying VFR with a lot
> > of turbulence, (especially with towering cumulus)
> > screwed my inner ear.
> > (That is my weakness).
>
> > I was very lucky that after just a couple of hours,
> > my flight instructor got me going on IFR.
> > He knew I had a basic handle on geometry and
> > algebra so he was the type to promote the advance
> > early on in instruction.
> > Ken
>
> I tend to keep things on the basic level with students. It helps to hide
> my shortcomings :-)

After a few hours, my instructor had me doing shallow
(30's), medium (45's) and steep (60's) turns and would
critcize me because I focused on the VFR horizon and
he'd smirk and point to the Indescent Indicator showing
a 50'/per minute loss, and the IAS loss of energy and
my off-center-ball, so my turn performance was gauged
by instruments.
Obviously, I should have pulled a bit more elevator,
put on some RPM, and applied more rudder, so that's
what I did via instruments, and that's in a well done
bank at 60 degs even when VFR is available.
Ken

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On May 18, 4:09 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>> On May 18, 3:34 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>> <...>
>>>>>> Without getting into a whole magilla concerning right and wrong,
>>>>>> simply let me say that in my opinion physical sensation should never,
>>>>>> and I repeat it again so that there's NO mistake....NEVER be used to
>>>>>> verify or augment an instrument reading. In my opinion, this is what
>>>>>> proper scan technique is all about. You verify instruments CONSTANTLY
>>>>>> using other instruments, right on down to primary panel if necessary,
>>>>>> but in my opinion, the basic concept of ignoring physical cues and
>>>>>> sensations while on instruments is a sound principle ans should be
>>>>>> followed to the letter.
>>>>> <...>
>>>>> I won't argue with a single word of that.
>>>>> But...
>>>>> That doesn't make physical sensations irrelevent or unimportant. In
>>>>> fact, it is the MISLEADING sensations that are very important in the
>>>>> sense that, if you don't have significant experience "playing over"
>>>>> them, one typically ends up dead (in real life). Sitting on your lazy
>>>>> boy, those sensations don't happen - you always feel "coordinated" - you
>>>>> don't get disoriented, you don't experience vertigo - which makes flying
>>>>> in simulated IMC stupid easy compared to real life.
>>>>> And, I would argue that _no_ _ammount_ of desktop simulation will _ever_
>>>>> prepare you for the assult on your senses that can happen when things
>>>>> aren't going well in real life soup.
>>>>> One may think that one can handle real IMC based on desktop experience -
>>>>> but without realizing just how difficult it is to ignore your inner ear
>>>>> screaming lies at you, one doesn't really have any idea what flying real
>>>>> IMC is like - I would bet that an experienced "sim only" pilot would
>>>>> pull the wings off in less than 3 minutes in real life.
>>>> I believe you and I are in complete agreement. Perhaps something being
>>>> misread.
>>>> The understanding of sensations and how they interact with the IFR
>>>> experience is of paramount importance. In fact, a lack of this
>>>> understanding can get you killed quicker than anything else I can think
>>>> of at the moment.
>>>> Where I was referring to the sensations issue was directly concerned
>>>> with one pilot who commented that verifying an instrument reading with a
>>>> physical sensation was important. My point was that instrument
>>>> verification should be done against other instruments with the EXCLUSION
>>>> of physical sensation from that equation.
>>> When I was a kid, I was spun to dizzy, and
>>> then staggered when I tried to walk. IIRC it
>>> took a concentrated focus on some point to
>>> sustain balance, which is me in VFR, but that
>>> doesn't work in a fog.
>>> Another thing I noticed is flying VFR with a lot
>>> of turbulence, (especially with towering cumulus)
>>> screwed my inner ear.
>>> (That is my weakness).
>>> I was very lucky that after just a couple of hours,
>>> my flight instructor got me going on IFR.
>>> He knew I had a basic handle on geometry and
>>> algebra so he was the type to promote the advance
>>> early on in instruction.
>>> Ken
>> I tend to keep things on the basic level with students. It helps to hide
>> my shortcomings :-)
>
> After a few hours, my instructor had me doing shallow
> (30's), medium (45's) and steep (60's) turns and would
> critcize me because I focused on the VFR horizon and
> he'd smirk and point to the Indescent Indicator showing
> a 50'/per minute loss, and the IAS loss of energy and
> my off-center-ball, so my turn performance was gauged
> by instruments.
> Obviously, I should have pulled a bit more elevator,
> put on some RPM, and applied more rudder, so that's
> what I did via instruments, and that's in a well done
> bank at 60 degs even when VFR is available.
> Ken
I'm the reverse ytpe of instructor. Initially I like students to get
their heads outside the airplane and discover nose attitudes (LF;Climb;
glides) THEN after they have a good understanding of these nose
attitudes I get them to cross check these attitudes with the panel.
Different strokes for different folks :)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> First of all, I've been reading a thread here where pilots are dealing
>> with Mxsmanic on the issue of physical sensation vs instruments in an
>> IFR environment, specifically when certain instrument failures are
>> either involved or suspected.
>
> The following doesn't address the thrust of your post, but rather a
> different point I believe I saw in the same thread and would like to
> comment on:
>
> I only spot-checked that thread so I don't know what all the claims were
> (or whether what follows has already been raised.) One of the few spot-
> checked posts I saw had Mxsmanic wondering why physical sensation should be
> considered so important to successful flight in VMC when such sensations
> are inapplicable to radio control aircraft flight and even dangerous in IFR
> flight in IMC.
>
> It seemed a reasonable point, but after a bit of thought it seemed
> logically flawed and potentially dangerous when applied to VFR flight in
> VMC because:
>
> 1) When flying under VFR or IFR in VMC, "see and avoid" is a regulatory
> requirement - and a dang good idea. Since the PIC already must spend a fair
> amount of time maintaining a visual lookout in VMC to satisfy that safety
> requirement, the PIC is better off taking advantage of visual cues and
> physical sensations than entirely head-down ops. Spending most of the time
> viewing instruments in a standard pattern increases the probability of mid-
> air collisions. Which would ruin your whole day.
>
> 2) Radio control is inherently "see and avoid" and mostly in VMC. Also, I
> believe scale matters. I.e. landing an R/C plane hard doesn't always break
> it, but the equivalent hard landing in a full size plane would break it.
> And even with the strength/scale advantage the accident rate in R/C
> aircraft operations is extremely high relative to full-size flight ops and
> wouldn't be tolerated in full size aircraft. So at best, R/C ops do not
> appear to be applicable. The difficulty of R/C flight may even be
> considered evidence in favor of the advantage of the physical sensations
> and visual cues of first-person piloting.

I would agree totally that visual references (all cues including
physical actually) are applicable to VFR flight.
RC is not my specialty and I would tend to leave these things to those
more familiar with the venue. :-)
My main concern here lies only with any IFR reference that physical
sensation is to be used in conjunction with an instrument reading or
suspected instrument error as a cross check as opposed to expanding the
basic scan to include raw data instrument substantiation and verification.

--
Dudley Henriques

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 18, 6:14*pm, Robert Moore > wrote:
> I can't believe what some of these amateur, mostly
> armchair pilots are posting as gospel.

I don't ever diss anybody, and my posting history will back me, but
this is one of the most closed minded statements I have seen since
being in newsgroups, and I do go a long way back.

I regularly file and fly in the IFR system. While I don't carry
20,000 hours credentials I would hope some of my experiences whether
you agree with them or not be somewhat NOT armchair experience.

Not all shoes fit everyone, and just because you and others may not
disagree, to sit there and say it's arm chair piloting isn't right. I
respect your opinion accordingly, I would hope the same would be in
return.

I am sharing what TOOLS works for me, it may not be text book, but
it's something and food for thought.

Allen

[romeomike]

Robert Moore wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote
>> Without getting into a whole magilla concerning right and wrong,
>> simply let me say that in my opinion physical sensation should never,
>> and I repeat it again so that there's NO mistake....NEVER be used to
>> verify or augment an instrument reading.
>
> Absolutely Correct Dudley! I have been an Instrument Instructor in
> the US Navy, in the Heavy Jet Airline Industry, and as a General
> Aviation CFII, and I can't believe what some of these amateur, mostly
> armchair pilots are posting as gospel.
>
> Bob Moore
> ATP CFII
> 22,000 hours when I stopped counting


Exactly. Thank you Dudley and Bob. Finally recognizable experts are
weighing in on this topic. Students will benefit.

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On May 18, 4:58*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Like I said gang, it's everybody's personal decision to make. I'm simply
> stating here what I'm going to do myself. I'll not be ragging on those
> who don't think the way I do on these issues.
> I am hopeful however, that Mxsmanic and those who have been his
> adversaries will simply read what I've said here and say nothing to each
> other about it but rather simply and silently take a few steps backward
> and consider re-engaging with each other, each giving a little without
> saying or admitting they are giving a little.
> Who knows; I'll be giving it a shot anyway.

It is pretty cool to see that 90% of this thread is useable info
coming from experts sharing their opinions. This non-combative type
of exchange helps newbies like myself learn.

I am particularly interested to see what final word is on the trust-
your-instruments argument.

Also, I read somewhere that JFK Junior's plane crashed probably
because he did not trust his intstruments. What's the likelihood of
that?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberman writes:

> I think my point was when there is an action, there should be a
> reaction, and if I don't feel the reaction (which is faster then
> registering on the instrument), then I need to explore further.

If you are on top of your instruments, no "exploration" is needed. The
reaction you feel may be leading you astray. It may seem uncorrelated to what
the instruments say. If it is possible for you to feel a sensation that does
not represent any change in the instruments (and it is), then logically it is
also possible for the instruments to change without you feeling anything. If
the instruments say that you've entered a turn, you've entered a turn, whether
you felt anything or not.

> I am talking the very subtle changes, not changes requiring large
> power changes.

Subtle changes are even more misleading.

> For example, I come down the ILS at 90 knots with 1900 rpm. If
> headwinds cause my groundspeed to drop below 90 knots and I add lets
> say 25 RPM to recapture the glideslope and I DON"T feel it in my seat
> of the pants, first place I will look is the temperature probe.
> Again, talking subtle 25 RPM just finger tip touch to the controls.

Watch the instruments to begin with, not when you fail to feel something you
expect.

> If I feel the extra oomph / firmness in my seat of the pants with the
> extra 25 RPM and the glideslope starts to recapture, that is a
> verification of my action and reaction.

If the tachometer rises by 25 RPM, that's a much more reliable indicator.

> Again, very subtle changes I am look and feeling for. I am not saying
> make turns by the seat of my pants, primarily verifying actions of
> power settings.

You have way too much trust in your sensations.

> In my Friday incident, I could tell my attitude indicator of 20 to 30
> degree pitch up AND not feeling the extra G's in my rear end, that
> something was discrepant having flown this plane for over 600 hours..
> That had me going to my backup instruments IMMEDIATELY (VSI and
> airspeed) for my analysis and quickly identifying the vacuum as
> suspect..

Why weren't you checking the backup instruments to begin with? If they do not
disagree, chances are that all the instruments are working, no matter what
sensations you experience. If they disagree, at least one instrument probably
has a problem--again, no matter what sensations you experience.

If an instrument does not have a backup, you correlate it with other
instruments. They will behave in predictable ways in relation to each other.
If one of them does not seem to correlate with the others, perhaps it has a
problem.

> It's not that I even remotely navigated by the seat of my pants, but
> something was amiss was felt.

The danger in instrument flight is that all sorts of things are felt, but none
of them is reliable. It is called instrument flight because the pilot ignores
things felt and flies exclusively by the instruments.

> I absolutely agree based on time and time again history, that any
> feelings in the head absolutely has to be ignored, instruments are
> there for that, but for verification of power adjustments, I see no
> reason why AS A TOOL, the feeling in your rear end cannot be used as a
> verification of the reaction of your actioin (adding or reducing
> power).

The feeling in your rear end is no more reliable than the feeling from your
inner ear.

It sounds like your Friday incident has given you a false sense of security.

[[email protected]]

On May 18, 9:01*pm, Robert Moore > wrote:

> AND
> WHILE RELYING TOTALLY ON THE FLIGHT INSTRUMENTS, use the eyes
> to determine the aircraft attitude. The pilot must have an
> understanding of the problem and the self-confidence to control
> the aircraft using ONLY instrument indications.

Again, my way is not text book, and I am not here to say the text book
is wrong. It's been proven and I am not debating what any book
says.. The text book also refers to inner ear false sensations,
nothing about what I am talking about in the sense of action vs
reaction to power increases or decreases of the throttle.

But in my case, which caused all the ruckus, is that I had a vacuum
system problem, which was quickly identified by me knowing what I
should be feeling in my airplane with an AI that shows a pitch up of
20 to 30 degrees, it wasn't there.. I have over 700 hours in the same
plane. I wasn't feeling spatially disoriented so I knew my inner ear
balance wasn't an issue.

As I keep stressing, the absence of a feeling is equally as important
as looking at an erroneous AI that is saying I have a 20 to 30 degree
pitch up. Denying or ignoring that feeling and listening to a
defective instrument does toss the above text book out the window in a
trouble shooting stage..

It was that feeling that helped me identify a problem quicker then
just "trust the instrument indications" I didn't oscillate in my
altitude which would have been a potential result had I trusted the
AI. It was when I didn't feel what the AI was telling me, then I
went to my secondary instrumentation to indeed confirm and verify that
my AI was amiss.

Had I trusted the instruments and pushed the nose over, I would have
put myself in a more dangerous position.

In all of the above, I am not saying don't fly by instruments, but use
what you feel and what you know IN ADDITION to what sits in front of
you.

Not sure if you are familiar with Martial arts, but to win a battle,
you use the opponents weakness for your strength, and I apply this to
my IFR flying. Our weakness is inner ear balance, and I do disregard
any "head feelings" I get, but I do use my rear end to assist me on
what I feel, and SHOULD be feeling based on POWER INPUTS.

I am talking only engine input, NOT control input such as bank or yoke
induced climbs that all text books refer to as I do realize in IMC
there is no human way we can fly a straight line on feeling or lack of
in the seat of the pants based on CONTROL inputs.

On my glide slope, I pitch for speed, power for altitude. If I fall
below the glide slope, I give more power, and expect to feel that in
the seat of my pants.

In turbulence, all the above is tossed out and I only use my
instruments and don't factor in my rear end. The above applies in
pristine calm air.

[Dave[_19_]]

Good words Dudley!

And I agree...

I was impressed that an intelligent and useful net discussion started
by Anthony continued DESPITE the sniping by the usual annoyances.

Many here feel as you do Dudley.

lets all move on with this..

If an insult is required, use the mail and have at it..

Please.....

Spare the rest of us who value the knowledge offered here..

Dave






On Sun, 18 May 2008 17:58:22 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>Hi folks;
>Please bear with me on this post. I've just spent the entire day
>thinking about some things and have a few what I hope will be accepted
>as friendly thoughts to share.
>
>Keep in mind if you're reading this that what I'm going to say isn't
>meant to be critical of anyone in any way and that I totally respect the
>right of everyone on this forum to make up their own mind on these issues.
>
>What I'd like to share with you are simply my own thoughts on some
>things. All of what I'm saying here is simply how I personally view the
>issues involved.
>So bear with me as I try and get this stuff down without ****ing off
>half the world in the process.
>
>First of all, I've been reading a thread here where pilots are dealing
>with Mxsmanic on the issue of physical sensation vs instruments in an
>IFR environment, specifically when certain instrument failures are
>either involved or suspected.
>Without getting into a whole magilla concerning right and wrong, simply
>let me say that in my opinion physical sensation should never, and I
>repeat it again so that there's NO mistake....NEVER be used to verify or
>augment an instrument reading. In my opinion, this is what proper scan
>technique is all about. You verify instruments CONSTANTLY using other
>instruments, right on down to primary panel if necessary, but in my
>opinion, the basic concept of ignoring physical cues and sensations
>while on instruments is a sound principle ans should be followed to the
>letter.
>Now, on to the subject of Mxsmanic.
>I have no idea whether Mxsmanic was posting from knowledge or from a
>source when he posted on the above issue, but in my opinion he was right
>in what he was saying about physical sensation vs IFR procedure, and
>yes, I am aware Mxsmanic doesn't fly.
>Please know I'm not faulting those who take him on. That's between you
>and Mxsmanic. If it's your choice to answer this person the way some of
>you have chosen (and I've been just as guilty myself on occasion) then
>that is your choice, and I'll make no attempt here to play internet cop
>or even to try to change your mind. This is a matter of individual
>choice, but I will try and explain to you how I personally will be
>attempting to deal with Usenet from now on. If some of you follow my
>lead, I'll be grateful, but if you don't, I won't attempt to chastise
>you. It's totally an individual decision.
>
>What I'm going to try and do on the forum from now on is to treat every
>post I see and have addressed to me as an individual post. If the person
>posting to me is respectful and polite, I won't care if it's someone I
>like or dislike. I won't care if it's someone who blasted me with a
>flame thrower the last time around. If that specific post is respectful,
>I'll be answering that post in kind. If it isn't, I'll make a decision
>to engage or pass based on my mood at the moment, but hopefully I'll be
>able to pass on it. I'm going to try anyway.
>
>Look guys and dolls, this forum is a great place to exchange
>information. Most of us have enjoyed it here for eons. I for one don't
>want to see this forum die out from becoming nothing more than an
>exchange of venom from angry people.
>What I'm saying here gang is that I for one have decided that unless
>someone posts something disrespectful to me personally, I intend to give
>people a decent shot...and yes, that goes for Mxsmanic and any other
>simulator pilot who shows up here with a respectful on topic post.
>
>Like I said gang, it's everybody's personal decision to make. I'm simply
>stating here what I'm going to do myself. I'll not be ragging on those
>who don't think the way I do on these issues.
>I am hopeful however, that Mxsmanic and those who have been his
>adversaries will simply read what I've said here and say nothing to each
>other about it but rather simply and silently take a few steps backward
>and consider re-engaging with each other, each giving a little without
>saying or admitting they are giving a little.
>Who knows; I'll be giving it a shot anyway.
>
>My best to everybody here; friends, old enemies, and yes, Mxsmanic too.

[Buster Hymen]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:e1a5b2c5-9592-4e83-
:

> When I was a kid, I was spun to dizzy, and
> then staggered when I tried to walk.

You still haven't recovered.

[[email protected]]

On May 18, 9:23*pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:

> It is pretty cool to see that 90% of this thread is useable info
> coming from experts sharing their opinions. *This non-combative type
> of exchange helps newbies like myself learn.

Unfortunately, I'd suspect it's about to change..... Mx stepped in.
I am not replying to his post so I dont' contribute to any additional
noise and he doesn't understand the real world environment of flying
an airplane.. Hopefully others will respect Dudley's request.....

> Also, I read somewhere that JFK Junior's plane crashed probably
> because he did not trust his intstruments. *What's the likelihood of
> that?

Hopefully for an instrument pilot, NEVER, but when you have an
instrument go out, it does up the anti in IDENTIFYING the problem and
then tossing that instrument out of your scan.

In my case, the change was pretty dramatic as it happened after
departing and in my climb in my departure as I was entering IMC.
Everything was absolutely normal on my first 1000 feet of climb and
nothing had changed on what I felt in the seat of my pants when I saw
the AI start showing a pitch up just about 100 feet inside IMC. Had I
really pitched up that much, I would have felt it. The lack of
feeling it immediately made me look at my VSI and it was rock solid
700 fpm climb, no change from below the cloud deck. Next instrument I
looked at was my airspeed and that was 90 knots, so secondary
instruments confirmed a normal climb and further confirmed my lack of
feeling in my butt indicated the AI was ghosting up on me.

I believe it's not normal to get such a dramatic change like I did,
but then again, as I am still finding out, it may not be the vacuum
pump, but the vacuum pump regulator that went out on me in my plane.
Will find out tomorrow morning when I talk with the A&P.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> As I keep stressing, the absence of a feeling is equally as important
> as looking at an erroneous AI that is saying I have a 20 to 30 degree
> pitch up.

Except that it's not. The absence of a feeling tells you nothing, just as a
feeling tells you nothing. If you could trust feelings, you wouldn't have to
rely on instruments, and all the effort that goes into obtaining an instrument
rating would be unnecessary.

> Denying or ignoring that feeling and listening to a
> defective instrument does toss the above text book out the window in a
> trouble shooting stage..

Well, yes, it does.

If you have a backup AI, you should periodically look at it to see if it
agrees with your primary AI. You should also correlate instruments to each
other. If your AI says you're in a 45-degree bank, you should see a change in
heading on the DG, the turn coordinator should show a bank, and the magnetic
compass should be moving. If you see only the bank indication on the AI,
without the other indications, the AI might have a problem, and then you look
at the backup AI. If it shows no bank, and no other instrument shows what it
should show for a turn, the primary AI is malfunctioning. No physical
sensations required.

Conversely, if the seat of your pants tells you that you are climbing, but the
altimeter is not changing and the VSI is zeroed, you are not climbing, no
matter what your rear end says. Your instrument scan might tell you that you
are turning instead. Or your airspeed indicator might tell you that you are
changing speed. In any case, your instruments are right, and the seat of your
pants is wrong.

> It was that feeling that helped me identify a problem quicker then
> just "trust the instrument indications" I didn't oscillate in my
> altitude which would have been a potential result had I trusted the
> AI. It was when I didn't feel what the AI was telling me, then I
> went to my secondary instrumentation to indeed confirm and verify that
> my AI was amiss.

Why weren't you scanning all your instruments? If you were, you'd notice
something wrong without any need for physical sensation.

> Had I trusted the instruments and pushed the nose over, I would have
> put myself in a more dangerous position.

The instruments? How many were failing? How many did you check? The AI was
failing ... what else was failing? If the other instruments were working,
your instrument scan would tell you that something was wrong. If you weren't
scanning your instruments, you had already put yourself in a dangerous
position.

> In all of the above, I am not saying don't fly by instruments, but use
> what you feel and what you know IN ADDITION to what sits in front of
> you.

No. In IFR flight, use the instruments only, and ignore what you feel.

When you are standing on the ground, or walking down a sidewalk, your senses
are doing what they are designed to do, and they work quite well. When you
are flying in IMC, your senses are being used for something for which they
were not intended, and they become notoriously unreliable.

> Not sure if you are familiar with Martial arts, but to win a battle,
> you use the opponents weakness for your strength, and I apply this to
> my IFR flying. Our weakness is inner ear balance, and I do disregard
> any "head feelings" I get, but I do use my rear end to assist me on
> what I feel, and SHOULD be feeling based on POWER INPUTS.

That's a mistake.

[Mxsmanic]

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

> Also, I read somewhere that JFK Junior's plane crashed probably
> because he did not trust his intstruments. What's the likelihood of
> that?

Extremely high, for pilots unfamiliar with IFR flight.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Hopefully for an instrument pilot, NEVER, but when you have an
> instrument go out, it does up the anti in IDENTIFYING the problem and
> then tossing that instrument out of your scan.

You identify a failing instrument by correlating it with other instruments.
If you are continuously scanning the instruments, you should notice something
wrong very quickly, if it's a sudden failure, and still in plenty of time, if
it's a gradual failure.

> In my case, the change was pretty dramatic as it happened after
> departing and in my climb in my departure as I was entering IMC.
> Everything was absolutely normal on my first 1000 feet of climb and
> nothing had changed on what I felt in the seat of my pants when I saw
> the AI start showing a pitch up just about 100 feet inside IMC. Had I
> really pitched up that much, I would have felt it. The lack of
> feeling it immediately made me look at my VSI and it was rock solid
> 700 fpm climb, no change from below the cloud deck. Next instrument I
> looked at was my airspeed and that was 90 knots, so secondary
> instruments confirmed a normal climb and further confirmed my lack of
> feeling in my butt indicated the AI was ghosting up on me.

Why weren't you looking at these other instruments already?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
> On May 18, 4:58 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Like I said gang, it's everybody's personal decision to make. I'm simply
>> stating here what I'm going to do myself. I'll not be ragging on those
>> who don't think the way I do on these issues.
>> I am hopeful however, that Mxsmanic and those who have been his
>> adversaries will simply read what I've said here and say nothing to each
>> other about it but rather simply and silently take a few steps backward
>> and consider re-engaging with each other, each giving a little without
>> saying or admitting they are giving a little.
>> Who knows; I'll be giving it a shot anyway.
>
> It is pretty cool to see that 90% of this thread is useable info
> coming from experts sharing their opinions. This non-combative type
> of exchange helps newbies like myself learn.
>
> I am particularly interested to see what final word is on the trust-
> your-instruments argument.
>
> Also, I read somewhere that JFK Junior's plane crashed probably
> because he did not trust his intstruments. What's the likelihood of
> that?
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

I wasn't there of course, but I do know how dangerous the Martha's
vineyard area horizon can be in deepening haze. Flying out over the
ocean at dusk or at night has similar hazards for the unwary VFR pilot.
Sometimes the haze line is at an angle to the actual horizon which may
be hidden. This combination can put a pilot flying VFR in a whole lot of
trouble.

I've always believed that Kennedy fell victim to a false horizon by
somehow starting a turn on a false visual reference then allowing his
nose to get away from him in the haze due to his inexperience causing
him not to realize he needed to transition immediately to instruments.
In this condition and with the nose lowering and the airspeed rising,
Kennedy desperately needed to realize he needed to level the wings and
kill the bank as the lead in to recovering the nose in pitch.
This is the classic graveyard spiral. Not solving for bank and trying to
solve for pitch simply deepened the issue. I'm fairly convinced that by
this time the nose was so low and the spiral tightening so fast he
became fixated on the grayness in front of him that he thought was gray
sky but was in fact gray water.
The rest is history.
Just my read on one potential cause for that accident.


--
Dudley Henriques

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 18, 9:55*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> If you have a backup AI, you should periodically look at it to see if it
> agrees with your primary AI. *

I live in the real world. I do not have a back up AI.

>You should also correlate instruments to each
> other. *If your AI says you're in a 45-degree bank, you should see a change in
> heading on the DG,

Did you forget what system failed? What DG????????????

> Conversely, if the seat of your pants tells you that you are climbing, but the
> altimeter is not changing and the VSI is zeroed, you are not climbing, no
> matter what your rear end says. *

AGAIN READ MY POST! My VSI showed 700 fpm

> Your instrument scan might tell you that you
> are turning instead. *Or your airspeed indicator might tell you that you are
> changing speed. *In any case, your instruments are right, and the seat of your
> pants is wrong.

READ MY POST. THE ABOVE DOES NOT APPLY.

> The instruments? *How many were failing? *How many did you check? *The AI was
> failing ... what else was failing? *

Vacuum system failed, you tell me.

> No. *In IFR flight, use the instruments only, and ignore what you feel.

Vacuum system failed. I'd be dead if I listened to you and ignored
something I should have felt based on the AI pitched up. My seat of
the pants feeling (or lack of feeling in this case) had me diagnose
the problem in shorter time then me typing this paragraph. And yes,
after figuring out the primary instruments were ghosted up, I went to
my secondary instruments as they confirmed what I felt before entering
IMC..

IN OTHER WORDS NOTHING CHANGED IN ENGINE SOUND, OR FEELING EXCEPT for
the AI showing a abnormally high pitch up. The lack of feeling
becomes VERY IMPORTANT as it was dramatic.

> > Not sure if you are familiar with Martial arts, but to win a battle,
> > you use the opponents weakness for your strength, and I apply this to
> > my IFR flying. *Our weakness is inner ear balance, and I do disregard
> > any "head feelings" I get, but I do use my rear end to assist me on
> > what I feel, and SHOULD be feeling based on POWER INPUTS.
>
> That's a mistake.

It apparently wasn't a mistake if I am here to post and share my
experiences. Nor apparently do you know anything about Martial arts.

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberman writes:

> Did you forget what system failed? What DG????????????

Does the altimeter require vacuum?

> AGAIN READ MY POST! My VSI showed 700 fpm

What did the altimeter say? What did the magnetic compass say?

> It apparently wasn't a mistake if I am here to post and share my
> experiences.

You were lucky.

> Nor apparently do you know anything about Martial arts.

This is an aviation group. I care nothing about martial arts, although I know
that they can provide a false sense of security as well.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

A Lieberman wrote:

> It apparently wasn't a mistake if I am here to post and share my
> experiences. Nor apparently do you know anything about Martial arts.

I know a little :-) Studied Kodokan Judo at the Kodokan. Rose to Nidan.
Favorite throw was Uchimata both sides. Lousy on the mat. I was fast as
hell in standing Randori an managed not to end up down there very often.
Sensi was Takihito Ishikawa.
Enjoyed it a great deal. Wish I could still play, but a spinal injury
has slowed me down a bit.
--
Dudley Henriques

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 18, 10:13*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> I know a little :-) Studied Kodokan Judo at the Kodokan. Rose to Nidan.
> Favorite throw was Uchimata both sides. Lousy on the mat. I was fast as
> hell in standing Randori an managed not to end up down there very often.
> Sensi was Takihito Ishikawa.

Dabbled in Tai Chai Chuan and Kung Fu. Just enough to get me out of
street trouble growing up in inner city is all I wanted :-)

What impressed me about those skills is not the physical part but the
mental part and carrying them over to our everyday living part of this
being acutely what you sense or feel..

So, I try to carry the mental skills to my flying and be acutely aware
of my senses which based on yours and Roberts responses may be my
downfall :-)

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 18, 10:12*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Does the altimeter require vacuum?

You tell me.

> What did the altimeter say? *What did the magnetic compass say?

My proper altitude. Didn't use my magnetic compass. I used my Garmin
430 GPS tracking and reported to ATC that would be my primary
instrument to be used for my headings. They acknowledge no problems
with my usage of the GPS.

> > It apparently wasn't a mistake if I am here to post and share my
> > experiences.
>
> You were lucky.

Nope on the contrary, it wasn't luck. I attribute it to my quality
training and again will repeat again to you, I took my instrument
failure training to heart and all the training got me through this NON
EVENT.

> > Nor apparently do you know anything about Martial arts.
>
> This is an aviation group. *I care nothing about martial arts, although I know
> that they can provide a false sense of security as well.

Then you do not know anything about martial arts or me.

[Gezellig[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques formulated the question :
> I for one don't want to see this forum die out from becoming nothing more
> than an exchange of venom from angry people.
> What I'm saying here gang is that I for one have decided that unless someone
> posts something disrespectful to me personally, I intend to give people a
> decent shot...and yes, that goes for Mxsmanic and any other simulator pilot
> who shows up here with a respectful on topic post.

tThat pretty well sums it all. No one can keep adults from acting like
children but why not do that some place else? There is important things
to do here and people's lives are at stake. just my 2cents. :-(

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

A Lieberman wrote:
> On May 18, 10:13 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> I know a little :-) Studied Kodokan Judo at the Kodokan. Rose to Nidan.
>> Favorite throw was Uchimata both sides. Lousy on the mat. I was fast as
>> hell in standing Randori an managed not to end up down there very often.
>> Sensi was Takihito Ishikawa.
>
> Dabbled in Tai Chai Chuan and Kung Fu. Just enough to get me out of
> street trouble growing up in inner city is all I wanted :-)
>
> What impressed me about those skills is not the physical part but the
> mental part and carrying them over to our everyday living part of this
> being acutely what you sense or feel..
>
> So, I try to carry the mental skills to my flying and be acutely aware
> of my senses which based on yours and Roberts responses may be my
> downfall :-)

I didn't mean to sound overly critical. It would be my wish that you
would possibly consider some residual reading on the extremely important
issue of physical sensation and IFR flight.
It's never too late to alter one's approach on something this critical.
Believe me, the best thing you'll ever do as a pilot is seek out and
actively encourage unmercifully truthful opinion on your performance.
I've been involved at times professionally and always as a friend with
the Air Force Thunderbirds and Navy Blue Angels for decades. I have many
friends who flew on various teams. I've sat in on their post flight
debriefs where they openly review each show. At these sessions the rank
comes off and nothing exists but what was right and what was wrong.
I've based my own aviation career on this same philosophy. I've sought
out and considered the opinions of my peers and discussed openly with
them what they have observed of my performance.
It's just too important for anything else. I learn every day. You will
as well. We're both better pilots for this.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Gezellig[_2_]]

A Lieberman brought next idea :
> I absolutely agree based on time and time again history, that any
> feelings in the head absolutely has to be ignored, instruments are
> there for that, but for verification of power adjustments, I see no
> reason why AS A TOOL, the feeling in your rear end cannot be used as a
> verification of the reaction of your actioin (adding or reducing
> power).

The problem with feelings is that no two sets of feelers feel with the
same feeling. lol Then there are the sets of feelings that are felt
that are not consciously felt in terms of being able to explain them.

The discussion can be both descriptive and indescriptive unless it is
abouit what actions can or cannot be applied to your sets of feelings.

Why do I feel like singing out loud with Barbra Streisand?

[Gezellig[_2_]]

Dudley Henriques brought next idea :
> I just want to make it absolutely clear that in my opinion, the ONLY
> relationship between physical sensation and IFR is in understanding how
> physical sensations can harm you and how to deal with them by instrument
> referencing all the way through the scan down to primary panel.
> I would NEVER attempt to verify an instrument reading by referencing a
> physical sensation. In ANY situation where an instrument reading was suspect,
> I would immediately extend my primary scan to include peripheral instruments
> to verify the quality of the data that was suspect. Under NO circumstance,
> would I EVER allow the time line necessary to include a physical sensation in
> this equation. To do so in my opinion is dangerous not only in a possible
> erroneous attitude input, but as well extends the time line to a recovery
> input.

Being primarily creatures earthbound (land underfoot), where feelings
are our primary sources of instrument accuracy (speed in a car, wind in
our hair), its kewl to trust those sensory inputs. A lot of
day-in/day-out experiences too.

[Gezellig[_2_]]

Buster Hymen submitted this idea :
> "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:e1a5b2c5-9592-4e83-
> :

>> When I was a kid, I was spun to dizzy, and
>> then staggered when I tried to walk.

> You still haven't recovered.

In the spirit of this thread, adios asshole.

PLONKIE :-@

[Mike Isaksen]

"Gezellig" wrote ...
> Why do I feel like singing out loud with Barbra Streisand?
>

That could be considered Medically disqualifying !!!
;-)

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 18, 10:40*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> I didn't mean to sound overly critical. It would be my wish that you
> would possibly consider some residual reading on the extremely important
> issue of physical sensation and IFR flight.
> It's never too late to alter one's approach on something this critical.

You are right, and I fully understand you and Robert about ignoring
leans and other erroneous UNSOLICITED feelings incurred in flight and
one MUST TRUST THE INSTRUMENTS when that happens. I am more talking
about expected feelings resulting from my input of power ONLY.

Yanks and banks as stated earlier as one cannot do this without
instruments in IMC and every text book covers this well...

I am the first one to acknowledge the problem is there with the inner
ear stuff, and have actively taking up VFR and instrument students
inside IMC so they can see it will kill them if they don't respect
it. Their reactions have been priceless and equally the same, they
(VFR pilots) won't touch a cloud.

Drifting a little here, the biggest flaw which fortunately did not
happen to me is that I am seeing way too many instrument pilots
getting their IA rating without touching a cloud in conducting
approaches. That bothers me the most. My instructor had me go down
to ILS minimums so when I did my first solo instrument flight with
1000 foot ceilings, it really was a non event. EXCITING yes!

> It's just too important for anything else. I learn every day. You will
> as well. We're both better pilots for this.

And it's exchanges like this that we learn from each other :-) I been
away from the student group for some time (first post I believe was in
1991 for me) because of the noise level and just thought I would pop
in to see if it was reduced and it hasn't changed I see.

And most importantly to me, is EVERYTIME I walk on the ramp to my
plane, I am in learning / student mode. NOTHING is taken for granted
by this pilot from preflight to tie down. It's only AFTER I put the
plane to bed by tying it down have I stopped flying the plane. I
believe most people believe they stopped flyiing the plane when they
shut down the master..

I go further......

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 18, 10:42*pm, Gezellig > wrote:
> A Lieberman brought next idea :

> The problem with feelings is that no two sets of feelers feel with the
> same feeling. lol Then there are the sets of feelings that are felt
> that are not consciously felt in terms of being able to explain them.

ABSOLUTELY AGREE. And when that happens, instruments MUST be
trusted.

It's the absence of an EXPECTED feeling that should question the
validity of instrumentation.

In my case, and SUDDEN extreme pitch up displayed on my AI, I should
have expected positive G's in the seat of my pants. I did not get
that, therefore me flagging the AI and starting my cross check to my
secondary instruments for troubleshooting.

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> I would NEVER attempt to verify an instrument reading by referencing a
> physical sensation.

Thank you, Dudley, for weighing in on this all-important topic.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dave Doe]

In article >,
says...
> Le Chaud Lapin writes:
>
> > Also, I read somewhere that JFK Junior's plane crashed probably
> > because he did not trust his intstruments. What's the likelihood of
> > that?
>
> Extremely high, for pilots unfamiliar with IFR flight.

Another "nothing" answer. The pilot is, quote, "JFK Junior".

--
Duncan

[Gezellig[_2_]]

Mike Isaksen has brought this to us :
> "Gezellig" wrote ...
>> Why do I feel like singing out loud with Barbra Streisand?
>>

> That could be considered Medically disqualifying !!!
> ;-)

I recant to David Bowie. Which may continue my disqualification. :'(

[Gezellig[_2_]]

on 5/19/2008, A Lieberman supposed :
> On May 18, 10:42*pm, Gezellig > wrote:
>> A Lieberman brought next idea :

>> The problem with feelings is that no two sets of feelers feel with the
>> same feeling. lol Then there are the sets of feelings that are felt
>> that are not consciously felt in terms of being able to explain them.

> ABSOLUTELY AGREE. And when that happens, instruments MUST be
> trusted.

> It's the absence of an EXPECTED feeling that should question the
> validity of instrumentation.

> In my case, and SUDDEN extreme pitch up displayed on my AI, I should
> have expected positive G's in the seat of my pants. I did not get
> that, therefore me flagging the AI and starting my cross check to my
> secondary instruments for troubleshooting.

Sensory inputs are checkpoints.

I see
I feel
I see
I see more
I resolve to what I see.

Basic piloting, best constrained and confirmed to the sciences of
engineering and physics. This is what I struggle the most, I am neither
physicist, mathmetician or engineering inclined. :-? I flunked Legos.
:')

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On May 18, 4:09 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> > On May 18, 3:34 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> >> Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
>> >>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>> <...>
>> >>>> Without getting into a whole magilla concerning right and wrong,
>> >>>> simply let me say that in my opinion physical sensation should
>> >>>> never, and I repeat it again so that there's NO mistake....NEVER
>> >>>> be used to verify or augment an instrument reading. In my
>> >>>> opinion, this is what proper scan technique is all about. You
>> >>>> verify instruments CONSTANTLY using other instruments, right on
>> >>>> down to primary panel if necessary, but in my opinion, the basic
>> >>>> concept of ignoring physical cues and sensations while on
>> >>>> instruments is a sound principle ans should be followed to the
>> >>>> letter.
>> >>> <...>
>> >>> I won't argue with a single word of that.
>> >>> But...
>> >>> That doesn't make physical sensations irrelevent or unimportant.
>> >>> In fact, it is the MISLEADING sensations that are very important
>> >>> in the sense that, if you don't have significant experience
>> >>> "playing over" them, one typically ends up dead (in real life).
>> >>> Sitting on your lazy boy, those sensations don't happen - you
>> >>> always feel "coordinated" - you don't get disoriented, you don't
>> >>> experience vertigo - which makes flying in simulated IMC stupid
>> >>> easy compared to real life. And, I would argue that _no_
>> >>> _ammount_ of desktop simulation will _ever_ prepare you for the
>> >>> assult on your senses that can happen when things aren't going
>> >>> well in real life soup. One may think that one can handle real
>> >>> IMC based on desktop experience - but without realizing just how
>> >>> difficult it is to ignore your inner ear screaming lies at you,
>> >>> one doesn't really have any idea what flying real IMC is like - I
>> >>> would bet that an experienced "sim only" pilot would pull the
>> >>> wings off in less than 3 minutes in real life.
>> >> I believe you and I are in complete agreement. Perhaps something
>> >> being misread.
>> >> The understanding of sensations and how they interact with the IFR
>> >> experience is of paramount importance. In fact, a lack of this
>> >> understanding can get you killed quicker than anything else I can
>> >> think of at the moment.
>> >> Where I was referring to the sensations issue was directly
>> >> concerned with one pilot who commented that verifying an
>> >> instrument reading with a physical sensation was important. My
>> >> point was that instrument verification should be done against
>> >> other instruments with the EXCLUSION of physical sensation from
>> >> that equation.
>>
>> > When I was a kid, I was spun to dizzy, and
>> > then staggered when I tried to walk. IIRC it
>> > took a concentrated focus on some point to
>> > sustain balance, which is me in VFR, but that
>> > doesn't work in a fog.
>> > Another thing I noticed is flying VFR with a lot
>> > of turbulence, (especially with towering cumulus)
>> > screwed my inner ear.
>> > (That is my weakness).
>>
>> > I was very lucky that after just a couple of hours,
>> > my flight instructor got me going on IFR.
>> > He knew I had a basic handle on geometry and
>> > algebra so he was the type to promote the advance
>> > early on in instruction.
>> > Ken
>>
>> I tend to keep things on the basic level with students. It helps to
>> hide my shortcomings :-)
>
> After a few hours, my instructor had me doing shallow
> (30's), medium (45's) and steep (60's) turns and would
> critcize me because I focused on the VFR horizon and
> he'd smirk and point to the Indescent Indicator showing
> a 50'/per minute loss, and the IAS loss of energy and
> my off-center-ball, so my turn performance was gauged
> by instruments.
> Obviously, I should have pulled a bit more elevator,
> put on some RPM, and applied more rudder, so that's
> what I did via instruments, and that's in a well done
> bank at 60 degs even when VFR is available.
> Ken

You're an idiot. No instructor in his right mind would have told you
that unless it was in sheer desperation after your repeated failures to
do anything like a decent turn.

And "indescent indicator"?
Bwawhahwhahwahwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhhahwhahwha!




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Robert Moore > wrote in
46.128:

> Dudley Henriques wrote
>> Without getting into a whole magilla concerning right and wrong,
>> simply let me say that in my opinion physical sensation should never,
>> and I repeat it again so that there's NO mistake....NEVER be used to
>> verify or augment an instrument reading.
>
> Absolutely Correct Dudley! I have been an Instrument Instructor in
> the US Navy, in the Heavy Jet Airline Industry, and as a General
> Aviation CFII, and I can't believe what some of these amateur, mostly
> armchair pilots are posting as gospel.
>

Well, my rad ion what they are posting is that various sensory inputs,
especially sounds, are suplemental to the info being gleaned form the
insturment scan and help to flesh out the big picture. Even the errant
vestibular apparatus provides clues and these clues, as well as those
provided by the muscles in your body, sounds and periperal visual clues
( changes in light sources, etc) can, when taken with a large grain of
salt, help flesh out the big picture.It fills the gaps in the scan aside
form anything else.
The inner ear thing in particular is widely misunderstood to be
completely unreliable. It is certainly true that used on it's own it's
completely useless without the aid of some visual cues, but of course
its still working, just in a different way. Humans can get used to
almost anything and the innner ear can be wired into a pilot's loop and
used to help particulalry in rates. That is to say, it can be an aid in
flying the airplane more smoothly. The more smoothly you fly the
airplane, the less upset it receives.
Try flying instruments with an inner ear problem and see how rotten it
feels and you'll see that it is still making a contribution even in
instrument flight.
Trust it completely? Of course not. Neccesary? Not at all. Useful?
Definitely.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> As I keep stressing, the absence of a feeling is equally as important
>> as looking at an erroneous AI that is saying I have a 20 to 30 degree
>> pitch up.
>
> Except that it's not. The absence of a feeling tells you nothing,
> just as a feeling tells you nothing. If you could trust feelings, you
> wouldn't have to rely on instruments, and all the effort that goes
> into obtaining an instrument rating would be unnecessary.
>
>> Denying or ignoring that feeling and listening to a
>> defective instrument does toss the above text book out the window in
>> a trouble shooting stage..
>
> Well, yes, it does.
>
> If you have a backup AI, you should periodically look at it to see if
> it agrees with your primary AI. You should also correlate instruments
> to each other. If your AI says you're in a 45-degree bank, you should
> see a change in heading on the DG, the turn coordinator should show a
> bank, and the magnetic compass should be moving. If you see only the
> bank indication on the AI, without the other indications, the AI might
> have a problem, and then you look at the backup AI. If it shows no
> bank, and no other instrument shows what it should show for a turn,
> the primary AI is malfunctioning. No physical sensations required.
>
> Conversely, if the seat of your pants tells you that you are climbing,
> but the altimeter is not changing and the VSI is zeroed, you are not
> climbing, no matter what your rear end says. Your instrument scan
> might tell you that you are turning instead. Or your airspeed
> indicator might tell you that you are changing speed. In any case,
> your instruments are right, and the seat of your pants is wrong.
>
>> It was that feeling that helped me identify a problem quicker then
>> just "trust the instrument indications" I didn't oscillate in my
>> altitude which would have been a potential result had I trusted the
>> AI. It was when I didn't feel what the AI was telling me, then I
>> went to my secondary instrumentation to indeed confirm and verify
>> that my AI was amiss.
>
> Why weren't you scanning all your instruments? If you were, you'd
> notice something wrong without any need for physical sensation.
>
>> Had I trusted the instruments and pushed the nose over, I would have
>> put myself in a more dangerous position.
>
> The instruments? How many were failing? How many did you check? The
> AI was failing ... what else was failing? If the other instruments
> were working, your instrument scan would tell you that something was
> wrong. If you weren't scanning your instruments, you had already put
> yourself in a dangerous position.
>
>> In all of the above, I am not saying don't fly by instruments, but
>> use what you feel and what you know IN ADDITION to what sits in front
>> of you.
>
> No. In IFR flight, use the instruments only, and ignore what you
> feel.
>
> When you are standing on the ground, or walking down a sidewalk, your
> senses are doing what they are designed to do, and they work quite
> well. When you are flying in IMC, your senses are being used for
> something for which they were not intended, and they become
> notoriously unreliable.
>
>> Not sure if you are familiar with Martial arts, but to win a battle,
>> you use the opponents weakness for your strength, and I apply this to
>> my IFR flying. Our weakness is inner ear balance, and I do disregard
>> any "head feelings" I get, but I do use my rear end to assist me on
>> what I feel, and SHOULD be feeling based on POWER INPUTS.
>
> That's a mistake.
>

No, it isn;'t, since he's here to talk about it and didn't lose control
of the airplane, fukkwit.

You don't fly and you have no idea of what you are talking about.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Robert Moore > wrote in
46.128:

> A Lieberman wrote
>> I don't ever diss anybody, and my posting history will back me, but
>> this is one of the most closed minded statements I have seen since
>> being in newsgroups, and I do go a long way back.
>
> It might be closed minded, but it is straight out of the FAA
> Instrument Flying Handbook, Chapter 1, Human Factors:
>
> Eyes
> During flight in visual meteorological conditions (VMC), the
> eyes are the major orientation source and usually provide
> accurate and reliable information. Visual cues usually prevail
> over false sensations from other sensory systems. When these
> visual cues are taken away, as they are in IMC, false
> sensations can cause the pilot to quickly become disoriented
> The only effective way to counter these false sensations is to
> recognize the problem, disregard the false sensations, AND
> WHILE RELYING TOTALLY ON THE FLIGHT INSTRUMENTS, use the eyes
> to determine the aircraft attitude. The pilot must have an
> understanding of the problem and the self-confidence to control
> the aircraft using ONLY instrument indications.
>
> Bob Moore

All of which is absolutely true. You'll notice that they said "major
orientation source, though"
I'm not advocating anyone ty flying by the seat of their pants IMC. In
fact, making a conscious decision to use the other senses isn't really a
very good idea either, but they do come into play and, as in the case of
A L they did guide him to the source of the problem, which is what one
would expect. I don;'t believe he's saying they guided him to a zero
zero landing, only that it prevented an upset.
Remember the guys in New York state that were test flying the 727 and
got an ASI malfunction? You know, the accident that resultd in the
installation of the active pitot heat warning rather than just having
greens to indicate they were on?




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Le Chaud Lapin > wrote in news:275c5528-d77b-456f-
:

> On May 18, 4:58*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Like I said gang, it's everybody's personal decision to make. I'm
simply
>> stating here what I'm going to do myself. I'll not be ragging on
those
>> who don't think the way I do on these issues.
>> I am hopeful however, that Mxsmanic and those who have been his
>> adversaries will simply read what I've said here and say nothing to
each
>> other about it but rather simply and silently take a few steps
backward
>> and consider re-engaging with each other, each giving a little
without
>> saying or admitting they are giving a little.
>> Who knows; I'll be giving it a shot anyway.
>
> It is pretty cool to see that 90% of this thread is useable info
> coming from experts sharing their opinions. This non-combative type
> of exchange helps newbies like myself learn.
>
> I am particularly interested to see what final word is on the trust-
> your-instruments argument.
>
> Also, I read somewhere that JFK Junior's plane crashed probably
> because he did not trust his intstruments. What's the likelihood of
> that?
>

Not because he didn't trust, them fjukkwit. he didn't know how to use
them.

And you are not a "newbie" You're an idiot and will always be an idiot.




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Hopefully for an instrument pilot, NEVER, but when you have an
>> instrument go out, it does up the anti in IDENTIFYING the problem and
>> then tossing that instrument out of your scan.
>
> You identify a failing instrument by correlating it with other
> instruments. If you are continuously scanning the instruments, you
> should notice something wrong very quickly, if it's a sudden failure,
> and still in plenty of time, if it's a gradual failure.

So, which one failed, fjukwit?

Which one do you follow?


You have no idea, none at all.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Le Chaud Lapin writes:
>
>> Also, I read somewhere that JFK Junior's plane crashed probably
>> because he did not trust his intstruments. What's the likelihood of
>> that?
>
> Extremely high, for pilots unfamiliar with IFR flight.
>

How would you know, fjukktard?

you don't fly.


pronouncements like this are pointless coming from an idiot such as you.
Even more worthless than the crap you see on the 11:00 news



Bertie


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Lieberman writes:
>
>> Did you forget what system failed? What DG????????????
>
> Does the altimeter require vacuum?


Why, you gonna plug your head into the monitor?


Bertie

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 18, 7:23 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
....
> Also, I read somewhere that JFK Junior's plane crashed probably
> because he did not trust his intstruments. What's the likelihood of
> that?
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

Approaching an airport with limited VFR usually
requires a radio call for barometric altitude reset,
to the airport intended for landing, especially if
flying into a Low pressure, which causes barometer
reading of the altitude to give a false higher altitude.

His altimeter may have been reading 200' when he
was at sea level...that's a big oops.
Ken

[Tina]

JFK was in a spiral from about 5000 feet when he crashed. A 200 foot
error in his altimeter was the least of his problems.

He had more training for in IR than most do when they pass the test.
This was a case of a pilot who, it would seem, was crossing the sound
with an auto pilot engaged. Radar showed a smooth flight until that
point when most would have started down to pattern altitude from 5000
feet. The airplane went from pretty straight and pretty level to
impact in less than 30 seconds.

The NTSB report is vivid and frightening.



On May 19, 10:52 am, "Ken S. Tucker" > wrote:
> On May 18, 7:23 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> ...
>
> > Also, I read somewhere that JFK Junior's plane crashed probably
> > because he did not trust his intstruments. What's the likelihood of
> > that?
> > -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
> Approaching an airport with limited VFR usually
> requires a radio call for barometric altitude reset,
> to the airport intended for landing, especially if
> flying into a Low pressure, which causes barometer
> reading of the altitude to give a false higher altitude.
>
> His altimeter may have been reading 200' when he
> was at sea level...that's a big oops.
> Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:c3925500-014d-
:

> On May 18, 7:23 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> ...
>> Also, I read somewhere that JFK Junior's plane crashed probably
>> because he did not trust his intstruments. What's the likelihood of
>> that?
>> -Le Chaud Lapin-
>
> Approaching an airport with limited VFR usually
> requires a radio call for barometric altitude reset,
> to the airport intended for landing, especially if
> flying into a Low pressure, which causes barometer
> reading of the altitude to give a false higher altitude.
>


Good grief


> His altimeter may have been reading 200' when he
> was at sea level...that's a big oops.


No, a big oops is letting you anywhere near any kind of machine.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Lieberman writes:
>
>> You tell me.
>
> It depends on the aircraft.
>

Nope, wrong again fjukkwit.



Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberman writes:

> You tell me.

It depends on the aircraft.

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 19, 7:58 am, Tina > wrote:
> JFK was in a spiral from about 5000 feet when he crashed. A 200 foot
> error in his altimeter was the least of his problems.
>
> He had more training for in IR than most do when they pass the test.
> This was a case of a pilot who, it would seem, was crossing the sound
> with an auto pilot engaged. Radar showed a smooth flight until that
> point when most would have started down to pattern altitude from 5000
> feet. The airplane went from pretty straight and pretty level to
> impact in less than 30 seconds.
>
> The NTSB report is vivid and frightening.

Thank you Tina, I just reread this,
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001212X19354&ntsbno=NYC99MA178&akey=1
Somewhat applicable to this thread!
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On May 19, 7:58 am, Tina > wrote:
>> JFK was in a spiral from about 5000 feet when he crashed. A 200 foot
>> error in his altimeter was the least of his problems.
>>
>> He had more training for in IR than most do when they pass the test.
>> This was a case of a pilot who, it would seem, was crossing the sound
>> with an auto pilot engaged. Radar showed a smooth flight until that
>> point when most would have started down to pattern altitude from 5000
>> feet. The airplane went from pretty straight and pretty level to
>> impact in less than 30 seconds.
>>
>> The NTSB report is vivid and frightening.
>
> Thank you Tina, I just reread this,



Not that it would mean anything to you.


Bertie
>

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 18, 5:09 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> > On May 18, 4:09 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >>> On May 18, 3:34 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >>>> Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
> >>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>> <...>
> >>>>>> Without getting into a whole magilla concerning right and wrong,
> >>>>>> simply let me say that in my opinion physical sensation should never,
> >>>>>> and I repeat it again so that there's NO mistake....NEVER be used to
> >>>>>> verify or augment an instrument reading. In my opinion, this is what
> >>>>>> proper scan technique is all about. You verify instruments CONSTANTLY
> >>>>>> using other instruments, right on down to primary panel if necessary,
> >>>>>> but in my opinion, the basic concept of ignoring physical cues and
> >>>>>> sensations while on instruments is a sound principle ans should be
> >>>>>> followed to the letter.
> >>>>> <...>
> >>>>> I won't argue with a single word of that.
> >>>>> But...
> >>>>> That doesn't make physical sensations irrelevent or unimportant. In
> >>>>> fact, it is the MISLEADING sensations that are very important in the
> >>>>> sense that, if you don't have significant experience "playing over"
> >>>>> them, one typically ends up dead (in real life). Sitting on your lazy
> >>>>> boy, those sensations don't happen - you always feel "coordinated" - you
> >>>>> don't get disoriented, you don't experience vertigo - which makes flying
> >>>>> in simulated IMC stupid easy compared to real life.
> >>>>> And, I would argue that _no_ _ammount_ of desktop simulation will _ever_
> >>>>> prepare you for the assult on your senses that can happen when things
> >>>>> aren't going well in real life soup.
> >>>>> One may think that one can handle real IMC based on desktop experience -
> >>>>> but without realizing just how difficult it is to ignore your inner ear
> >>>>> screaming lies at you, one doesn't really have any idea what flying real
> >>>>> IMC is like - I would bet that an experienced "sim only" pilot would
> >>>>> pull the wings off in less than 3 minutes in real life.
> >>>> I believe you and I are in complete agreement. Perhaps something being
> >>>> misread.
> >>>> The understanding of sensations and how they interact with the IFR
> >>>> experience is of paramount importance. In fact, a lack of this
> >>>> understanding can get you killed quicker than anything else I can think
> >>>> of at the moment.
> >>>> Where I was referring to the sensations issue was directly concerned
> >>>> with one pilot who commented that verifying an instrument reading with a
> >>>> physical sensation was important. My point was that instrument
> >>>> verification should be done against other instruments with the EXCLUSION
> >>>> of physical sensation from that equation.
> >>> When I was a kid, I was spun to dizzy, and
> >>> then staggered when I tried to walk. IIRC it
> >>> took a concentrated focus on some point to
> >>> sustain balance, which is me in VFR, but that
> >>> doesn't work in a fog.
> >>> Another thing I noticed is flying VFR with a lot
> >>> of turbulence, (especially with towering cumulus)
> >>> screwed my inner ear.
> >>> (That is my weakness).
> >>> I was very lucky that after just a couple of hours,
> >>> my flight instructor got me going on IFR.
> >>> He knew I had a basic handle on geometry and
> >>> algebra so he was the type to promote the advance
> >>> early on in instruction.
> >>> Ken
> >> I tend to keep things on the basic level with students. It helps to hide
> >> my shortcomings :-)
>
> > After a few hours, my instructor had me doing shallow
> > (30's), medium (45's) and steep (60's) turns and would
> > critcize me because I focused on the VFR horizon and
> > he'd smirk and point to the Indescent Indicator showing
> > a 50'/per minute loss, and the IAS loss of energy and
> > my off-center-ball, so my turn performance was gauged
> > by instruments.
> > Obviously, I should have pulled a bit more elevator,
> > put on some RPM, and applied more rudder, so that's
> > what I did via instruments, and that's in a well done
> > bank at 60 degs even when VFR is available.
> > Ken
>
> I'm the reverse ytpe of instructor. Initially I like students to get
> their heads outside the airplane and discover nose attitudes (LF;Climb;
> glides) THEN after they have a good understanding of these nose
> attitudes I get them to cross check these attitudes with the panel.
> Different strokes for different folks :)
> Dudley Henriques

I was a Professional teacher for awhile, and so
understand the attitude. I was very lucky to get
an Flight Instructor that was A+, never made a
mistake. He had me doing what you say, using
horizon, but then gauged the accuracy of turns
based on instruments, I thought that was fair,
then pointed out my weaknesses when I was
using pure VFR, such as uncentered ball as I
entered the bank going from level wings to 30,
45,60 bank.
It was the change in bank that I had to work on.

We did about 5 hours of night flying together,
he didn't say much by that time, except the odd
ancedote. It was very pleasant.
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On May 18, 5:09 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> > On May 18, 4:09 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> >>> On May 18, 3:34 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> >>>> Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
>> >>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>>>> <...>
>> >>>>>> Without getting into a whole magilla concerning right and
>> >>>>>> wrong, simply let me say that in my opinion physical sensation
>> >>>>>> should never, and I repeat it again so that there's NO
>> >>>>>> mistake....NEVER be used to verify or augment an instrument
>> >>>>>> reading. In my opinion, this is what proper scan technique is
>> >>>>>> all about. You verify instruments CONSTANTLY using other
>> >>>>>> instruments, right on down to primary panel if necessary,
>> >>>>>> but in my opinion, the basic concept of ignoring physical cues
>> >>>>>> and sensations while on instruments is a sound principle ans
>> >>>>>> should be followed to the letter.
>> >>>>> <...>
>> >>>>> I won't argue with a single word of that.
>> >>>>> But...
>> >>>>> That doesn't make physical sensations irrelevent or
>> >>>>> unimportant. In fact, it is the MISLEADING sensations that are
>> >>>>> very important in the sense that, if you don't have significant
>> >>>>> experience "playing over" them, one typically ends up dead (in
>> >>>>> real life). Sitting on your lazy boy, those sensations don't
>> >>>>> happen - you always feel "coordinated" - you don't get
>> >>>>> disoriented, you don't experience vertigo - which makes flying
>> >>>>> in simulated IMC stupid easy compared to real life.
>> >>>>> And, I would argue that _no_ _ammount_ of desktop simulation
>> >>>>> will _ever_ prepare you for the assult on your senses that can
>> >>>>> happen when things aren't going well in real life soup.
>> >>>>> One may think that one can handle real IMC based on desktop
>> >>>>> experience - but without realizing just how difficult it is to
>> >>>>> ignore your inner ear screaming lies at you, one doesn't really
>> >>>>> have any idea what flying real IMC is like - I would bet that
>> >>>>> an experienced "sim only" pilot would pull the wings off in
>> >>>>> less than 3 minutes in real life.
>> >>>> I believe you and I are in complete agreement. Perhaps something
>> >>>> being misread.
>> >>>> The understanding of sensations and how they interact with the
>> >>>> IFR experience is of paramount importance. In fact, a lack of
>> >>>> this understanding can get you killed quicker than anything else
>> >>>> I can think of at the moment.
>> >>>> Where I was referring to the sensations issue was directly
>> >>>> concerned with one pilot who commented that verifying an
>> >>>> instrument reading with a physical sensation was important. My
>> >>>> point was that instrument verification should be done against
>> >>>> other instruments with the EXCLUSION of physical sensation from
>> >>>> that equation.
>> >>> When I was a kid, I was spun to dizzy, and
>> >>> then staggered when I tried to walk. IIRC it
>> >>> took a concentrated focus on some point to
>> >>> sustain balance, which is me in VFR, but that
>> >>> doesn't work in a fog.
>> >>> Another thing I noticed is flying VFR with a lot
>> >>> of turbulence, (especially with towering cumulus)
>> >>> screwed my inner ear.
>> >>> (That is my weakness).
>> >>> I was very lucky that after just a couple of hours,
>> >>> my flight instructor got me going on IFR.
>> >>> He knew I had a basic handle on geometry and
>> >>> algebra so he was the type to promote the advance
>> >>> early on in instruction.
>> >>> Ken
>> >> I tend to keep things on the basic level with students. It helps
>> >> to hide my shortcomings :-)
>>
>> > After a few hours, my instructor had me doing shallow
>> > (30's), medium (45's) and steep (60's) turns and would
>> > critcize me because I focused on the VFR horizon and
>> > he'd smirk and point to the Indescent Indicator showing
>> > a 50'/per minute loss, and the IAS loss of energy and
>> > my off-center-ball, so my turn performance was gauged
>> > by instruments.
>> > Obviously, I should have pulled a bit more elevator,
>> > put on some RPM, and applied more rudder, so that's
>> > what I did via instruments, and that's in a well done
>> > bank at 60 degs even when VFR is available.
>> > Ken
>>
>> I'm the reverse ytpe of instructor. Initially I like students to get
>> their heads outside the airplane and discover nose attitudes
>> (LF;Climb; glides) THEN after they have a good understanding of these
>> nose attitudes I get them to cross check these attitudes with the
>> panel. Different strokes for different folks :)
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I was a Professional teacher for awhile, and so
> understand the attitude.



Bwawhawhhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwha!

>
> We did about 5 hours of night flying together,
> he didn't say much by that time, except the odd
> ancedote.


"oh ****, watch what you are doing!" is not an anectdote, fjukkwit.
Oh wait, maybe it;s a "ancedote"



It was very pleasant.
> Ken
>

[Kirk Ellis[_2_]]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 23:02:24 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>I've always believed that Kennedy fell victim to a false horizon by
>somehow starting a turn on a false visual reference then allowing his
>nose to get away from him in the haze due to his inexperience causing
>him not to realize he needed to transition immediately to instruments.
>In this condition and with the nose lowering and the airspeed rising,
>Kennedy desperately needed to realize he needed to level the wings and
>kill the bank as the lead in to recovering the nose in pitch.
>This is the classic graveyard spiral. Not solving for bank and trying to
>solve for pitch simply deepened the issue. I'm fairly convinced that by
>this time the nose was so low and the spiral tightening so fast he
>became fixated on the grayness in front of him that he thought was gray
>sky but was in fact gray water.
>The rest is history.
>Just my read on one potential cause for that accident.

It may be plausible to assume that if John's aircraft had been
equipped with a G1000, he and his passengers might still be with us.
It's only speculation but seems feasible.

[Al G[_1_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Hi folks;
> Please bear with me on this post. I've just spent the entire day thinking
> about some things and have a few what I hope will be accepted as friendly
> thoughts to share.


Best post in awhile snipped for brevity


> Who knows; I'll be giving it a shot anyway.
>
> My best to everybody here; friends, old enemies, and yes, Mxsmanic too.
> --
> Dudley Henriques



You get a big AMEN form the choir.

Al G

[gatt[_3_]]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

> First of all, I've been reading a thread here where pilots are dealing
> with Mxsmanic on the issue of physical sensation vs instruments in an
> IFR environment, specifically when certain instrument failures are
> either involved or suspected. Without getting into a whole magilla concerning right and wrong, simply
> let me say that in my opinion physical sensation should never, and I
> repeat it again so that there's NO mistake....NEVER be used to verify or
> augment an instrument reading.


Dudley, I trust with absolute confidence that I'll learn from this
discussion from you so I'll refer to what I mentioned earlier in terms
of ignoring physical sensations in IMC and see what you think?

1) The chart leaves the dash panel and I'm floating against the harness
but the panel shows nothing. Do I ignore the floating sensation and the
visual clue?

2) My altimeter says 12,000 and MSA is 3500 but ahead of me I see
terrain, I'm sure we agree that it's a "sensation" I shouldn't ignore.

3) The airplane begins to buffet or I hear the engine sound change
dramatically but the VSI and airspeed indicator show no change....


We must be talking about different meanings of "physical sensation" but
in my statements about "feel" I was referring to both sensory inputs and
the sensation of being compressed or pulled from the seat. (As opposed
to coriolis illusion.)

How should an instructor interlace what you're saying with the examples
above? I'm of the opinion that if my senses indicate a problem, at the
very least I'll say "Wait...what?" and check the instrument panel. If
the AI shows straight and level I'll check the altimeter, airspeed
indicator, DG, compass etc depending on the inputs, and at the very
least I'll be able to go "Wow. THAT'S what the leans feels like."

Cheers!


-c

[Daedalus]

On Mon, 19 May 2008 17:10:55 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:
>
>> On May 18, 5:09 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>> > On May 18, 4:09 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>> >>> On May 18, 3:34 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> >>>> Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
>>> >>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >>>>> <...>
>>> >>>>>> Without getting into a whole magilla concerning right and
>>> >>>>>> wrong, simply let me say that in my opinion physical sensation
>>> >>>>>> should never, and I repeat it again so that there's NO
>>> >>>>>> mistake....NEVER be used to verify or augment an instrument
>>> >>>>>> reading. In my opinion, this is what proper scan technique is
>>> >>>>>> all about. You verify instruments CONSTANTLY using other
>>> >>>>>> instruments, right on down to primary panel if necessary,
>>> >>>>>> but in my opinion, the basic concept of ignoring physical cues
>>> >>>>>> and sensations while on instruments is a sound principle ans
>>> >>>>>> should be followed to the letter.
>>> >>>>> <...>
>>> >>>>> I won't argue with a single word of that.
>>> >>>>> But...
>>> >>>>> That doesn't make physical sensations irrelevent or
>>> >>>>> unimportant. In fact, it is the MISLEADING sensations that are
>>> >>>>> very important in the sense that, if you don't have significant
>>> >>>>> experience "playing over" them, one typically ends up dead (in
>>> >>>>> real life). Sitting on your lazy boy, those sensations don't
>>> >>>>> happen - you always feel "coordinated" - you don't get
>>> >>>>> disoriented, you don't experience vertigo - which makes flying
>>> >>>>> in simulated IMC stupid easy compared to real life.
>>> >>>>> And, I would argue that _no_ _ammount_ of desktop simulation
>>> >>>>> will _ever_ prepare you for the assult on your senses that can
>>> >>>>> happen when things aren't going well in real life soup.
>>> >>>>> One may think that one can handle real IMC based on desktop
>>> >>>>> experience - but without realizing just how difficult it is to
>>> >>>>> ignore your inner ear screaming lies at you, one doesn't really
>>> >>>>> have any idea what flying real IMC is like - I would bet that
>>> >>>>> an experienced "sim only" pilot would pull the wings off in
>>> >>>>> less than 3 minutes in real life.
>>> >>>> I believe you and I are in complete agreement. Perhaps something
>>> >>>> being misread.
>>> >>>> The understanding of sensations and how they interact with the
>>> >>>> IFR experience is of paramount importance. In fact, a lack of
>>> >>>> this understanding can get you killed quicker than anything else
>>> >>>> I can think of at the moment.
>>> >>>> Where I was referring to the sensations issue was directly
>>> >>>> concerned with one pilot who commented that verifying an
>>> >>>> instrument reading with a physical sensation was important. My
>>> >>>> point was that instrument verification should be done against
>>> >>>> other instruments with the EXCLUSION of physical sensation from
>>> >>>> that equation.
>>> >>> When I was a kid, I was spun to dizzy, and
>>> >>> then staggered when I tried to walk. IIRC it
>>> >>> took a concentrated focus on some point to
>>> >>> sustain balance, which is me in VFR, but that
>>> >>> doesn't work in a fog.
>>> >>> Another thing I noticed is flying VFR with a lot
>>> >>> of turbulence, (especially with towering cumulus)
>>> >>> screwed my inner ear.
>>> >>> (That is my weakness).
>>> >>> I was very lucky that after just a couple of hours,
>>> >>> my flight instructor got me going on IFR.
>>> >>> He knew I had a basic handle on geometry and
>>> >>> algebra so he was the type to promote the advance
>>> >>> early on in instruction.
>>> >>> Ken
>>> >> I tend to keep things on the basic level with students. It helps
>>> >> to hide my shortcomings :-)
>>>
>>> > After a few hours, my instructor had me doing shallow
>>> > (30's), medium (45's) and steep (60's) turns and would
>>> > critcize me because I focused on the VFR horizon and
>>> > he'd smirk and point to the Indescent Indicator showing
>>> > a 50'/per minute loss, and the IAS loss of energy and
>>> > my off-center-ball, so my turn performance was gauged
>>> > by instruments.
>>> > Obviously, I should have pulled a bit more elevator,
>>> > put on some RPM, and applied more rudder, so that's
>>> > what I did via instruments, and that's in a well done
>>> > bank at 60 degs even when VFR is available.
>>> > Ken
>>>
>>> I'm the reverse ytpe of instructor. Initially I like students to get
>>> their heads outside the airplane and discover nose attitudes
>>> (LF;Climb; glides) THEN after they have a good understanding of these
>>> nose attitudes I get them to cross check these attitudes with the
>>> panel. Different strokes for different folks :)
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> I was a Professional teacher for awhile, and so
>> understand the attitude.
>
>
>
>Bwawhawhhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwha!
>
>>
>> We did about 5 hours of night flying together,
>> he didn't say much by that time, except the odd
>> ancedote.
>
>
>"oh ****, watch what you are doing!" is not an anectdote, fjukkwit.
>Oh wait, maybe it;s a "ancedote"
>

Maybe it's an antidote!

Jade

>
>
> It was very pleasant.
>> Ken
>>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Daedalus > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 19 May 2008 17:10:55 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>>news:f41822f7-8b58-4810-bf30-97634fd4dec3
@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On May 18, 5:09 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>> > On May 18, 4:09 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>> >>> On May 18, 3:34 pm, Dudley Henriques >
wrote:
>>>> >>>> Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
>>>> >>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> >>>>> <...>
>>>> >>>>>> Without getting into a whole magilla concerning right and
>>>> >>>>>> wrong, simply let me say that in my opinion physical
sensation
>>>> >>>>>> should never, and I repeat it again so that there's NO
>>>> >>>>>> mistake....NEVER be used to verify or augment an instrument
>>>> >>>>>> reading. In my opinion, this is what proper scan technique
is
>>>> >>>>>> all about. You verify instruments CONSTANTLY using other
>>>> >>>>>> instruments, right on down to primary panel if necessary,
>>>> >>>>>> but in my opinion, the basic concept of ignoring physical
cues
>>>> >>>>>> and sensations while on instruments is a sound principle ans
>>>> >>>>>> should be followed to the letter.
>>>> >>>>> <...>
>>>> >>>>> I won't argue with a single word of that.
>>>> >>>>> But...
>>>> >>>>> That doesn't make physical sensations irrelevent or
>>>> >>>>> unimportant. In fact, it is the MISLEADING sensations that
are
>>>> >>>>> very important in the sense that, if you don't have
significant
>>>> >>>>> experience "playing over" them, one typically ends up dead
(in
>>>> >>>>> real life). Sitting on your lazy boy, those sensations don't
>>>> >>>>> happen - you always feel "coordinated" - you don't get
>>>> >>>>> disoriented, you don't experience vertigo - which makes
flying
>>>> >>>>> in simulated IMC stupid easy compared to real life.
>>>> >>>>> And, I would argue that _no_ _ammount_ of desktop simulation
>>>> >>>>> will _ever_ prepare you for the assult on your senses that
can
>>>> >>>>> happen when things aren't going well in real life soup.
>>>> >>>>> One may think that one can handle real IMC based on desktop
>>>> >>>>> experience - but without realizing just how difficult it is
to
>>>> >>>>> ignore your inner ear screaming lies at you, one doesn't
really
>>>> >>>>> have any idea what flying real IMC is like - I would bet that
>>>> >>>>> an experienced "sim only" pilot would pull the wings off in
>>>> >>>>> less than 3 minutes in real life.
>>>> >>>> I believe you and I are in complete agreement. Perhaps
something
>>>> >>>> being misread.
>>>> >>>> The understanding of sensations and how they interact with the
>>>> >>>> IFR experience is of paramount importance. In fact, a lack of
>>>> >>>> this understanding can get you killed quicker than anything
else
>>>> >>>> I can think of at the moment.
>>>> >>>> Where I was referring to the sensations issue was directly
>>>> >>>> concerned with one pilot who commented that verifying an
>>>> >>>> instrument reading with a physical sensation was important. My
>>>> >>>> point was that instrument verification should be done against
>>>> >>>> other instruments with the EXCLUSION of physical sensation
from
>>>> >>>> that equation.
>>>> >>> When I was a kid, I was spun to dizzy, and
>>>> >>> then staggered when I tried to walk. IIRC it
>>>> >>> took a concentrated focus on some point to
>>>> >>> sustain balance, which is me in VFR, but that
>>>> >>> doesn't work in a fog.
>>>> >>> Another thing I noticed is flying VFR with a lot
>>>> >>> of turbulence, (especially with towering cumulus)
>>>> >>> screwed my inner ear.
>>>> >>> (That is my weakness).
>>>> >>> I was very lucky that after just a couple of hours,
>>>> >>> my flight instructor got me going on IFR.
>>>> >>> He knew I had a basic handle on geometry and
>>>> >>> algebra so he was the type to promote the advance
>>>> >>> early on in instruction.
>>>> >>> Ken
>>>> >> I tend to keep things on the basic level with students. It helps
>>>> >> to hide my shortcomings :-)
>>>>
>>>> > After a few hours, my instructor had me doing shallow
>>>> > (30's), medium (45's) and steep (60's) turns and would
>>>> > critcize me because I focused on the VFR horizon and
>>>> > he'd smirk and point to the Indescent Indicator showing
>>>> > a 50'/per minute loss, and the IAS loss of energy and
>>>> > my off-center-ball, so my turn performance was gauged
>>>> > by instruments.
>>>> > Obviously, I should have pulled a bit more elevator,
>>>> > put on some RPM, and applied more rudder, so that's
>>>> > what I did via instruments, and that's in a well done
>>>> > bank at 60 degs even when VFR is available.
>>>> > Ken
>>>>
>>>> I'm the reverse ytpe of instructor. Initially I like students to
get
>>>> their heads outside the airplane and discover nose attitudes
>>>> (LF;Climb; glides) THEN after they have a good understanding of
these
>>>> nose attitudes I get them to cross check these attitudes with the
>>>> panel. Different strokes for different folks :)
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>
>>> I was a Professional teacher for awhile, and so
>>> understand the attitude.
>>
>>
>>
>>Bwawhawhhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwha!
>>
>>>
>>> We did about 5 hours of night flying together,
>>> he didn't say much by that time, except the odd
>>> ancedote.
>>
>>
>>"oh ****, watch what you are doing!" is not an anectdote, fjukkwit.
>>Oh wait, maybe it;s a "ancedote"
>>
>
> Maybe it's an antidote!
>
> Jade

Maybe it was an antecedant.

BTW, you wanna watch Larry, he has your number.

Bertie
>

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

gatt wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> First of all, I've been reading a thread here where pilots are dealing
>> with Mxsmanic on the issue of physical sensation vs instruments in an
>> IFR environment, specifically when certain instrument failures are
>> either involved or suspected. Without getting into a whole magilla
>> concerning right and wrong, simply let me say that in my opinion
>> physical sensation should never, and I repeat it again so that there's
>> NO mistake....NEVER be used to verify or augment an instrument reading.
>
>
> Dudley, I trust with absolute confidence that I'll learn from this
> discussion from you so I'll refer to what I mentioned earlier in terms
> of ignoring physical sensations in IMC and see what you think?
>
> 1) The chart leaves the dash panel and I'm floating against the harness
> but the panel shows nothing. Do I ignore the floating sensation and the
> visual clue?
>
> 2) My altimeter says 12,000 and MSA is 3500 but ahead of me I see
> terrain, I'm sure we agree that it's a "sensation" I shouldn't ignore.
>
> 3) The airplane begins to buffet or I hear the engine sound change
> dramatically but the VSI and airspeed indicator show no change....
>
>
> We must be talking about different meanings of "physical sensation" but
> in my statements about "feel" I was referring to both sensory inputs and
> the sensation of being compressed or pulled from the seat. (As opposed
> to coriolis illusion.)
>
> How should an instructor interlace what you're saying with the examples
> above? I'm of the opinion that if my senses indicate a problem, at the
> very least I'll say "Wait...what?" and check the instrument panel. If
> the AI shows straight and level I'll check the altimeter, airspeed
> indicator, DG, compass etc depending on the inputs, and at the very
> least I'll be able to go "Wow. THAT'S what the leans feels like."
>
> Cheers!
>
>
> -c
>
The answer to your specific questions lies in the pilot having a firm
foundational basics background that has developed in THAT specific pilot
into his/her instrument scan technique. There really is no "if this
happens" I do this" when it comes to instrument flying. Each pilot has a
slightly different personal style that makes up their individual
scanning technique. Any specific question regarding what to check and in
what order when this or that happens is so filled with variables that
what would be the right answer one nano second as a scan is taking place
would not necessarily be the right answer the next nano second.
The bottom line is that all instrument flying is fluid as it relates to
the scan. Nothing is static and the scan is in motion all the time.

Your first question says it all really.
If a chart floated up off the glare shield while you were on the clocks
and the panel was telling you nothing, my answer would be that either
the pilot, the airplane, or both shouldn't be IFR at all :-)
I've never been in a situation where the panel was telling me absolutely
nothing.
I think what might be confusing some people reading this thread is that
even though the pilot should always be avoiding physical sensation as a
cue to perform an action while on instruments, Normal scan technique
involves the constant presence of physical sensations. This means tht
you are literally cross checking physical sensation constantly against
what the instruments are telling you. The trick to staying alive is in
being aware of these physical sensations but accepting without question
what the clocks are telling you.

In the case of a chart floating off the glare shield, your normal scan
would be to accept the visual cue that something needed to immediately
be cross checked BEYOND and DEEPER INTO the panel than your normal scan.
The answer is to widen the scan immediately to include a raw data cross
check to verify potential instrument failure if your normal scan was
indicating all ok. Obviously all isn't ok with a chart floating off the
glare shield.

Basically what you have here is a judgment call on how deeply you allow
a cue conflicting with what your instruments are telling you to progress
before you expand your scan.
What I'm pushing in this thread is that you make these calls
automatically while IFR at any instant ANY cue conflicts with your basic
scan, but you NEVER....EVER....accept a physical cue or sensation and
ACT on that cue while on instruments. When every once of common sense,
physical sensation, charts floating, and g's pressing on your body tell
you you need to push, and your gyro panel is suspect, go immediately to
primary panel to verify.
If both the gyro panel AND the primary panel tell you nothing, you've
got SERIOUS problems :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Daedalus]

On Mon, 19 May 2008 18:52:05 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Daedalus > wrote in
:
>
>> On Mon, 19 May 2008 17:10:55 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>>>news:f41822f7-8b58-4810-bf30-97634fd4dec3
:
>>>
>>>> On May 18, 5:09 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>> > On May 18, 4:09 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>> >>> On May 18, 3:34 pm, Dudley Henriques >
>wrote:
>>>>> >>>> Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
>>>>> >>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>> >>>>> <...>
>>>>> >>>>>> Without getting into a whole magilla concerning right and
>>>>> >>>>>> wrong, simply let me say that in my opinion physical
>sensation
>>>>> >>>>>> should never, and I repeat it again so that there's NO
>>>>> >>>>>> mistake....NEVER be used to verify or augment an instrument
>>>>> >>>>>> reading. In my opinion, this is what proper scan technique
>is
>>>>> >>>>>> all about. You verify instruments CONSTANTLY using other
>>>>> >>>>>> instruments, right on down to primary panel if necessary,
>>>>> >>>>>> but in my opinion, the basic concept of ignoring physical
>cues
>>>>> >>>>>> and sensations while on instruments is a sound principle ans
>>>>> >>>>>> should be followed to the letter.
>>>>> >>>>> <...>
>>>>> >>>>> I won't argue with a single word of that.
>>>>> >>>>> But...
>>>>> >>>>> That doesn't make physical sensations irrelevent or
>>>>> >>>>> unimportant. In fact, it is the MISLEADING sensations that
>are
>>>>> >>>>> very important in the sense that, if you don't have
>significant
>>>>> >>>>> experience "playing over" them, one typically ends up dead
>(in
>>>>> >>>>> real life). Sitting on your lazy boy, those sensations don't
>>>>> >>>>> happen - you always feel "coordinated" - you don't get
>>>>> >>>>> disoriented, you don't experience vertigo - which makes
>flying
>>>>> >>>>> in simulated IMC stupid easy compared to real life.
>>>>> >>>>> And, I would argue that _no_ _ammount_ of desktop simulation
>>>>> >>>>> will _ever_ prepare you for the assult on your senses that
>can
>>>>> >>>>> happen when things aren't going well in real life soup.
>>>>> >>>>> One may think that one can handle real IMC based on desktop
>>>>> >>>>> experience - but without realizing just how difficult it is
>to
>>>>> >>>>> ignore your inner ear screaming lies at you, one doesn't
>really
>>>>> >>>>> have any idea what flying real IMC is like - I would bet that
>>>>> >>>>> an experienced "sim only" pilot would pull the wings off in
>>>>> >>>>> less than 3 minutes in real life.
>>>>> >>>> I believe you and I are in complete agreement. Perhaps
>something
>>>>> >>>> being misread.
>>>>> >>>> The understanding of sensations and how they interact with the
>>>>> >>>> IFR experience is of paramount importance. In fact, a lack of
>>>>> >>>> this understanding can get you killed quicker than anything
>else
>>>>> >>>> I can think of at the moment.
>>>>> >>>> Where I was referring to the sensations issue was directly
>>>>> >>>> concerned with one pilot who commented that verifying an
>>>>> >>>> instrument reading with a physical sensation was important. My
>>>>> >>>> point was that instrument verification should be done against
>>>>> >>>> other instruments with the EXCLUSION of physical sensation
>from
>>>>> >>>> that equation.
>>>>> >>> When I was a kid, I was spun to dizzy, and
>>>>> >>> then staggered when I tried to walk. IIRC it
>>>>> >>> took a concentrated focus on some point to
>>>>> >>> sustain balance, which is me in VFR, but that
>>>>> >>> doesn't work in a fog.
>>>>> >>> Another thing I noticed is flying VFR with a lot
>>>>> >>> of turbulence, (especially with towering cumulus)
>>>>> >>> screwed my inner ear.
>>>>> >>> (That is my weakness).
>>>>> >>> I was very lucky that after just a couple of hours,
>>>>> >>> my flight instructor got me going on IFR.
>>>>> >>> He knew I had a basic handle on geometry and
>>>>> >>> algebra so he was the type to promote the advance
>>>>> >>> early on in instruction.
>>>>> >>> Ken
>>>>> >> I tend to keep things on the basic level with students. It helps
>>>>> >> to hide my shortcomings :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> > After a few hours, my instructor had me doing shallow
>>>>> > (30's), medium (45's) and steep (60's) turns and would
>>>>> > critcize me because I focused on the VFR horizon and
>>>>> > he'd smirk and point to the Indescent Indicator showing
>>>>> > a 50'/per minute loss, and the IAS loss of energy and
>>>>> > my off-center-ball, so my turn performance was gauged
>>>>> > by instruments.
>>>>> > Obviously, I should have pulled a bit more elevator,
>>>>> > put on some RPM, and applied more rudder, so that's
>>>>> > what I did via instruments, and that's in a well done
>>>>> > bank at 60 degs even when VFR is available.
>>>>> > Ken
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm the reverse ytpe of instructor. Initially I like students to
>get
>>>>> their heads outside the airplane and discover nose attitudes
>>>>> (LF;Climb; glides) THEN after they have a good understanding of
>these
>>>>> nose attitudes I get them to cross check these attitudes with the
>>>>> panel. Different strokes for different folks :)
>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>
>>>> I was a Professional teacher for awhile, and so
>>>> understand the attitude.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Bwawhawhhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwha!
>>>
>>>>
>>>> We did about 5 hours of night flying together,
>>>> he didn't say much by that time, except the odd
>>>> ancedote.
>>>
>>>
>>>"oh ****, watch what you are doing!" is not an anectdote, fjukkwit.
>>>Oh wait, maybe it;s a "ancedote"
>>>
>>
>> Maybe it's an antidote!
>>
>> Jade
>
>Maybe it was an antecedant.
>
>BTW, you wanna watch Larry, he has your number.
>
>Bertie

Is that who keeps calling and breathing heavily?

THXS!

Jade

[Gezellig]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 19:45:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>> Also, I read somewhere that JFK Junior's plane crashed probably
>> because he did not trust his intstruments. *What's the likelihood of
>> that?
>
> Hopefully for an instrument pilot, NEVER, but when you have an
> instrument go out, it does up the anti in IDENTIFYING the problem and
> then tossing that instrument out of your scan.
>
> In my case, the change was pretty dramatic as it happened after
> departing and in my climb in my departure as I was entering IMC.
> Everything was absolutely normal on my first 1000 feet of climb and
> nothing had changed on what I felt in the seat of my pants when I saw
> the AI start showing a pitch up just about 100 feet inside IMC. Had I
> really pitched up that much, I would have felt it. The lack of
> feeling it immediately made me look at my VSI and it was rock solid
> 700 fpm climb, no change from below the cloud deck. Next instrument I
> looked at was my airspeed and that was 90 knots, so secondary
> instruments confirmed a normal climb and further confirmed my lack of
> feeling in my butt indicated the AI was ghosting up on me.
>
> I believe it's not normal to get such a dramatic change like I did,
> but then again, as I am still finding out, it may not be the vacuum
> pump, but the vacuum pump regulator that went out on me in my plane.
> Will find out tomorrow morning when I talk with the A&P.

Ask him/her what instruments show the greatest failure levels.
Pitot-based?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Daedalus > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 19 May 2008 18:52:05 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>Daedalus > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Mon, 19 May 2008 17:10:55 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>>>>news:f41822f7-8b58-4810-bf30-97634fd4dec3
:
>>>>
>>>>> On May 18, 5:09 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>> > On May 18, 4:09 pm, Dudley Henriques >
wrote:
>>>>>> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>>> >>> On May 18, 3:34 pm, Dudley Henriques >
>>wrote:
>>>>>> >>>> Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> >>>>> <...>
>>>>>> >>>>>> Without getting into a whole magilla concerning right and
>>>>>> >>>>>> wrong, simply let me say that in my opinion physical
>>sensation
>>>>>> >>>>>> should never, and I repeat it again so that there's NO
>>>>>> >>>>>> mistake....NEVER be used to verify or augment an
instrument
>>>>>> >>>>>> reading. In my opinion, this is what proper scan technique
>>is
>>>>>> >>>>>> all about. You verify instruments CONSTANTLY using other
>>>>>> >>>>>> instruments, right on down to primary panel if necessary,
>>>>>> >>>>>> but in my opinion, the basic concept of ignoring physical
>>cues
>>>>>> >>>>>> and sensations while on instruments is a sound principle
ans
>>>>>> >>>>>> should be followed to the letter.
>>>>>> >>>>> <...>
>>>>>> >>>>> I won't argue with a single word of that.
>>>>>> >>>>> But...
>>>>>> >>>>> That doesn't make physical sensations irrelevent or
>>>>>> >>>>> unimportant. In fact, it is the MISLEADING sensations that
>>are
>>>>>> >>>>> very important in the sense that, if you don't have
>>significant
>>>>>> >>>>> experience "playing over" them, one typically ends up dead
>>(in
>>>>>> >>>>> real life). Sitting on your lazy boy, those sensations
don't
>>>>>> >>>>> happen - you always feel "coordinated" - you don't get
>>>>>> >>>>> disoriented, you don't experience vertigo - which makes
>>flying
>>>>>> >>>>> in simulated IMC stupid easy compared to real life.
>>>>>> >>>>> And, I would argue that _no_ _ammount_ of desktop
simulation
>>>>>> >>>>> will _ever_ prepare you for the assult on your senses that
>>can
>>>>>> >>>>> happen when things aren't going well in real life soup.
>>>>>> >>>>> One may think that one can handle real IMC based on desktop
>>>>>> >>>>> experience - but without realizing just how difficult it is
>>to
>>>>>> >>>>> ignore your inner ear screaming lies at you, one doesn't
>>really
>>>>>> >>>>> have any idea what flying real IMC is like - I would bet
that
>>>>>> >>>>> an experienced "sim only" pilot would pull the wings off
in
>>>>>> >>>>> less than 3 minutes in real life.
>>>>>> >>>> I believe you and I are in complete agreement. Perhaps
>>something
>>>>>> >>>> being misread.
>>>>>> >>>> The understanding of sensations and how they interact with
the
>>>>>> >>>> IFR experience is of paramount importance. In fact, a lack
of
>>>>>> >>>> this understanding can get you killed quicker than anything
>>else
>>>>>> >>>> I can think of at the moment.
>>>>>> >>>> Where I was referring to the sensations issue was directly
>>>>>> >>>> concerned with one pilot who commented that verifying an
>>>>>> >>>> instrument reading with a physical sensation was important.
My
>>>>>> >>>> point was that instrument verification should be done
against
>>>>>> >>>> other instruments with the EXCLUSION of physical sensation
>>from
>>>>>> >>>> that equation.
>>>>>> >>> When I was a kid, I was spun to dizzy, and
>>>>>> >>> then staggered when I tried to walk. IIRC it
>>>>>> >>> took a concentrated focus on some point to
>>>>>> >>> sustain balance, which is me in VFR, but that
>>>>>> >>> doesn't work in a fog.
>>>>>> >>> Another thing I noticed is flying VFR with a lot
>>>>>> >>> of turbulence, (especially with towering cumulus)
>>>>>> >>> screwed my inner ear.
>>>>>> >>> (That is my weakness).
>>>>>> >>> I was very lucky that after just a couple of hours,
>>>>>> >>> my flight instructor got me going on IFR.
>>>>>> >>> He knew I had a basic handle on geometry and
>>>>>> >>> algebra so he was the type to promote the advance
>>>>>> >>> early on in instruction.
>>>>>> >>> Ken
>>>>>> >> I tend to keep things on the basic level with students. It
helps
>>>>>> >> to hide my shortcomings :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > After a few hours, my instructor had me doing shallow
>>>>>> > (30's), medium (45's) and steep (60's) turns and would
>>>>>> > critcize me because I focused on the VFR horizon and
>>>>>> > he'd smirk and point to the Indescent Indicator showing
>>>>>> > a 50'/per minute loss, and the IAS loss of energy and
>>>>>> > my off-center-ball, so my turn performance was gauged
>>>>>> > by instruments.
>>>>>> > Obviously, I should have pulled a bit more elevator,
>>>>>> > put on some RPM, and applied more rudder, so that's
>>>>>> > what I did via instruments, and that's in a well done
>>>>>> > bank at 60 degs even when VFR is available.
>>>>>> > Ken
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm the reverse ytpe of instructor. Initially I like students to
>>get
>>>>>> their heads outside the airplane and discover nose attitudes
>>>>>> (LF;Climb; glides) THEN after they have a good understanding of
>>these
>>>>>> nose attitudes I get them to cross check these attitudes with the
>>>>>> panel. Different strokes for different folks :)
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>
>>>>> I was a Professional teacher for awhile, and so
>>>>> understand the attitude.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Bwawhawhhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwha!
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We did about 5 hours of night flying together,
>>>>> he didn't say much by that time, except the odd
>>>>> ancedote.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"oh ****, watch what you are doing!" is not an anectdote, fjukkwit.
>>>>Oh wait, maybe it;s a "ancedote"
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe it's an antidote!
>>>
>>> Jade
>>
>>Maybe it was an antecedant.
>>
>>BTW, you wanna watch Larry, he has your number.
>>
>>Bertie
>
> Is that who keeps calling and breathing heavily?
>
> THXS!
>
He mayb be crude, but he's cheaper than those 1-900 numbers.

Bertie

[Gezellig]

On Mon, 19 May 2008 16:33:33 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>> On May 19, 7:58 am, Tina > wrote:
>>> JFK was in a spiral from about 5000 feet when he crashed. A 200 foot
>>> error in his altimeter was the least of his problems.
>>>
>>> He had more training for in IR than most do when they pass the test.
>>> This was a case of a pilot who, it would seem, was crossing the sound
>>> with an auto pilot engaged. Radar showed a smooth flight until that
>>> point when most would have started down to pattern altitude from 5000
>>> feet. The airplane went from pretty straight and pretty level to
>>> impact in less than 30 seconds.
>>>
>>> The NTSB report is vivid and frightening.
>>
>> Thank you Tina, I just reread this,
>
> Not that it would mean anything to you.
>
> Bertie

Hey, Bertie, for one thread in your oh so busy day of doing nothing but
projecting yourself as a complete Usenet asshole, why not give it a
****ing rest?

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> On May 18, 5:09 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>> On May 18, 4:09 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>>>>> On May 18, 3:34 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>> Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
>>>>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> <...>
>>>>>>>> Without getting into a whole magilla concerning right and wrong,
>>>>>>>> simply let me say that in my opinion physical sensation should never,
>>>>>>>> and I repeat it again so that there's NO mistake....NEVER be used to
>>>>>>>> verify or augment an instrument reading. In my opinion, this is what
>>>>>>>> proper scan technique is all about. You verify instruments CONSTANTLY
>>>>>>>> using other instruments, right on down to primary panel if necessary,
>>>>>>>> but in my opinion, the basic concept of ignoring physical cues and
>>>>>>>> sensations while on instruments is a sound principle ans should be
>>>>>>>> followed to the letter.
>>>>>>> <...>
>>>>>>> I won't argue with a single word of that.
>>>>>>> But...
>>>>>>> That doesn't make physical sensations irrelevent or unimportant. In
>>>>>>> fact, it is the MISLEADING sensations that are very important in the
>>>>>>> sense that, if you don't have significant experience "playing over"
>>>>>>> them, one typically ends up dead (in real life). Sitting on your lazy
>>>>>>> boy, those sensations don't happen - you always feel "coordinated" - you
>>>>>>> don't get disoriented, you don't experience vertigo - which makes flying
>>>>>>> in simulated IMC stupid easy compared to real life.
>>>>>>> And, I would argue that _no_ _ammount_ of desktop simulation will _ever_
>>>>>>> prepare you for the assult on your senses that can happen when things
>>>>>>> aren't going well in real life soup.
>>>>>>> One may think that one can handle real IMC based on desktop experience -
>>>>>>> but without realizing just how difficult it is to ignore your inner ear
>>>>>>> screaming lies at you, one doesn't really have any idea what flying real
>>>>>>> IMC is like - I would bet that an experienced "sim only" pilot would
>>>>>>> pull the wings off in less than 3 minutes in real life.
>>>>>> I believe you and I are in complete agreement. Perhaps something being
>>>>>> misread.
>>>>>> The understanding of sensations and how they interact with the IFR
>>>>>> experience is of paramount importance. In fact, a lack of this
>>>>>> understanding can get you killed quicker than anything else I can think
>>>>>> of at the moment.
>>>>>> Where I was referring to the sensations issue was directly concerned
>>>>>> with one pilot who commented that verifying an instrument reading with a
>>>>>> physical sensation was important. My point was that instrument
>>>>>> verification should be done against other instruments with the EXCLUSION
>>>>>> of physical sensation from that equation.
>>>>> When I was a kid, I was spun to dizzy, and
>>>>> then staggered when I tried to walk. IIRC it
>>>>> took a concentrated focus on some point to
>>>>> sustain balance, which is me in VFR, but that
>>>>> doesn't work in a fog.
>>>>> Another thing I noticed is flying VFR with a lot
>>>>> of turbulence, (especially with towering cumulus)
>>>>> screwed my inner ear.
>>>>> (That is my weakness).
>>>>> I was very lucky that after just a couple of hours,
>>>>> my flight instructor got me going on IFR.
>>>>> He knew I had a basic handle on geometry and
>>>>> algebra so he was the type to promote the advance
>>>>> early on in instruction.
>>>>> Ken
>>>> I tend to keep things on the basic level with students. It helps to hide
>>>> my shortcomings :-)
>>> After a few hours, my instructor had me doing shallow
>>> (30's), medium (45's) and steep (60's) turns and would
>>> critcize me because I focused on the VFR horizon and
>>> he'd smirk and point to the Indescent Indicator showing
>>> a 50'/per minute loss, and the IAS loss of energy and
>>> my off-center-ball, so my turn performance was gauged
>>> by instruments.
>>> Obviously, I should have pulled a bit more elevator,
>>> put on some RPM, and applied more rudder, so that's
>>> what I did via instruments, and that's in a well done
>>> bank at 60 degs even when VFR is available.
>>> Ken
>> I'm the reverse ytpe of instructor. Initially I like students to get
>> their heads outside the airplane and discover nose attitudes (LF;Climb;
>> glides) THEN after they have a good understanding of these nose
>> attitudes I get them to cross check these attitudes with the panel.
>> Different strokes for different folks :)
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I was a Professional teacher for awhile, and so
> understand the attitude. I was very lucky to get
> an Flight Instructor that was A+, never made a
> mistake. He had me doing what you say, using
> horizon, but then gauged the accuracy of turns
> based on instruments, I thought that was fair,
> then pointed out my weaknesses when I was
> using pure VFR, such as uncentered ball as I
> entered the bank going from level wings to 30,
> 45,60 bank.
> It was the change in bank that I had to work on.
>
> We did about 5 hours of night flying together,
> he didn't say much by that time, except the odd
> ancedote. It was very pleasant.
> Ken


Sounds like a good approach.

Many good instructors will introduce turns referencing nose attitude vs
the horizon using medium banked turns as the entry point for turn on the
learning curve as aileron and rudder neutralization in the turn and
increase and decrease of angle of attack into and out of the turn can be
stressed easily with neutral under and over bank present. Instrument
cross check for angle of bank is quite normal at this stage.

As medium banked turns can be entered and exited easily, introduction to
shallow and steeply banked turns where under bank and over bank are
factors can be introduced.

I strongly advocate referencing nose control as opposed to the ball for
control coordination. You can see yaw instantly on the horizon as turns
are entered and exited. FAR better than using the ball. It also gets the
student's head outside the cockpit where it has to be for safety.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Gezellig > wrote in news:g0skjl$55p$1
@news.albasani.net:

> On Mon, 19 May 2008 16:33:33 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>> On May 19, 7:58 am, Tina > wrote:
>>>> JFK was in a spiral from about 5000 feet when he crashed. A 200
foot
>>>> error in his altimeter was the least of his problems.
>>>>
>>>> He had more training for in IR than most do when they pass the
test.
>>>> This was a case of a pilot who, it would seem, was crossing the
sound
>>>> with an auto pilot engaged. Radar showed a smooth flight until that
>>>> point when most would have started down to pattern altitude from
5000
>>>> feet. The airplane went from pretty straight and pretty level to
>>>> impact in less than 30 seconds.
>>>>
>>>> The NTSB report is vivid and frightening.
>>>
>>> Thank you Tina, I just reread this,
>>
>> Not that it would mean anything to you.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Hey, Bertie, for one thread in your oh so busy day of doing nothing
but
> projecting yourself as a complete Usenet asshole, why not give it a
> ****ing rest?
>

Little chance of that, I'm afraid.


Bertie

[Benjamin Dover]

Gezellig > wrote in :

> On Sun, 18 May 2008 19:45:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>
>>> Also, I read somewhere that JFK Junior's plane crashed probably
>>> because he did not trust his intstruments. *What's the likelihood of
>>> that?
>>
>> Hopefully for an instrument pilot, NEVER, but when you have an
>> instrument go out, it does up the anti in IDENTIFYING the problem and
>> then tossing that instrument out of your scan.
>>
>> In my case, the change was pretty dramatic as it happened after
>> departing and in my climb in my departure as I was entering IMC.
>> Everything was absolutely normal on my first 1000 feet of climb and
>> nothing had changed on what I felt in the seat of my pants when I saw
>> the AI start showing a pitch up just about 100 feet inside IMC. Had I
>> really pitched up that much, I would have felt it. The lack of
>> feeling it immediately made me look at my VSI and it was rock solid
>> 700 fpm climb, no change from below the cloud deck. Next instrument I
>> looked at was my airspeed and that was 90 knots, so secondary
>> instruments confirmed a normal climb and further confirmed my lack of
>> feeling in my butt indicated the AI was ghosting up on me.
>>
>> I believe it's not normal to get such a dramatic change like I did,
>> but then again, as I am still finding out, it may not be the vacuum
>> pump, but the vacuum pump regulator that went out on me in my plane.
>> Will find out tomorrow morning when I talk with the A&P.
>
> Ask him/her what instruments show the greatest failure levels.
> Pitot-based?
>

You're a moron.

[Benjamin Dover]

Gezellig > wrote in :

> On Mon, 19 May 2008 16:33:33 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>> On May 19, 7:58 am, Tina > wrote:
>>>> JFK was in a spiral from about 5000 feet when he crashed. A 200 foot
>>>> error in his altimeter was the least of his problems.
>>>>
>>>> He had more training for in IR than most do when they pass the test.
>>>> This was a case of a pilot who, it would seem, was crossing the sound
>>>> with an auto pilot engaged. Radar showed a smooth flight until that
>>>> point when most would have started down to pattern altitude from 5000
>>>> feet. The airplane went from pretty straight and pretty level to
>>>> impact in less than 30 seconds.
>>>>
>>>> The NTSB report is vivid and frightening.
>>>
>>> Thank you Tina, I just reread this,
>>
>> Not that it would mean anything to you.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Hey, Bertie, for one thread in your oh so busy day of doing nothing but
> projecting yourself as a complete Usenet asshole, why not give it a
> ****ing rest?
>

You're a ****ing moron who doesn't know **** from shinola.

[Gezellig]

On Mon, 19 May 2008 09:26:58 -0700 (PDT), Ken S. Tucker wrote:

> On May 19, 7:58 am, Tina > wrote:
>> JFK was in a spiral from about 5000 feet when he crashed. A 200 foot
>> error in his altimeter was the least of his problems.
>>
>> He had more training for in IR than most do when they pass the test.
>> This was a case of a pilot who, it would seem, was crossing the sound
>> with an auto pilot engaged. Radar showed a smooth flight until that
>> point when most would have started down to pattern altitude from 5000
>> feet. The airplane went from pretty straight and pretty level to
>> impact in less than 30 seconds.
>>
>> The NTSB report is vivid and frightening.
>
> Thank you Tina, I just reread this,
> http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001212X19354&ntsbno=NYC99MA178&akey=1
> Somewhat applicable to this thread!
> Ken

He was doomed. injured ankle (rudder control issues), inability to
multi-task, turned down a co-ride with his CFI, VFR FNR, the list goes
on.

Tragic but avoidable, my 2 cents.

[Peter Clark]

On Mon, 19 May 2008 13:49:32 -0400, Kirk Ellis wrote:

>On Sun, 18 May 2008 23:02:24 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:
>
>>I've always believed that Kennedy fell victim to a false horizon by
>>somehow starting a turn on a false visual reference then allowing his
>>nose to get away from him in the haze due to his inexperience causing
>>him not to realize he needed to transition immediately to instruments.
>>In this condition and with the nose lowering and the airspeed rising,
>>Kennedy desperately needed to realize he needed to level the wings and
>>kill the bank as the lead in to recovering the nose in pitch.
>>This is the classic graveyard spiral. Not solving for bank and trying to
>>solve for pitch simply deepened the issue. I'm fairly convinced that by
>>this time the nose was so low and the spiral tightening so fast he
>>became fixated on the grayness in front of him that he thought was gray
>>sky but was in fact gray water.
>>The rest is history.
>>Just my read on one potential cause for that accident.
>
>It may be plausible to assume that if John's aircraft had been
>equipped with a G1000, he and his passengers might still be with us.
>It's only speculation but seems feasible.

IIRC, it's equally plausible to assume that if he had just turned on
the autopilot that was already in the aircraft they'd still be here
with us. Many links to a chain.

[Tina]

Chris Anderson's Book "The Day John Died" will offer more insights.

JFK Jr was a known risk taker, and was called the Master of Disaster
by his friends. His ankle may still have been in a cast on this
trip, the result of an injury from an ultra light accident not long
before. It's been said very few of his family and friends were willing
to fly with him. He lacked the superior judgment pilots should have to
avoid circumstances where they may be called upon to display superior
skills.

[[email protected]]

On May 19, 2:10*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> When every once of common sense,
> physical sensation, charts floating, and g's pressing on your body tell
> you you need to push, and your gyro panel is suspect, go immediately to
> primary panel to verify.

Dudley,

How about the inverse, which I have been emphasizing in my
experiences? Would I not be saying the same thing?

Gyro tumbled in a position where I went from normal pitch to a 20
degree pitch up and I DID NOT feel the G's expected? After all the
airplane doesn't care if it's VMC or IMC outside the airframe so to
speak, so if I see that pitch change in VMC and get the seat of the
pants feelings of positive G, I would expect the same in IMC.

That lack of feeling flagged the HI which made me go to secondary
instruments. Would that not be the same thing as you describe above
(not to the extreme of floating charts) but in reverse?

In otherwords, I am catching the situation at hand before it became a
"control the airplane issue" by using my sensory feelings in the seat
of my pants against visual aids (in this case my instruments in IMC)
that changed without a corresponding seat of the pants feeling change.

For capturing the ILS below the glide slope, add power, no seat of the
pants feeling, flags me to check engine instrumentation or outside
temp probe for icing. In all what I am saying is that it supplements
and verifies the instrumentation based on power inputs (reduction or
adding). No different visually so to speak, if I look out the
windscreen or look at the AI and associated instruments in my scan.

As Gatts said, it's not being used for zero zero landings, but a
supplement to verify what my eyes say. The feeling should match what
my eyes say for POWER inputs no matter what meterological conditions
are outside the airplane. Again, not inner ear or head feelings, but
the seat of the pants feeling. Whether I look outside the windscreen
at the horizon or look at the AI, the feeling in the seat of the pants
should be the same. Any discrepancy for that feeling should be
resolved.

> If both the gyro panel AND the primary panel tell you nothing, you've
> got SERIOUS problems :-)

Amen on that and no seat of the pants skill will get you out of that.
That is called LUCK. And lots of good luck will you need! :-)))

[Gezellig]

On Mon, 19 May 2008 19:53:44 GMT, Benjamin Dover wrote:

> You're

PLONK

[gatt[_3_]]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> gatt wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques wrote:

> I think what might be confusing some people reading this thread is that
> even though the pilot should always be avoiding physical sensation as a
> cue to perform an action while on instruments, Normal scan technique
> involves the constant presence of physical sensations. This means tht
> you are literally cross checking physical sensation constantly against
> what the instruments are telling you. The trick to staying alive is in
> being aware of these physical sensations but accepting without question
> what the clocks are telling you.

Thanks, Dudley. I think that pretty much boils it down.

That funny buffeting feeling and mushiness of controls on a long apprach
might tell you to that it's time to get your eyes off the glide slope
needle and scan the instrument panel. An alert pilot wouldn't dismiss
it as turbulence, but at the same time he wouldn't panic and shove the
nose forward, either.

-c

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> On May 19, 2:10 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> When every once of common sense,
>> physical sensation, charts floating, and g's pressing on your body tell
>> you you need to push, and your gyro panel is suspect, go immediately to
>> primary panel to verify.
>
> Dudley,
>
> How about the inverse, which I have been emphasizing in my
> experiences? Would I not be saying the same thing?
>
> Gyro tumbled in a position where I went from normal pitch to a 20
> degree pitch up and I DID NOT feel the G's expected? After all the
> airplane doesn't care if it's VMC or IMC outside the airframe so to
> speak, so if I see that pitch change in VMC and get the seat of the
> pants feelings of positive G, I would expect the same in IMC.
>
> That lack of feeling flagged the HI which made me go to secondary
> instruments. Would that not be the same thing as you describe above
> (not to the extreme of floating charts) but in reverse?
>
> In otherwords, I am catching the situation at hand before it became a
> "control the airplane issue" by using my sensory feelings in the seat
> of my pants against visual aids (in this case my instruments in IMC)
> that changed without a corresponding seat of the pants feeling change.
>
> For capturing the ILS below the glide slope, add power, no seat of the
> pants feeling, flags me to check engine instrumentation or outside
> temp probe for icing. In all what I am saying is that it supplements
> and verifies the instrumentation based on power inputs (reduction or
> adding). No different visually so to speak, if I look out the
> windscreen or look at the AI and associated instruments in my scan.
>
> As Gatts said, it's not being used for zero zero landings, but a
> supplement to verify what my eyes say. The feeling should match what
> my eyes say for POWER inputs no matter what meterological conditions
> are outside the airplane. Again, not inner ear or head feelings, but
> the seat of the pants feeling. Whether I look outside the windscreen
> at the horizon or look at the AI, the feeling in the seat of the pants
> should be the same. Any discrepancy for that feeling should be
> resolved.
>
>> If both the gyro panel AND the primary panel tell you nothing, you've
>> got SERIOUS problems :-)
>
> Amen on that and no seat of the pants skill will get you out of that.
> That is called LUCK. And lots of good luck will you need! :-)))

The bottom line on physical sensations while IFR is always the same.
You are always comparing whether consciously or unconsciously, what you
are "feeling" and "sensing" against what the panel is telling you. Your
normal scan might be passing up raw data on the primaries as long as the
senses and the gyros match. ANY change or mismatch between these senses
and how they compare with your scan should automatically take you deeper
into the scan pattern to include raw data confirmation.
There is only one golden rule really on physical sensation. No matter
how much you feel it might be useful to use it as a cue that causes you
to act on it......DON'T! Expand the scan instead. You might be right
about the physical sensation, and it might indeed help you out of your
mismatch, but the price for that one time it fails you might be your life.
I can't stress enough the need to disregard physical sensation and opt
to expand the scan instead.
Most of the time on instruments you only get one shot at doing it right.
You might get away with correcting something by following a physical
sensation, but I think it's a terrible mistake to allow this to change
your basic thinking about what constitutes proper instrument procedure.

I had a sign hanging over my desk when I was teaching aerobatics. It was
a quote I had written about a pilot I had known very well. It read as
follows;

"I had a friend once. Jim was the hottest flyin' aerobatic son-of-a
bitch I've ever known. In his entire career, I think Jim only made one
mistake. Jim's dead!"

I read that sign every day of my tenure in aviation.

As it is for aerobatics, so it is for instrument flying.

--
Dudley Henriques

[Tina]

It seems to me the better pilots use all the clues they have
available, the physiological ones as well as those presented by the
panel, to maintain a sense of the airplane's attitude. We react to
'bumps' and the like long before the instruments indicate their
effect. We are an integrated 'package' with the airplane. No
instrument in our airplane will tell us we are picking up ice, but a
flashlight out along the leading edge will. At night no instrument
will tell us we are in a cloud, but the anti collision lights will.
When getting close to MDA, and including the windscreen in your
instrument scan so you can transition to visual is not an
instrumentation issue. If it were not for the physical effects, the
wind noise, the way the control feel changes with airspeed, and the
like, we might just as well be flying sims. Except of course sims
don't take us to other destinations, and it's the going to some other
place that really drives our particular use of general aviation.



On May 19, 4:34 pm, " > wrote:
> On May 19, 2:10 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> > When every once of common sense,
> > physical sensation, charts floating, and g's pressing on your body tell
> > you you need to push, and your gyro panel is suspect, go immediately to
> > primary panel to verify.
>
> Dudley,
>
> How about the inverse, which I have been emphasizing in my
> experiences? Would I not be saying the same thing?
>
> Gyro tumbled in a position where I went from normal pitch to a 20
> degree pitch up and I DID NOT feel the G's expected? After all the
> airplane doesn't care if it's VMC or IMC outside the airframe so to
> speak, so if I see that pitch change in VMC and get the seat of the
> pants feelings of positive G, I would expect the same in IMC.
>
> That lack of feeling flagged the HI which made me go to secondary
> instruments. Would that not be the same thing as you describe above
> (not to the extreme of floating charts) but in reverse?
>
> In otherwords, I am catching the situation at hand before it became a
> "control the airplane issue" by using my sensory feelings in the seat
> of my pants against visual aids (in this case my instruments in IMC)
> that changed without a corresponding seat of the pants feeling change.
>
> For capturing the ILS below the glide slope, add power, no seat of the
> pants feeling, flags me to check engine instrumentation or outside
> temp probe for icing. In all what I am saying is that it supplements
> and verifies the instrumentation based on power inputs (reduction or
> adding). No different visually so to speak, if I look out the
> windscreen or look at the AI and associated instruments in my scan.
>
> As Gatts said, it's not being used for zero zero landings, but a
> supplement to verify what my eyes say. The feeling should match what
> my eyes say for POWER inputs no matter what meterological conditions
> are outside the airplane. Again, not inner ear or head feelings, but
> the seat of the pants feeling. Whether I look outside the windscreen
> at the horizon or look at the AI, the feeling in the seat of the pants
> should be the same. Any discrepancy for that feeling should be
> resolved.
>
> > If both the gyro panel AND the primary panel tell you nothing, you've
> > got SERIOUS problems :-)
>
> Amen on that and no seat of the pants skill will get you out of that.
> That is called LUCK. And lots of good luck will you need! :-)))

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

gatt wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> gatt wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
>> I think what might be confusing some people reading this thread is
>> that even though the pilot should always be avoiding physical
>> sensation as a cue to perform an action while on instruments, Normal
>> scan technique involves the constant presence of physical sensations.
>> This means tht you are literally cross checking physical sensation
>> constantly against what the instruments are telling you. The trick to
>> staying alive is in being aware of these physical sensations but
>> accepting without question what the clocks are telling you.
>
> Thanks, Dudley. I think that pretty much boils it down.
>
> That funny buffeting feeling and mushiness of controls on a long apprach
> might tell you to that it's time to get your eyes off the glide slope
> needle and scan the instrument panel. An alert pilot wouldn't dismiss
> it as turbulence, but at the same time he wouldn't panic and shove the
> nose forward, either.
>
> -c
Exactly. It's not that the senses aren't there. They are. It's that when
you ACT, you act on what the instruments are telling you, if they
coincide with the sensation, all well and good, but you NEVER act on a
sensation while IFR!

--
Dudley Henriques

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>


Where's your link for all that nonsense dip****, or is Tucker whispering in
your ear?

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not because he didn't trust, them fjukkwit. he didn't know how to use
> them.
>
> And you are not a "newbie" You're an idiot and will always be an idiot.
>
>

How would you know retard, you couldn't find your ass with both hands.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>
>
> Where's your link for all that nonsense dip****, or is Tucker
> whispering in your ear?
>
>
>

Oh ouch. My self esteem is plummeting!



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:2KmYj.5271$D21.4851
@newsfe20.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Not because he didn't trust, them fjukkwit. he didn't know how to use
>> them.
>>
>> And you are not a "newbie" You're an idiot and will always be an
idiot.
>>
>>
>
> How would you know retard, you couldn't find your ass with both hands.
>
>
>

Sure i can, You;'re right here.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

" > wrote in news:7599cbec-54dc-4e67-
:

> On May 19, 3:57*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> > That lack of feeling flagged the HI which made me go to secondary
>> > instruments. *
>
>> > For capturing the ILS below the glide slope, add power, no seat of
the
>> > pants feeling, flags me to check engine instrumentation or outside
>> > temp probe for icing. *
>
>> There is only one golden rule really on physical sensation. No matter
>> how much you feel it might be useful to use it as a cue that causes
you
>> to act on it......DON'T! Expand the scan instead.
>
> Dudley,
>
> I snipped out the extraneous part of my post to I think bring home
> exactly what you are saying.
>
> In my paragraphs, am I not saying the very same thing (expanding my
> scan?) based on an absence or contradictory feeling?
>
> Ever post I have put, I have emphasized, that I went to secondary
> instrumentation.
>
> My action on a errant feeling was a cue to expand my scan when
> something didn't feel right.
>
> Again, NONE OF THE ABOVE applies to leans or inner ear effects, the
> FAA covers that very well.
>
> I am talking action / reaction based on the AI indication of added
> power or a yank on the yoke (display of pitch up), and it lacked in
> the seat of my pants. If one uses the corresponding and EXPECTED
> feeling, this will make an instrument pilot just that more intimate
> with the environment they sit in. If you don't get that expected
> feeling, time to cross check what you are looking at.
>
> I think that I am talking out my scenario as if I am in the plane,
> just not saying as eloquently as you are about expanding my
> scan? :-))))
>
> I am expanding it by going to secondary instrumentation to verify the
> accuracy of my primary (in this case the AI) and saw uh uh, looks to
> me AI needs to be question based on VSI and airspeed. (OAT was a cozy
> 65 degrees so icing wasn't even a remote consideration). Saw my
> ground track ticking off degrees on the GPS, yet my DG was rock solid
> steady. Two big signals right off the bat said vacuum and easy to
> diagnose. All because I didn't feel the g's in my britches and all
> diagnosed within 15 to 20 seconds.
>
> On my airplane status.....
>
> A&P pulled everything out on the vacuum system and sees nothing wrong,
> but DG did ghost permanently when I went to take a test flight
> yesterday, so new DG is coming (under warranty). He said maybe some
> "trash" got in the lines causing the instrument air gauge to show
> abnormally high. I will test fly the bird tomorrow after DG is
> installed (obviously in VMC conditions) to verify that all is
> healthy.
>
> Will put the DG to it's test with a few steep turns.in both
> directions ;-) Always nice to have an excuse to do some VFR airwork!
>

As usal, it's the three blind guys and the elephant thing....


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On May 19, 3:57*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> > That lack of feeling flagged the HI which made me go to secondary
> > instruments. *

> > For capturing the ILS below the glide slope, add power, no seat of the
> > pants feeling, flags me to check engine instrumentation or outside
> > temp probe for icing. *

> There is only one golden rule really on physical sensation. No matter
> how much you feel it might be useful to use it as a cue that causes you
> to act on it......DON'T! Expand the scan instead.

Dudley,

I snipped out the extraneous part of my post to I think bring home
exactly what you are saying.

In my paragraphs, am I not saying the very same thing (expanding my
scan?) based on an absence or contradictory feeling?

Ever post I have put, I have emphasized, that I went to secondary
instrumentation.

My action on a errant feeling was a cue to expand my scan when
something didn't feel right.

Again, NONE OF THE ABOVE applies to leans or inner ear effects, the
FAA covers that very well.

I am talking action / reaction based on the AI indication of added
power or a yank on the yoke (display of pitch up), and it lacked in
the seat of my pants. If one uses the corresponding and EXPECTED
feeling, this will make an instrument pilot just that more intimate
with the environment they sit in. If you don't get that expected
feeling, time to cross check what you are looking at.

I think that I am talking out my scenario as if I am in the plane,
just not saying as eloquently as you are about expanding my
scan? :-))))

I am expanding it by going to secondary instrumentation to verify the
accuracy of my primary (in this case the AI) and saw uh uh, looks to
me AI needs to be question based on VSI and airspeed. (OAT was a cozy
65 degrees so icing wasn't even a remote consideration). Saw my
ground track ticking off degrees on the GPS, yet my DG was rock solid
steady. Two big signals right off the bat said vacuum and easy to
diagnose. All because I didn't feel the g's in my britches and all
diagnosed within 15 to 20 seconds.

On my airplane status.....

A&P pulled everything out on the vacuum system and sees nothing wrong,
but DG did ghost permanently when I went to take a test flight
yesterday, so new DG is coming (under warranty). He said maybe some
"trash" got in the lines causing the instrument air gauge to show
abnormally high. I will test fly the bird tomorrow after DG is
installed (obviously in VMC conditions) to verify that all is
healthy.

Will put the DG to it's test with a few steep turns.in both
directions ;-) Always nice to have an excuse to do some VFR airwork!

[[email protected]]

On May 19, 11:06*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Lieberman writes:
> > You tell me.
>
> It depends on the aircraft.

Read my post. I already said what I fly. You got my tail number,
it's on that as well.

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 19, 3:57*pm, Tina > wrote:

> Except of course sims
> don't take us to other destinations,

It doesn't???? Nawwww, don't tell Mx this!

Everything I read on Mx threads, he's traveled the world, from the
Grand Canyon tour to the most complex Bravo airspace we probably
haven't encountered in our lives.

Sorry, couldn't resist, return back to the regularly scheduled
thread! :-))))

[gatt[_3_]]

Tina wrote:
> It seems to me the better pilots use all the clues they have
> available, the physiological ones as well as those presented by the
> panel, to maintain a sense of the airplane's attitude. We react to
> 'bumps' and the like long before the instruments indicate their
> effect. We are an integrated 'package' with the airplane.

That's my exact opinion.

If I'm shooting an approach in IMC and I -feel- the airplane sink under
you, I -do- act; I check the panel. (It's IFR.)

Dudley's use of "act" differs in mine, I think, in that his definition
might have me going "I'm sinking" followed by the act of pitching up and
adding power before or instead of checking the panel. (panic, pitch,
power)

My meaning of "act" is "I'm sinking," followed by the act of checking
instrument panel, and maybe making a mental note to check my scanning
technique and quit fixating on the glide slope or some other instrument
or whatever I'm doing. (Picking the examiner's dropped pencil off the
floor.)

The action is different in IMC because if you feel a sensory perception,
you have to check the instruments rather than look outside.


-c

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> On May 19, 3:57 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>>> That lack of feeling flagged the HI which made me go to secondary
>>> instruments.
>
>>> For capturing the ILS below the glide slope, add power, no seat of the
>>> pants feeling, flags me to check engine instrumentation or outside
>>> temp probe for icing.
>
>> There is only one golden rule really on physical sensation. No matter
>> how much you feel it might be useful to use it as a cue that causes you
>> to act on it......DON'T! Expand the scan instead.
>
> Dudley,
>
> I snipped out the extraneous part of my post to I think bring home
> exactly what you are saying.
>
> In my paragraphs, am I not saying the very same thing (expanding my
> scan?) based on an absence or contradictory feeling?
>
> Ever post I have put, I have emphasized, that I went to secondary
> instrumentation.
>
> My action on a errant feeling was a cue to expand my scan when
> something didn't feel right.
>
> Again, NONE OF THE ABOVE applies to leans or inner ear effects, the
> FAA covers that very well.
>
> I am talking action / reaction based on the AI indication of added
> power or a yank on the yoke (display of pitch up), and it lacked in
> the seat of my pants. If one uses the corresponding and EXPECTED
> feeling, this will make an instrument pilot just that more intimate
> with the environment they sit in. If you don't get that expected
> feeling, time to cross check what you are looking at.
>
> I think that I am talking out my scenario as if I am in the plane,
> just not saying as eloquently as you are about expanding my
> scan? :-))))
>
> I am expanding it by going to secondary instrumentation to verify the
> accuracy of my primary (in this case the AI) and saw uh uh, looks to
> me AI needs to be question based on VSI and airspeed. (OAT was a cozy
> 65 degrees so icing wasn't even a remote consideration). Saw my
> ground track ticking off degrees on the GPS, yet my DG was rock solid
> steady. Two big signals right off the bat said vacuum and easy to
> diagnose. All because I didn't feel the g's in my britches and all
> diagnosed within 15 to 20 seconds.

As long as your action was predicated on what the instruments were
telling you I see no problem at all with this. Physical cues are always
with you in the aircraft as you are flying, whether you are VFR or IFR.
The difference is in how you interpret those sensations. You act on them
when VFR. You simply accept them as being present when on the clocks. If
a physical sensation cues you to cross check for verification on the
panel for what you perceive is happening with your airplane, that is a
normal reaction to a physical sensation while IFR. If on the other hand
you "feel" something, check with the clocks, and find a conflict between
what you are "feeling" and what the clocks are telling you, if you are
acting on the panel, you have it right.
>
> On my airplane status.....
>
> A&P pulled everything out on the vacuum system and sees nothing wrong,
> but DG did ghost permanently when I went to take a test flight
> yesterday, so new DG is coming (under warranty). He said maybe some
> "trash" got in the lines causing the instrument air gauge to show
> abnormally high. I will test fly the bird tomorrow after DG is
> installed (obviously in VMC conditions) to verify that all is
> healthy.
>
> Will put the DG to it's test with a few steep turns.in both
> directions ;-) Always nice to have an excuse to do some VFR airwork!

Sounds like you might have had an instrument anomaly. Getting in some
good ole' VFR basic airwork sorting it out never hurt the pussycat :-)


--
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

gatt wrote:
> Tina wrote:
>> It seems to me the better pilots use all the clues they have
>> available, the physiological ones as well as those presented by the
>> panel, to maintain a sense of the airplane's attitude. We react to
>> 'bumps' and the like long before the instruments indicate their
>> effect. We are an integrated 'package' with the airplane.
>
> That's my exact opinion.
>
> If I'm shooting an approach in IMC and I -feel- the airplane sink under
> you, I -do- act; I check the panel. (It's IFR.)
>
> Dudley's use of "act" differs in mine, I think, in that his definition
> might have me going "I'm sinking" followed by the act of pitching up and
> adding power before or instead of checking the panel. (panic, pitch,
> power)
>
> My meaning of "act" is "I'm sinking," followed by the act of checking
> instrument panel, and maybe making a mental note to check my scanning
> technique and quit fixating on the glide slope or some other instrument
> or whatever I'm doing. (Picking the examiner's dropped pencil off the
> floor.)
>
> The action is different in IMC because if you feel a sensory perception,
> you have to check the instruments rather than look outside.
>
>
> -c

No. Your interpretation of "act" is as mine would be as well. Must be
something getting lost in translation. :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[gatt[_3_]]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> gatt wrote:
>> Tina wrote:
>>
>> My meaning of "act" is "I'm sinking," followed by the act of checking
>> instrument panel, and maybe making a mental note to check my scanning
>> technique and quit fixating on the glide slope or some other
>> instrument or whatever I'm doing. (Picking the examiner's dropped
>> pencil off the floor.)
>>
>> The action is different in IMC because if you feel a sensory
>> perception, you have to check the instruments rather than look outside.
>
> No. Your interpretation of "act" is as mine would be as well. Must be
> something getting lost in translation. :-)

Works for me. I'm going flying in two hours, and just checked the weather:

"192253Z 00000KT 10SM CLR 27/12 A2988 RMK AO2 SLP117 T02720122"

Won't be logging any IMC time today, but I'm not complaining.

-c

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

gatt wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> gatt wrote:
>>> Tina wrote:
>>>
>>> My meaning of "act" is "I'm sinking," followed by the act of checking
>>> instrument panel, and maybe making a mental note to check my scanning
>>> technique and quit fixating on the glide slope or some other
>>> instrument or whatever I'm doing. (Picking the examiner's dropped
>>> pencil off the floor.)
>>>
>>> The action is different in IMC because if you feel a sensory
>>> perception, you have to check the instruments rather than look outside.
>>
>> No. Your interpretation of "act" is as mine would be as well. Must be
>> something getting lost in translation. :-)
>
> Works for me. I'm going flying in two hours, and just checked the
> weather:
>
> "192253Z 00000KT 10SM CLR 27/12 A2988 RMK AO2 SLP117 T02720122"
>
> Won't be logging any IMC time today, but I'm not complaining.
>
> -c
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Have fun. Wish I could go :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Read my post. I already said what I fly. You got my tail number,
> it's on that as well.

I'm not familiar with the specific aircraft you fly.

[Mxsmanic]

Kirk Ellis writes:

> It may be plausible to assume that if John's aircraft had been
> equipped with a G1000, he and his passengers might still be with us.
> It's only speculation but seems feasible.

He already had everything that he needed. Adding pretty color screens would
not have changed anything.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Read my post. I already said what I fly. You got my tail number,
>> it's on that as well.
>
> I'm not familiar with the specific aircraft you fly.
>

You are not familiar with any aircraft, period.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> Dudley, I trust with absolute confidence that I'll learn from this
> discussion from you so I'll refer to what I mentioned earlier in terms
> of ignoring physical sensations in IMC and see what you think?
>
> 1) The chart leaves the dash panel and I'm floating against the harness
> but the panel shows nothing. Do I ignore the floating sensation and the
> visual clue?
>
> 2) My altimeter says 12,000 and MSA is 3500 but ahead of me I see
> terrain, I'm sure we agree that it's a "sensation" I shouldn't ignore.
>
> 3) The airplane begins to buffet or I hear the engine sound change
> dramatically but the VSI and airspeed indicator show no change....

You're demonstrating a poor attitude. You don't want to follow the rules, and
so you come up with more and more extreme examples in an attempt to justify
not doing so. You are more interested in ignoring the rules and doing things
your way than you are in staying alive. This is a bad sign for a pilot.

> I'm of the opinion that if my senses indicate a problem, at the
> very least I'll say "Wait...what?" and check the instrument panel.

If you are in IMC, you're IFR, and if you're IFR, you should _already_ be
fully aware of what all the instruments on the panel are saying. You don't
just check it when you feel a funny sensation--you fly by it. And since you
already have your eyes on the panel, you don't need a sensation to motivate
you to look at it.

> If the AI shows straight and level I'll check the altimeter, airspeed
> indicator, DG, compass etc depending on the inputs, and at the very
> least I'll be able to go "Wow. THAT'S what the leans feels like."

No, under IFR in IMC, you've _already_ checked the AI, altimeter, airspeed
indicator, and all the other instruments. Scanning the panel is not something
you do when you think you have a reason to, it's something you do continually.
There's nothing to see outside in IMC, and you cannot trust your sensations.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> Dudley, I trust with absolute confidence that I'll learn from this
>> discussion from you so I'll refer to what I mentioned earlier in
>> terms of ignoring physical sensations in IMC and see what you think?
>>
>> 1) The chart leaves the dash panel and I'm floating against the
>> harness but the panel shows nothing. Do I ignore the floating
>> sensation and the visual clue?
>>
>> 2) My altimeter says 12,000 and MSA is 3500 but ahead of me I see
>> terrain, I'm sure we agree that it's a "sensation" I shouldn't
>> ignore.
>>
>> 3) The airplane begins to buffet or I hear the engine sound change
>> dramatically but the VSI and airspeed indicator show no change....
>
> You're demonstrating a poor attitude.

No he isn't. You're talking out of your ass.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Tina writes:
>
>> It seems to me the better pilots use all the clues they have
>> available, the physiological ones as well as those presented by the
>> panel, to maintain a sense of the airplane's attitude.
>
> Not under IFR. Under IFR, only the instruments count.


Nope.

Bertie

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> so you come up with more and more extreme examples in an attempt to
> justify
> not doing so.

POT - KETTLE - BLACK

[Mxsmanic]

Tina writes:

> It seems to me the better pilots use all the clues they have
> available, the physiological ones as well as those presented by the
> panel, to maintain a sense of the airplane's attitude.

Not under IFR. Under IFR, only the instruments count.

It worries me that so many pilots here are trying so desperately to justify an
extremely dangerous practice. Dudley is being very diplomatic. Under IFR,
sensations don't count at all, ever. Only instruments count. Countless
pilots have died because they refused to accept this. All training and
literature ceaselessly emphasize the importance of this. And yet some people
still argue against it, because they want to believe that they can fly by the
seat of their pants in all conditions. These pilots should take care to
always remain VFR in VMC, because it is clear that they would endanger
themselves under IFR in IMC.

> We react to 'bumps' and the like long before the instruments indicate their
> effect.

Not if you are doing things right. First, you've been scanning the
instruments constantly, so any change they indicate is immediately noticed.
Second, the bumps must be ignored, so there is nothing to react to when they
occur.

> No instrument in our airplane will tell us we are picking up ice, but a
> flashlight out along the leading edge will.

That is not a sensation in the context of this discussion. Sensations here
clearly mean physical movements, and people here are trying to justify using
physical movement sensations in the aircraft to fly it, while giving the
instruments only secondary priority. That's not the right way to fly IFR.

> At night no instrument will tell us we are in a cloud, but the anti-collision
> lights will.

Under IFR, you don't need to know. Your instruments tell you where you are
and where you're going. If you're in IMC, you obviously have visible
moisture, and you can check the temperature to see if you're at risk for
icing.

> When getting close to MDA, and including the windscreen in your
> instrument scan so you can transition to visual is not an
> instrumentation issue.

You are not at MDA during most of the flight. If you can see outside, you're
not in IMC. If you are in IMC, you use only your instruments.

> If it were not for the physical effects, the
> wind noise, the way the control feel changes with airspeed, and the
> like, we might just as well be flying sims.

If you don't like flying by instruments, then fly only VFR in VMC. If you
cannot get away from the desire to depend on physical sensations to fly, don't
go anywhere near IMC. Yes, it's a lot like a sim, the only difference being
that in a sim you feel nothing (unless it's a motion sim), and in real life
you feel something. However, whether you feel nothing or something, you still
fly by instruments, period.

> Except of course sims
> don't take us to other destinations, and it's the going to some other
> place that really drives our particular use of general aviation.

If you don't rely on your instruments in IMC, you'll never reach those other
destinations.

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberman writes:

> Everything I read on Mx threads, he's traveled the world, from the
> Grand Canyon tour to the most complex Bravo airspace we probably
> haven't encountered in our lives.

I flew from KSAN to KLAX yesterday in my sim, in zero visibility, and I lived.
Obviously I had no physical sensations to count upon, and yet somehow I
managed to get to my destination and land.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> The action is different in IMC because if you feel a sensory perception,
> you have to check the instruments rather than look outside.

No. In IMC, you are ALWAYS checking the instruments, perception or not. You
don't wait for a sensation to motivate you to look at the instruments, nor do
you allow a sensation to take the place of looking at the instruemnts. There
no sensation is; there only instrument is.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> That funny buffeting feeling and mushiness of controls on a long apprach
> might tell you to that it's time to get your eyes off the glide slope
> needle and scan the instrument panel.

If you are flying IFR competently, you're already doing this. If you wait for
a sensation to tell you do to do it, you'll die.

> An alert pilot wouldn't dismiss it as turbulence ...

An alert IFR pilot is constantly scanning his instruments, so funny feelings
are irrelevant.

[george]

On May 20, 1:02 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > Tina writes:
>
> >> It seems to me the better pilots use all the clues they have
> >> available, the physiological ones as well as those presented by the
> >> panel, to maintain a sense of the airplane's attitude.
>
> > Not under IFR. Under IFR, only the instruments count.
>
> Nope.
>
My version of IFR is
I Follow Rivers
I Follow Roads
I Follow Railways
:-)

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gatt writes:
>
>> Dudley, I trust with absolute confidence that I'll learn from this
>> discussion from you so I'll refer to what I mentioned earlier in terms
>> of ignoring physical sensations in IMC and see what you think?

> You're demonstrating a poor attitude.


If I want the opinion of a non-pilot video-game addict with absolutely
zero hours of actual flight training or time, I'll ask you.

>You don't want to follow the rules, and so you come

Nobody said anything about "rules," but I did in fact quote the
authoritative FAA Airplane Flying Handbook repeatedly, and you chose to
ignore all of that. Funny how that works out. Anytime anybody cites
something authoritative, you ignore it.

> If you are in IMC, you're IFR, and if you're IFR, you should _already_ be
> fully aware of what all the instruments on the panel are saying.

Don't presume to talk to instrument-rated pilots about flying IMC.
Hell, you augured outside of Telluride in a freakin' flight simulator.
That's funny, 'cause I flew it in the same software and didn't have that
problem. It's easy; you're not even a competent Flight Simulator geek.

Here: http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0805/06920LD9.PDF

Bye, now. I'm going flying.

-c

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> POT - KETTLE - BLACK

What extreme examples have I used to justify flying by instruments in IMC?

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> If I want the opinion of a non-pilot video-game addict with absolutely
> zero hours of actual flight training or time, I'll ask you.

I don't qualify. Besides, I'll offer my opinion without prompting.

> Nobody said anything about "rules," but I did in fact quote the
> authoritative FAA Airplane Flying Handbook repeatedly, and you chose to
> ignore all of that. Funny how that works out. Anytime anybody cites
> something authoritative, you ignore it.

Misinterpretations of the book will not help you in the air.

> Don't presume to talk to instrument-rated pilots about flying IMC.

Why not? Some of them have dangerous ideas.

> Hell, you augured outside of Telluride in a freakin' flight simulator.
> That's funny, 'cause I flew it in the same software and didn't have that
> problem. It's easy; you're not even a competent Flight Simulator geek.

A simulator might be a better play to practice IFR, if you haven't
internalized the necessity of relying on instruments.

> Bye, now. I'm going flying.

Avoid IMC.

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 19, 7:41*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Read my post. *I already said what I fly. *You got my tail number,
> > it's on that as well.
>
> I'm not familiar with the specific aircraft you fly.

Then for future reference, you shouldn't comment on something you are
not familiar with.

I am in the real world, in a real airplane and experienced a real
world problem.

If you plan to challenge any pilot ESPECIALLY ME, at least read the
post. I gave you everything I had at my disposal in my posting,
including what equipment I had, what kind of plane I was in and the
meteorological environment. Your postings did not even reference or
even pertain to my circumstances, which completely reduces your
credibility to zilch.

MSFS does not simulate what I went through and the decision making
process I had to go through in not being a statistic. All of your
postings clearly show your lack of knowledge of aircraft systems. All
your postings clearly show your lack of handling an airplane in a real
world environment.

Please keep that in mind before you post in a pilot or student
newsgroup NOT RELATED to simulated worlds. Partially correct posting
is worse then completely wrong postings especially to a student who
doesn't know how to weed out the wheat from the chaff.

Again, you are talking to a person who is very familiar with MSFS, and
you just don't scan gauges and identify problems as you make it seem
to be in a REAL PLANE. I know a programmer that made an addin that
completely replicates my aircraft right down the color scheme AND
exact instrumentation of my plane. So again, I talk from experience
from a MSFS and real world experience. The two just does not
intertwine when it comes down to actually flying an airplane.

There are many human factors that come into play that does not exist
sitting in front of a flat screen monitor. How do I know this you
ask? I downloaded all the weather data afterwards and re-flew my
mission failing the vacuum system. And believe it or not, I
identified my problem QUICKER in my real airplane. Why? Because I
had a sensory input that gave me an alert saying something is amiss.
In MSFS, I ended up oscillating in my altitude because I didn't have
sensory input. I was chasing the AI and DG and I was expecting the
vacuum failure!!!!!

Oscillations in IMC does not bode well for traffic separation which is
a safety issue NOT DISPLAYED IN MSFS.

In the real world, you have leans, human physiology, ATC concerns,
turbulence, noise distractions. reading approach planes, comprehending
clearances to what you filed that simply does not exist in a MSFS
environment. We are not robots in a real airplane, we all react
differently even when given the same set of circumstance.

In the MSFS world, I got plenty of time without worrying about
upsetting the plane. And so what if I do. I start over. You simply
cannot compare the two. I am talking about MSFS DESKTOP computers.

In the real world, parts break in flight. That's the reality of it
and I am very meticulous in the maintenance of my plane. So don't
challenge me on saying that I shouldn't have flown my plane as I do
have vested interest in returning to terra firma safely. The plane
was airworthy for IFR flight when I accomplished my preflight
inspections and such. You do not do this in MSFS. You do not walk
around the plane inspecting parts to ensure safe flight do you? You
probably don't even use a checklist and verify that indeed you checked
what is suppose to check do you?

You asked questions and then challenge my experiences, and quite
frankly, you flopped big time in this thread. You had no clue on the
problems and troubleshooting needed to make my flight a successful
outcome.

Bottom line, as stated earlier, it was the training I received that
got me through this "event". Talking with other pilots at my own
airport, they were amazed I didn't declare an emergency.

Truth be known, by me NOT feeling something that should have been felt
was the ticket in me making this NOT an emergency. I reacted based on
feeling, expanded my scan and moved on to flying the plane. After
establishing I am safely flying the plane, I reported to ATC what my
issues were so they could understand if I had any problems with
navigation.

A vacuum failure with the appropriate training is not a life
threatening emergency to the well trained IFR pilot. It is not luck
that brings him back. It's using the skills taught to him and tools
given to him (or her) that brings the pilot, passengers and plane back
safe and sound.

As you can see, NOT EVERYTHING IS IN THE TEXTBOOKS.

The text books do not tell you that you can use sensory feelings in
IFR flight. IN REALITY, you can! It's just how you use them as to
whether it's a tool or a danger.

I choose to use them as a tool in the verification of the response of
an instrument. If that verification fails (as it did with my AI) then
I go to my secondary instruments. If what I feel verifies what the
instrument says, I continue on.

Books won't tell you that, but the real world pilots will as being
displayed in this thread.

Instruments fail. To blindly trust them as you would like to have me
do will make me a statistic.

So, I will continue to stick by my original statement. TRUST BUT
VERIFY. You do this, you have a chance in the real IMC world.

BOTTOM LINE:

You don't lose anything in MSFS other then time
You have the potential to lose EVERYTHING if you don't live by the
words TRUST BUT VERIFY

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Lieberman writes:
>
>> Everything I read on Mx threads, he's traveled the world, from the
>> Grand Canyon tour to the most complex Bravo airspace we probably
>> haven't encountered in our lives.
>
> I flew from KSAN to KLAX yesterday


No you didn't. You sat n your chair.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> The action is different in IMC because if you feel a sensory
>> perception, you have to check the instruments rather than look
>> outside.
>
> No. In IMC, you are ALWAYS checking the instruments, perception or
> not. You don't wait for a sensation to motivate you to look at the
> instruments, nor do you allow a sensation to take the place of looking
> at the instruemnts. There no sensation is; there only instrument is.


Wrong, fjukkwit.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> That funny buffeting feeling and mushiness of controls on a long
>> apprach might tell you to that it's time to get your eyes off the
>> glide slope needle and scan the instrument panel.
>
> If you are flying IFR competently, you're already doing this. If you
> wait for a sensation to tell you do to do it, you'll die.

Nope.,

Wrong

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> POT - KETTLE - BLACK
>
> What extreme examples have I used to justify flying by instruments in
> IMC?
>

That isn't what you are doing. you have no idea of what you are doing.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> If I want the opinion of a non-pilot video-game addict with
>> absolutely zero hours of actual flight training or time, I'll ask
>> you.
>
> I don't qualify. Besides, I'll offer my opinion without prompting.
>
>> Nobody said anything about "rules," but I did in fact quote the
>> authoritative FAA Airplane Flying Handbook repeatedly, and you chose
>> to ignore all of that. Funny how that works out. Anytime anybody
>> cites something authoritative, you ignore it.
>
> Misinterpretations of the book will not help you in the air.
>
>> Don't presume to talk to instrument-rated pilots about flying IMC.
>
> Why not? Some of them have dangerous ideas.


No, they don;t. you do.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberman writes:

> Then for future reference, you shouldn't comment on something you are
> not familiar with.

I was commenting on aircraft in general. They don't all use exactly the same
instruments.

> If you plan to challenge any pilot ESPECIALLY ME, at least read the
> post.

I discuss aviation, not personalities.

> There are many human factors that come into play that does not exist
> sitting in front of a flat screen monitor. How do I know this you
> ask? I downloaded all the weather data afterwards and re-flew my
> mission failing the vacuum system. And believe it or not, I
> identified my problem QUICKER in my real airplane. Why? Because I
> had a sensory input that gave me an alert saying something is amiss.
> In MSFS, I ended up oscillating in my altitude because I didn't have
> sensory input. I was chasing the AI and DG and I was expecting the
> vacuum failure!!!!!

In IFR, you rely on instruments, not sensations.

You might want to try practicing IFR in MSFS until you can control the plane
adequately without any sensations at all. Then you'll know that you're
relying entirely on instruments.

> Oscillations in IMC does not bode well for traffic separation which is
> a safety issue NOT DISPLAYED IN MSFS.

Fly on VATSIM with MSFS.

> In the real world, parts break in flight.

In the real world, people who depend on physical movements in IMC flight don't
survive.

> You asked questions and then challenge my experiences, and quite
> frankly, you flopped big time in this thread.

No. You simply disagree with me. It's your life, not mine.

> Bottom line, as stated earlier, it was the training I received that
> got me through this "event". Talking with other pilots at my own
> airport, they were amazed I didn't declare an emergency.

Failing instruments under IFR in IMC qualifies as an emergency.

> Truth be known, by me NOT feeling something that should have been felt
> was the ticket in me making this NOT an emergency.

See above.

> A vacuum failure with the appropriate training is not a life
> threatening emergency to the well trained IFR pilot.

It is a no-go situation, which requires landing at the nearest airport, and
it's entirely acceptable to declare an emergency, although that remains at
pilot discretion.

> As you can see, NOT EVERYTHING IS IN THE TEXTBOOKS.

True. Some things are in the NTSB database.

> The text books do not tell you that you can use sensory feelings in
> IFR flight. IN REALITY, you can!

No, you cannot. If you think otherwise, your next flight into IMC may be your
last.

> I choose to use them as a tool in the verification of the response of
> an instrument.

You're making a dangerous mistake. You don't use sensations to verify
instruments. You don't use sensations at all. You trust your instruments.
You detect instrument failures by correlation of all information from all
instruments. If all instruments fail, you're doomed.

> Books won't tell you that, but the real world pilots will as being
> displayed in this thread.

Real-world pilots who believe this are much more likely to die in the air.
The books don't say it because it's incorrect.

> Instruments fail. To blindly trust them as you would like to have me
> do will make me a statistic.

In IFR, you blindly trust your instruments. The only way to detect a failure
of one instrument is by comparing it with other instruments.

> So, I will continue to stick by my original statement. TRUST BUT
> VERIFY. You do this, you have a chance in the real IMC world.

As I've said, it's your life. Do what you want.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Lieberman writes:
>
>> Then for future reference, you shouldn't comment on something you are
>> not familiar with.
>
> I was commenting on aircraft in general. They don't all use exactly
> the same instruments.
>
>> If you plan to challenge any pilot ESPECIALLY ME, at least read the
>> post.
>
> I discuss aviation, not personalities.
>
>> There are many human factors that come into play that does not exist
>> sitting in front of a flat screen monitor. How do I know this you
>> ask? I downloaded all the weather data afterwards and re-flew my
>> mission failing the vacuum system. And believe it or not, I
>> identified my problem QUICKER in my real airplane. Why? Because I
>> had a sensory input that gave me an alert saying something is amiss.
>> In MSFS, I ended up oscillating in my altitude because I didn't have
>> sensory input. I was chasing the AI and DG and I was expecting the
>> vacuum failure!!!!!
>
> In IFR, you rely on instruments, not sensations.
>
> You might want to try practicing IFR in MSFS until you can control the
> plane adequately without any sensations at all. Then you'll know that
> you're relying entirely on instruments.
>
>> Oscillations in IMC does not bode well for traffic separation which
>> is a safety issue NOT DISPLAYED IN MSFS.
>
> Fly on VATSIM with MSFS.
>
>> In the real world, parts break in flight.
>
> In the real world, people who depend on physical movements in IMC
> flight don't survive.
>
>> You asked questions and then challenge my experiences, and quite
>> frankly, you flopped big time in this thread.
>
> No. You simply disagree with me. It's your life, not mine.
>
>> Bottom line, as stated earlier, it was the training I received that
>> got me through this "event". Talking with other pilots at my own
>> airport, they were amazed I didn't declare an emergency.
>
> Failing instruments under IFR in IMC qualifies as an emergency.
>
>> Truth be known, by me NOT feeling something that should have been
>> felt was the ticket in me making this NOT an emergency.
>
> See above.
>
>> A vacuum failure with the appropriate training is not a life
>> threatening emergency to the well trained IFR pilot.
>
> It is a no-go situation, which requires landing at the nearest
> airport, and it's entirely acceptable to declare an emergency,
> although that remains at pilot discretion.
>
>> As you can see, NOT EVERYTHING IS IN THE TEXTBOOKS.
>
> True. Some things are in the NTSB database.
>
>> The text books do not tell you that you can use sensory feelings in
>> IFR flight. IN REALITY, you can!
>
> No, you cannot. If you think otherwise, your next flight into IMC may
> be your last.
>
>> I choose to use them as a tool in the verification of the response of
>> an instrument.
>
> You're making a dangerous mistake. You don't use sensations to verify
> instruments. You don't use sensations at all. You trust your
> instruments. You detect instrument failures by correlation of all
> information from all instruments. If all instruments fail, you're
> doomed.
>
>> Books won't tell you that, but the real world pilots will as being
>> displayed in this thread.
>
> Real-world pilots who believe this are much more likely to die in the
> air. The books don't say it because it's incorrect.
>
>> Instruments fail. To blindly trust them as you would like to have me
>> do will make me a statistic.
>
> In IFR, you blindly trust your instruments. The only way to detect a
> failure of one instrument is by comparing it with other instruments.


Wrong.

Bertie

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 19, 8:08*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> An alert IFR pilot is constantly scanning his instruments, so funny feelings
> are irrelevant.

WRONG

[Mxsmanic]

Viperdoc writes:

> Anthony, were all of your pronouncements based upon your instrument
> training? Who was your instructor? What did you get on the written exam?
> How much time do you have in IMC (real, not simulated?)

All of my statements are based on study.

Which of my statements do you disagree with, if any, and why?

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberman writes:

> WRONG

Putting it in uppercase letters won't make it so.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> Anthony, were all of your pronouncements based upon your instrument
>> training? Who was your instructor? What did you get on the written exam?
>> How much time do you have in IMC (real, not simulated?)
>
> All of my statements are based on study.
>
> Which of my statements do you disagree with, if any, and why?

Dozens have told you in hundreds of posts, fjukkwit.


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Lieberman writes:
>
>> WRONG
>
> Putting it in uppercase letters won't make it so.
>

Repeating it over and over again won;t make it so either, you autistic
cretin.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

A Lieberman > wrote in news:f30039fd-d874-4ce2-af88-
:

> On May 19, 8:56*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> > In IFR, you blindly trust your instruments. *The only way to detect
a
>> > failure of one instrument is by comparing it with other
instruments.
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> RIGHT (U dat iz)
>
>:-)))))))
>
>

Thenkew.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

A Lieberman > wrote in news:f30039fd-d874-4ce2-af88-
:

> On May 19, 8:56*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> > In IFR, you blindly trust your instruments. *The only way to detect
a
>> > failure of one instrument is by comparing it with other
instruments.
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> RIGHT (U dat iz)
>
>:-)))))))
>
>

BTW, expect a nasty letter from Jay for talking to he trolllz.



Bertie

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 19, 8:56*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> > In IFR, you blindly trust your instruments. *The only way to detect a
> > failure of one instrument is by comparing it with other instruments.
>
> Wrong.
>
> Bertie

RIGHT (U dat iz)

:-)))))))

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>A Lieberman writes:
>
>> Everything I read on Mx threads, he's traveled the world, from the
>> Grand Canyon tour to the most complex Bravo airspace we probably
>> haven't encountered in our lives.
>
> I flew from KSAN to KLAX yesterday in my sim, in zero visibility, and I
> lived.
> Obviously I had no physical sensations to count upon, and yet somehow I
> managed to get to my destination and land.

BFD

You had no physical sensations to distract and disorient you. You had no
physical sensations that would have caused vertigo. You had no sensations
that would result in motion sickness. You have no idea how difficult it
really is with those sensations present. Most of the rest of us here do. To
quote Mr. Henriques:
"The understanding of sensations and how they interact with the IFR
experience is of paramount importance. In fact, a lack of this
understanding can get you killed quicker than anything else I can think
of at the moment."

I would _hope_ that you made it to your "destination" fer crying out loud -
flying in IMC while sitting in a lazyboy is stupid easy compared to real
life.

How do I know? How do you think I know?

I have no problem on the PC, but , as rusty as I am, no effing way I would
even THINK about attempting it for real without a competent IFR rated pilot
in the other seat.

Ignorance and arrogance are often fatal when combined.

But the real question is, why am I wasting key clicks?


--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[BDS]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote
>
> You're making a dangerous mistake. You don't use sensations to verify
> instruments. You don't use sensations at all. You trust your
instruments.

In your simulated Baron, what is the first indication you are likely to
notice if an engine begins to fail, regardless of the reason for the
failure? I am not talking about after the failure, but rather as the
failure begins to occur - what do you think you will notice first and
probably before anything else, and what will you do about it?

BDS

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> In your simulated Baron, what is the first indication you are likely to
> notice if an engine begins to fail, regardless of the reason for the
> failure? I am not talking about after the failure, but rather as the
> failure begins to occur - what do you think you will notice first and
> probably before anything else, and what will you do about it?

It will probably sound different if it fails. In some cases engine indicators
on the instrument panel may reveal a problem first. If anything goes wrong
with the engine(s), I'll land at the next available airport.

[Mxsmanic]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> writes:

> You had no physical sensations to distract and disorient you.

Yes, but I had none to depend on, either.

> You had no physical sensations that would have caused vertigo. You had no sensations
> that would result in motion sickness. You have no idea how difficult it
> really is with those sensations present. Most of the rest of us here do.

Most, perhaps, but not all.

> I would _hope_ that you made it to your "destination" fer crying out loud -
> flying in IMC while sitting in a lazyboy is stupid easy compared to real
> life.

It has the advantage of being much safer and more comfortable.

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 19, 9:21*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> BDS writes:
> what do you think you will notice first and
> > probably before anything else, and what will you do about it?
>
> It will probably sound different if it fails. *In some cases engine indicators
> on the instrument panel may reveal a problem first. If anything goes wrong
> with the engine(s), I'll land at the next available airport.

ANSWER HIS QUESTION ABOVE. WHICH ENGINE INDICATORS

I am sure curious myself on what you say.

Or is it you do not know aircraft systems?????????????????????

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberman writes:

> ANSWER HIS QUESTION ABOVE. WHICH ENGINE INDICATORS

For a piston airplane, tachometer, manifold pressure, CHT and EGT, engine
monitor if I have one (I do in the Bonanza).

[Tina]

Well, let's remember it takes one example to refute an absolutist
argument.

There is not a rated pilot here who will argue with this: In IMC or
VMC, he or she, relies very much on the sensation of the reduction of
yoke pressure for trimming the airplane. We of course depend on all
available inputs to determine the attitude of the airplane, but we
trim entirely by feel.

One could also invoke a Clintonism technique: it depends on what you
mean by physical sensations -- eyes are a sensory input, too.

On May 19, 9:04 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tina writes:
> > It seems to me the better pilots use all the clues they have
> > available, the physiological ones as well as those presented by the
> > panel, to maintain a sense of the airplane's attitude.
>
> Not under IFR. Under IFR, only the instruments count.
>
> It worries me that so many pilots here are trying so desperately to justify an
> extremely dangerous practice. Dudley is being very diplomatic. Under IFR,
> sensations don't count at all, ever. Only instruments count. Countless
> pilots have died because they refused to accept this. All training and
> literature ceaselessly emphasize the importance of this. And yet some people
> still argue against it, because they want to believe that they can fly by the
> seat of their pants in all conditions. These pilots should take care to
> always remain VFR in VMC, because it is clear that they would endanger
> themselves under IFR in IMC.
>
> > We react to 'bumps' and the like long before the instruments indicate their
> > effect.
>
> Not if you are doing things right. First, you've been scanning the
> instruments constantly, so any change they indicate is immediately noticed.
> Second, the bumps must be ignored, so there is nothing to react to when they
> occur.
>
> > No instrument in our airplane will tell us we are picking up ice, but a
> > flashlight out along the leading edge will.
>
> That is not a sensation in the context of this discussion. Sensations here
> clearly mean physical movements, and people here are trying to justify using
> physical movement sensations in the aircraft to fly it, while giving the
> instruments only secondary priority. That's not the right way to fly IFR.
>
> > At night no instrument will tell us we are in a cloud, but the anti-collision
> > lights will.
>
> Under IFR, you don't need to know. Your instruments tell you where you are
> and where you're going. If you're in IMC, you obviously have visible
> moisture, and you can check the temperature to see if you're at risk for
> icing.
>
> > When getting close to MDA, and including the windscreen in your
> > instrument scan so you can transition to visual is not an
> > instrumentation issue.
>
> You are not at MDA during most of the flight. If you can see outside, you're
> not in IMC. If you are in IMC, you use only your instruments.
>
> > If it were not for the physical effects, the
> > wind noise, the way the control feel changes with airspeed, and the
> > like, we might just as well be flying sims.
>
> If you don't like flying by instruments, then fly only VFR in VMC. If you
> cannot get away from the desire to depend on physical sensations to fly, don't
> go anywhere near IMC. Yes, it's a lot like a sim, the only difference being
> that in a sim you feel nothing (unless it's a motion sim), and in real life
> you feel something. However, whether you feel nothing or something, you still
> fly by instruments, period.
>
> > Except of course sims
> > don't take us to other destinations, and it's the going to some other
> > place that really drives our particular use of general aviation.
>
> If you don't rely on your instruments in IMC, you'll never reach those other
> destinations.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Tina" > wrote in message
...
> Well, let's remember it takes one example to refute an absolutist
> argument.
>
> There is not a rated pilot here who will argue with this: In IMC or
> VMC, he or she, relies very much on the sensation of the reduction of
> yoke pressure for trimming the airplane. We of course depend on all
> available inputs to determine the attitude of the airplane, but we
> trim entirely by feel.
>
> One could also invoke a Clintonism technique: it depends on what you
> mean by physical sensations -- eyes are a sensory input, too.
>

Very well put.

This whole thread sounds like nothing more than a word game, fueled by nit
pickers.

Who flies anything, especially IMC, without making use of all input.

If the sound of the engine is laboring, the wind noise is low and the
controls are mush - a ASI reading 150 knots should be ignored.

Much to do about nothing. Just a bunch of folks feeding MX.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Lieberman writes:
>
>> Everything I read on Mx threads, he's traveled the world, from the
>> Grand Canyon tour to the most complex Bravo airspace we probably
>> haven't encountered in our lives.
>
> I flew from KSAN to KLAX yesterday in my sim, in zero visibility, and
> I lived. Obviously I had no physical sensations to count upon, and yet
> somehow I managed to get to my destination and land.

All you did is set the autopilot and stroke your joy stick. And I'm not
talking about the joy stick attached to your computer, moron.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Read my post. I already said what I fly. You got my tail number,
>> it's on that as well.
>
> I'm not familiar with the specific aircraft you fly.

You don't know **** from shinola about any REAL aircraft.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> You are not at MDA during most of the flight. If you can see outside,
> you're not in IMC. If you are in IMC, you use only your instruments.

Wrong again, dip ****. You don't even know the definition of IMC. Go back
to your simulator groups, asshole.

[terry]

On May 20, 11:05*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Lieberman writes:
> > Everything I read on Mx threads, he's traveled the world, from the
> > Grand Canyon tour to the most complex Bravo airspace we probably
> > haven't encountered in our lives.
>
> I flew from KSAN to KLAX yesterday in my sim, in zero visibility, and I lived.
> Obviously I had no physical sensations to count upon, and yet somehow I
> managed to get to my destination and land.

Next time you go there Mx do you reckon you could get me a souvenir
cloth badge, Ive been collecting them for years, and I havent got
KLAX. I'll pay of course and add $5 for your trouble. Was that the
2 or 4 seat sim?
Terry

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Tina" > wrote in message
> news:eaef0ada-6038-4a16-9f1c-d9dfeecf6bb5
@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com..
> .
>> Well, let's remember it takes one example to refute an absolutist
>> argument.
>>
>> There is not a rated pilot here who will argue with this: In IMC or
>> VMC, he or she, relies very much on the sensation of the reduction of
>> yoke pressure for trimming the airplane. We of course depend on all
>> available inputs to determine the attitude of the airplane, but we
>> trim entirely by feel.
>>
>> One could also invoke a Clintonism technique: it depends on what you
>> mean by physical sensations -- eyes are a sensory input, too.
>>
>
> Very well put.
>
> This whole thread sounds like nothing more than a word game, fueled by
> nit pickers.
>
> Who flies anything, especially IMC, without making use of all input.

How would you know, wannabe boi?



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> BDS writes:
>
>> In your simulated Baron, what is the first indication you are likely
>> to notice if an engine begins to fail, regardless of the reason for
>> the failure? I am not talking about after the failure, but rather as
>> the failure begins to occur - what do you think you will notice first
>> and probably before anything else, and what will you do about it?
>
> It will probably sound different if it fails. In some cases engine
> indicators on the instrument panel may reveal a problem first. If
> anything goes wrong with the engine(s), I'll land at the next
> available airport.
>

What a maroooooon.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Lieberman writes:
>
>> ANSWER HIS QUESTION ABOVE. WHICH ENGINE INDICATORS
>
> For a piston airplane, tachometer, manifold pressure, CHT and EGT, engine
> monitor if I have one (I do in the Bonanza).

That's not answering the question. Which one do you look at first
fjukkwit? And why would you look anyway? On my airplane, for instance, the
vast majority of the instruments are concealed after engine start..
Only three left.



Bertie

[[email protected]]

On May 20, 4:51 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > A Lieberman writes:
>
> >> ANSWER HIS QUESTION ABOVE. WHICH ENGINE INDICATORS
>
> > For a piston airplane, tachometer, manifold pressure, CHT and EGT, engine
> > monitor if I have one (I do in the Bonanza).
>
> That's not answering the question. Which one do you look at first
> fjukkwit? And why would you look anyway? On my airplane, for instance, the
> vast majority of the instruments are concealed after engine start..
> Only three left.
>
> Bertie

Is it a series 35 or 50?

I'd look at the Commit Charge on Task Manager to see if I had enough
RAM.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

wrote in
:

> On May 20, 4:51 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > A Lieberman writes:
>>
>> >> ANSWER HIS QUESTION ABOVE. WHICH ENGINE INDICATORS
>>
>> > For a piston airplane, tachometer, manifold pressure, CHT and EGT,
>> > engine monitor if I have one (I do in the Bonanza).
>>
>> That's not answering the question. Which one do you look at first
>> fjukkwit? And why would you look anyway? On my airplane, for
>> instance, the vast majority of the instruments are concealed after
>> engine start.. Only three left.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Is it a series 35 or 50?



B757. there are two center screens, the upper one dispays EPR N1 and EGT
and the lower screen displays the rest of the stuff. After engine start
we shut of the lower screen and if the EICAS system has something to
tell us that's of any interest on that screen, like your oil has all
disappeared, for instance, then the screen re-appears. We leave it off
for the duration of the flight, though. Keeps the clutter in your head
to a minimum.
In the event of an engine failure, though, that screen is the least of
your worries. Keeping the airplane straight is the main prioirity and of
course you're going to feel the yaw in your ass before you notice
anything else. You'd be onto the instruments straight away to determine
th ecorrection required, though you'd already have a very good idea, and
a big bootful of rudder and/ or aileron to keep you from rolling on your
back. After this has settled down, you ensure your flight path is
correct, and then you'd check out your engine instruments to determine
what the problem is. And you have to do this carefully and judiciously,
because they can lie to you too, particularly if some damage has
occured. Of course, in a piston there's an additional problem that
mxtard has no idea of either, and that is that the MP is next to useless
in determining the side that's failed because the MP you might have been
pulling could be the same as ambient anyway. Anyhow, the point is, the
first clue you're going to get is your head bouncing off either a window
or your copilot. If you've been staring at your engine gauges
anticipating a failure as you fly along, you're probably going to fly
into something sooner rather than later....
But of course MX would ignore that feeling in his ass as one of the
donkeys retired and quickly analize his clocks. Then, and only then,
would he take the appropriate action, which , by this time, would be to
make a brief utterance of regret as his aircraft entered the earth
inverted.



Bertie

[Tina]

You might have noticed it takes a LONG time in a sim to arrive at a
real destination. It's not often we climb aboard our airplane without
wanting to actually, after a flight, be in a different place.

There are a few real life issues your simming may not correctly
represent. For example, one can fly in IMC and have excellent
visibility and outside reference. IMC does NOT mean being in the
clouds.

Also, IFR flight in marginal IMC or in VMC requires that we be fully
alert to outside cues and traffic-- ATC has the job of keeping IFR
airplanes apart, and they try -- but cannot always -- keep separation
from VFR traffic. That is our job, and even if it was not our job we'd
be on the lookout for such airplanes, since the price of an encounter
with one is very high.



On May 19, 10:23 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> writes:
>
> > You had no physical sensations to distract and disorient you.
>
> Yes, but I had none to depend on, either.
>
> > You had no physical sensations that would have caused vertigo. You had no sensations
> > that would result in motion sickness. You have no idea how difficult it
> > really is with those sensations present. Most of the rest of us here do.
>
> Most, perhaps, but not all.
>
> > I would _hope_ that you made it to your "destination" fer crying out loud -
> > flying in IMC while sitting in a lazyboy is stupid easy compared to real
> > life.
>
> It has the advantage of being much safer and more comfortable.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 15:47:19 -0700 (PDT), A Lieberman
> wrote:

>On May 18, 5:34*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> Where I was referring to the sensations issue was directly concerned
>> with one pilot who commented that verifying an instrument reading with a
>> physical sensation was important. My point was that instrument
>> verification should be done against other instruments with the EXCLUSION
>> of physical sensation from that equation.
>
>I think my point was when there is an action, there should be a
>reaction, and if I don't feel the reaction (which is faster then
>registering on the instrument), then I need to explore further.
>
>I am talking the very subtle changes, not changes requiring large
>power changes.
>
>For example, I come down the ILS at 90 knots with 1900 rpm. If
>headwinds cause my groundspeed to drop below 90 knots and I add lets
>say 25 RPM to recapture the glideslope and I DON"T feel it in my seat
>of the pants, first place I will look is the temperature probe.
>Again, talking subtle 25 RPM just finger tip touch to the controls.
>
>If I feel the extra oomph / firmness in my seat of the pants with the
>extra 25 RPM and the glideslope starts to recapture, that is a
>verification of my action and reaction.
>
>Again, very subtle changes I am look and feeling for. I am not saying
>make turns by the seat of my pants, primarily verifying actions of
>power settings.
>
>In my Friday incident, I could tell my attitude indicator of 20 to 30
>degree pitch up AND not feeling the extra G's in my rear end, that
>something was discrepant having flown this plane for over 600 hours..
>That had me going to my backup instruments IMMEDIATELY (VSI and
>airspeed) for my analysis and quickly identifying the vacuum as
>suspect..
>
>It's not that I even remotely navigated by the seat of my pants, but
>something was amiss was felt.
>
>I absolutely agree based on time and time again history, that any
>feelings in the head absolutely has to be ignored, instruments are
>there for that, but for verification of power adjustments, I see no
>reason why AS A TOOL, the feeling in your rear end cannot be used as a
>verification of the reaction of your actioin (adding or reducing
>power).
>
>The feeling of the seat of your pants is NOT to be used in determining
>upright status in IMC, that I will say, and don't want to mislead
>anybody that I condone that, just using it to verify my action of
>power is working and the reaction of instrumentation TRENDS are
>following what my seat of the pants feel is.

you are setting your self up for a fatal accident.
you need to learn about somatogravic thresholds, the effect of alcohol
on the viscosity of the fluids of the inner ear and above all you need
to actually heed what you were taught and stop embellishing the
information with your own interpretations.
you have a flawed appreciation of what was taught.
in fact you have a dangerously flawed viewpoint.
let us hope you dont find the world about you turning to tinsel when
reality bites.
Stealth Pilot

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sun, 18 May 2008 23:46:31 -0400, Gezellig >
wrote:


>
>Being primarily creatures earthbound (land underfoot), where feelings
>are our primary sources of instrument accuracy (speed in a car, wind in
>our hair), its kewl to trust those sensory inputs. A lot of
>day-in/day-out experiences too.
>

so totally incompetent a viewpoint that you are stunning.

one of the considerable factors in the progress of aviation has been
the use of objective instrumentation that overcomes the many failings
of our biology.

Stealth Pilot

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Mon, 19 May 2008 04:29:11 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>A Lieberman writes:
>

>
>The danger in instrument flight is that all sorts of things are felt, but none
>of them is reliable. It is called instrument flight because the pilot ignores
>things felt and flies exclusively by the instruments.
>

>
>The feeling in your rear end is no more reliable than the feeling from your
>inner ear.
>
>It sounds like your Friday incident has given you a false sense of security.

during the history of scientific endeavour there have been many
individuals who have arrived at the correct answers for the wrong
reasons.

anthony you are perpetually one of those people.

while you may occasionally say the correct things a careful read of
your posts has always revealed the fact that you have inherently an
incompetent understanding of what you write about.

Stealth Pilot

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 19 May 2008 04:29:11 +0200, Mxsmanic >
> wrote:
>
>>A Lieberman writes:
>>
>
>>
>>The danger in instrument flight is that all sorts of things are felt,
>>but none of them is reliable. It is called instrument flight because
>>the pilot ignores things felt and flies exclusively by the
>>instruments.
>>
>
>>
>>The feeling in your rear end is no more reliable than the feeling from
>>your inner ear.
>>
>>It sounds like your Friday incident has given you a false sense of
>>security.
>
> during the history of scientific endeavour there have been many
> individuals who have arrived at the correct answers for the wrong
> reasons.
>
> anthony you are perpetually one of those people.
>
> while you may occasionally say the correct things a careful read of
> your posts has always revealed the fact that you have inherently an
> incompetent understanding of what you write about.
>
> Stealth Pilot
>
>

Difference is, he doesn;t arrive at the answer, he starts there. Then he
works his way back the Anthony land until he begins with a premise that
is straight out of alice in wonderland.



Bertie

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> gatt writes:
>
>> The action is different in IMC because if you feel a sensory perception,
>> you have to check the instruments rather than look outside.
>
> No. In IMC, you are ALWAYS checking the instruments, perception or not.


Don't preach to me about what pilots do in IMC. I've flown IMC and
proven myself. The kids at the daycare in my neighborhood have exactly
as much IMC experience as you do.

-c

[gatt[_3_]]

Viperdoc wrote:
> Anthony, were all of your pronouncements based upon your instrument
> training? Who was your instructor? What did you get on the written exam?
> How much time do you have in IMC (real, not simulated?)

He claims he read some books and stuff, but when you press him on it and
offer your references, he's got nothing.


-c

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 20, 7:56*am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2008 15:47:19 -0700 (PDT), A Lieberman
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On May 18, 5:34*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> >> Where I was referring to the sensations issue was directly concerned
> >> with one pilot who commented that verifying an instrument reading with a
> >> physical sensation was important. My point was that instrument
> >> verification should be done against other instruments with the EXCLUSION
> >> of physical sensation from that equation.
>
> >I think my point was when there is an action, there should be a
> >reaction, and if I don't feel the reaction (which is faster then
> >registering on the instrument), then I need to explore further.
>
> >I am talking the very subtle changes, not changes requiring large
> >power changes.
>
> >For example, I come down the ILS at 90 knots with 1900 rpm. *If
> >headwinds cause my groundspeed to drop below 90 knots and I add lets
> >say 25 RPM to recapture the glideslope and I DON"T feel it in my seat
> >of the pants, first place I will look is the temperature probe.
> >Again, talking subtle 25 RPM just finger tip touch to the controls.
>
> >If I feel the extra oomph / firmness in my seat of the pants with the
> >extra 25 RPM and the glideslope starts to recapture, that is a
> >verification of my action and reaction.
>
> >Again, very subtle changes I am look and feeling for. *I am not saying
> >make turns by the seat of my pants, primarily verifying actions of
> >power settings.
>
> >In my Friday incident, I could tell my attitude indicator of 20 to 30
> >degree pitch up AND not feeling the extra G's in my rear end, that
> >something was discrepant having flown this plane for over 600 hours..
> >That had me going to my backup instruments IMMEDIATELY *(VSI and
> >airspeed) for my analysis and quickly identifying the vacuum as
> >suspect..
>
> >It's not that I even remotely navigated by the seat of my pants, but
> >something was amiss was felt.
>
> >I absolutely agree based on time and time again history, that any
> >feelings in the head absolutely has to be ignored, instruments are
> >there for that, but for verification of power adjustments, I see no
> >reason why AS A TOOL, the feeling in your rear end cannot be used as a
> >verification of the reaction of your actioin (adding or reducing
> >power).
>
> >The feeling of the seat of your pants is NOT to be used in determining
> >upright status in IMC, that I will say, and don't want to mislead
> >anybody that I condone that, just using it to verify my action of
> >power is working and the reaction of instrumentation TRENDS are
> >following what my seat of the pants feel is.
>
> you are setting your self up for a fatal accident.
> you need to learn about somatogravic thresholds, the effect of alcohol
> on the viscosity of the fluids of the inner ear and above all you need

Did you read my entire post???? I am not talking about inner ear or
leans. I have already addressed this with Dudley.

I am talking about a feeling a response to an input of power. If I
add power, I should feel it in the seat of my pants. This has nothing
to do with head sensations.

I think the rest of my posts explain very clearly what I am looking
for (or absense of).

NOTHING in my posts says to ignore the instruments. All of my posts
do say to ignore what you feel in your head and trust the instruments.

The feeling of thrust in the seat of your pants confirms and verify
the instruments motions especially when you slip below the glideslope,
or in a climb.

Everything you talk about above I agree with but what I am doing is
adding a tool in my tool kit by expecting a certain feeling in the
seat of my pants.

If I don't get it, then I am going to cross check my primary
instrumentation with my secondary to sort out the discrepancy.

In my case that I have repeated so many times, an AI showing a 20
degree pitch up should have placed some G's in the seat of my pants.
THIS WAS A DRAMATIC CHANGE. This has nothing to do with leans. The G
feeling in the seat of my pants was absent, so I went to secondary
instruments and within 20 seconds of time, found I had a bad AI.

I'd hardly think that troubleshooting a vacuum system and resolving
the descrepancy within 20 seconds is setting me up for a statistic.

The seat of your pants is a tool that can be used in an IA
environment. This does not replace the instruments in no manner shape
or form nor is it to be confused with leans. Two different
sensations, one is to be ignored COMPLETELY (leans), one not to be
ignored, but a supplement to verify what you see on your panel (seat
of your pants).

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> Anthony, were all of your pronouncements based upon your instrument
>> training? Who was your instructor? What did you get on the written exam?
>> How much time do you have in IMC (real, not simulated?)
>
> All of my statements are based on study.

Bull****. What did you study? The usenet?

-c

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tina writes:
>
>> It seems to me the better pilots use all the clues they have
>> available, the physiological ones as well as those presented by the
>> panel, to maintain a sense of the airplane's attitude.
>
> Not under IFR. Under IFR, only the instruments count.


Wrong. Next...


-c

[gatt[_3_]]

Tina wrote:
> Well, let's remember it takes one example to refute an absolutist
> argument.
>
> There is not a rated pilot here who will argue with this: In IMC or
> VMC, he or she, relies very much on the sensation of the reduction of
> yoke pressure for trimming the airplane.


Correct.

Of course that doesn't mean you don't monitor the instruments in the
meantime. Nobody has suggested that, but Anthony keeps trying to argue
that strawman.

The physical sensations allow a pilot to be proactive rather than
reactive. Anthony doesn't understand this, of course, because he hasn't
done it.

-c

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> A Lieberman writes:
>
>> Everything I read on Mx threads, he's traveled the world, from the
>> Grand Canyon tour to the most complex Bravo airspace we probably
>> haven't encountered in our lives.
>
> I flew from KSAN to KLAX yesterday in my sim, in zero visibility, and I lived.
> Obviously I had no physical sensations to count upon, and yet somehow I
> managed to get to my destination and land.

That's because you were playing a video game. Next...

-c

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>> You had no physical sensations that would have caused vertigo. You had no sensations
>> that would result in motion sickness. You have no idea how difficult it
>> really is with those sensations present. Most of the rest of us here do.
>
> Most, perhaps, but not all.

Irrelevant. I do, you don't. Next....

> It has the advantage of being much safer and more comfortable.

It has the advantage of being nothing.

A kid can play with toy boats in the bathtub but that doesn't make him a
sailor.

-c

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

>> That funny buffeting feeling and mushiness of controls on a long apprach
>> might tell you to that it's time to get your eyes off the glide slope
>> needle and scan the instrument panel.
>
> If you are flying IFR competently, you're already doing this. If you wait for
> a sensation to tell you do to do it, you'll die.

The sensations are immediate.

I haven't died yet. You haven't flown yet.

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> A Lieberman writes:
>
>> WRONG
>
> Putting it in uppercase letters won't make it so.

Everybody here that is telling you you're wrong is a pilot. You're not.

Suck it up, little camper. You're just wrong, again.


-c

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> Besides, I'll offer my opinion without prompting.

That doesn't make it worth two turds on my lawn. Anybody can do that.
You're the only one offering opinions out here that's a fake pilot


>> Nobody said anything about "rules," but I did in fact quote the
>> authoritative FAA Airplane Flying Handbook repeatedly, and you chose to
>> ignore all of that. Funny how that works out. Anytime anybody cites
>> something authoritative, you ignore it.
>
> Misinterpretations of the book will not help you in the air.

I logged 1.1 hours in the actual sky last night. You?

>> Bye, now. I'm going flying.
>
> Avoid IMC.

Not necessary. I completed an Instrument Proficiency Check three weeks
ago. I wasn't even due for it, just did it anyway. Six different
approaches, radar vectoring, unusual attitude recovery, etc.

You should try it sometime.

-c

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> A Lieberman writes:

>> If you plan to challenge any pilot ESPECIALLY ME, at least read the
>> post.
>
> I discuss aviation, not personalities.

Liar.

"You're demonstrating a poor attitude." -you

[gatt[_3_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> It will probably sound different if it fails. In some cases engine indicators
> on the instrument panel may reveal a problem first. If anything goes wrong
> with the engine(s), I'll land at the next available airport.

Yeah, it worked for Jeff Ethell.

-c

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

A Lieberman wrote:
> On May 20, 7:56 am, Stealth Pilot >
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 May 2008 15:47:19 -0700 (PDT), A Lieberman
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>>> On May 18, 5:34 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Where I was referring to the sensations issue was directly concerned
>>>> with one pilot who commented that verifying an instrument reading with a
>>>> physical sensation was important. My point was that instrument
>>>> verification should be done against other instruments with the EXCLUSION
>>>> of physical sensation from that equation.
>>> I think my point was when there is an action, there should be a
>>> reaction, and if I don't feel the reaction (which is faster then
>>> registering on the instrument), then I need to explore further.
>>> I am talking the very subtle changes, not changes requiring large
>>> power changes.
>>> For example, I come down the ILS at 90 knots with 1900 rpm. If
>>> headwinds cause my groundspeed to drop below 90 knots and I add lets
>>> say 25 RPM to recapture the glideslope and I DON"T feel it in my seat
>>> of the pants, first place I will look is the temperature probe.
>>> Again, talking subtle 25 RPM just finger tip touch to the controls.
>>> If I feel the extra oomph / firmness in my seat of the pants with the
>>> extra 25 RPM and the glideslope starts to recapture, that is a
>>> verification of my action and reaction.
>>> Again, very subtle changes I am look and feeling for. I am not saying
>>> make turns by the seat of my pants, primarily verifying actions of
>>> power settings.
>>> In my Friday incident, I could tell my attitude indicator of 20 to 30
>>> degree pitch up AND not feeling the extra G's in my rear end, that
>>> something was discrepant having flown this plane for over 600 hours..
>>> That had me going to my backup instruments IMMEDIATELY (VSI and
>>> airspeed) for my analysis and quickly identifying the vacuum as
>>> suspect..
>>> It's not that I even remotely navigated by the seat of my pants, but
>>> something was amiss was felt.
>>> I absolutely agree based on time and time again history, that any
>>> feelings in the head absolutely has to be ignored, instruments are
>>> there for that, but for verification of power adjustments, I see no
>>> reason why AS A TOOL, the feeling in your rear end cannot be used as a
>>> verification of the reaction of your actioin (adding or reducing
>>> power).
>>> The feeling of the seat of your pants is NOT to be used in determining
>>> upright status in IMC, that I will say, and don't want to mislead
>>> anybody that I condone that, just using it to verify my action of
>>> power is working and the reaction of instrumentation TRENDS are
>>> following what my seat of the pants feel is.
>> you are setting your self up for a fatal accident.
>> you need to learn about somatogravic thresholds, the effect of alcohol
>> on the viscosity of the fluids of the inner ear and above all you need
>
> Did you read my entire post???? I am not talking about inner ear or
> leans. I have already addressed this with Dudley.
>
> I am talking about a feeling a response to an input of power. If I
> add power, I should feel it in the seat of my pants. This has nothing
> to do with head sensations.
>
> I think the rest of my posts explain very clearly what I am looking
> for (or absense of).
>
> NOTHING in my posts says to ignore the instruments. All of my posts
> do say to ignore what you feel in your head and trust the instruments.
>
> The feeling of thrust in the seat of your pants confirms and verify
> the instruments motions especially when you slip below the glideslope,
> or in a climb.
>
> Everything you talk about above I agree with but what I am doing is
> adding a tool in my tool kit by expecting a certain feeling in the
> seat of my pants.
>
> If I don't get it, then I am going to cross check my primary
> instrumentation with my secondary to sort out the discrepancy.
>
> In my case that I have repeated so many times, an AI showing a 20
> degree pitch up should have placed some G's in the seat of my pants.
> THIS WAS A DRAMATIC CHANGE. This has nothing to do with leans. The G
> feeling in the seat of my pants was absent, so I went to secondary
> instruments and within 20 seconds of time, found I had a bad AI.
>
> I'd hardly think that troubleshooting a vacuum system and resolving
> the descrepancy within 20 seconds is setting me up for a statistic.
>
> The seat of your pants is a tool that can be used in an IA
> environment. This does not replace the instruments in no manner shape
> or form nor is it to be confused with leans. Two different
> sensations, one is to be ignored COMPLETELY (leans), one not to be
> ignored, but a supplement to verify what you see on your panel (seat
> of your pants).

I'm afraid we're still not on the same page.
If you are USING a seat of the pants sensation as a cue to ACT rather
than as a cue that expansion of the cross check is warranted, you are
going to die in instrument conditions.....period!
You NEVER include a seat of the pants feeling into your reactive action
path when on instruments.
Look; let me make this perfectly clear. There is NO actionable
difference between the "leans" and a "seat of the pants" sensation. BOTH
are present and of course felt. BOTH might be telling you something so
they should not be ignored. But BOTH are physical sensations and as such
are NEVER used as a source to make a control change while IFR.
If you feel a physical sensation while on instruments, it is indeed a
cue, but NOT an actionable cue. ALL sensations are simply there. You
NEVER act in ANY way on what ANY sensation is giving you in the way of a
cue. If the sensation is expected by something you have done control
wise that's fine. If it isn't, don't act on it. Your scan is in progress
at all times. If something looks out of line, EXPAND THE SCAN!
You control the aircraft based on instrument cues ONLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You exist in a world of physical cues. Simply know they are there and go
to the panel!!
God.I hope this clears this up!

--
Dudley Henriques

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message

> I flew from KSAN to KLAX yesterday in my sim, in zero visibility, and I
lived.
> Obviously I had no physical sensations to count upon, and yet somehow I
> managed to get to my destination and land.

You also tried to 'fly' from KTEX to KASE, slammed into a mountain , and
lived.

The outcome obviously has nothing to do with the actions taken.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

gatt > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Viperdoc writes:
>>
>>> Anthony, were all of your pronouncements based upon your instrument
>>> training? Who was your instructor? What did you get on the written
>>> exam? How much time do you have in IMC (real, not simulated?)
>>
>> All of my statements are based on study.
>
> Bull****. What did you study? The usenet?
>
> -c

There are a few sim sites with chat areas. Loads of crap just like he
spews comes out in those places. Lots of twits just like him sayin
gthings like "my uncle is a pilot and shot down the red baron and he
says you're full of it"
Not a lot of real pilots there.... The guys who make the models are
interesting, though. They do tend to be rewriting the laws of physics as
often as not, however...


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On May 20, 7:16 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote :
>
>
>
> > On May 20, 4:51 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Mxsmanic > wrote
> >> :
>
> >> > A Lieberman writes:
>
> >> >> ANSWER HIS QUESTION ABOVE. WHICH ENGINE INDICATORS
>
> >> > For a piston airplane, tachometer, manifold pressure, CHT and EGT,
> >> > engine monitor if I have one (I do in the Bonanza).
>
> >> That's not answering the question. Which one do you look at first
> >> fjukkwit? And why would you look anyway? On my airplane, for
> >> instance, the vast majority of the instruments are concealed after
> >> engine start.. Only three left.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > Is it a series 35 or 50?
>
> B757. there are two center screens, the upper one dispays EPR N1 and EGT
> and the lower screen displays the rest of the stuff. After engine start
> we shut of the lower screen and if the EICAS system has something to
> tell us that's of any interest on that screen, like your oil has all
> disappeared, for instance, then the screen re-appears. We leave it off
> for the duration of the flight, though. Keeps the clutter in your head
> to a minimum.
> In the event of an engine failure, though, that screen is the least of
> your worries. Keeping the airplane straight is the main prioirity and of
> course you're going to feel the yaw in your ass before you notice
> anything else. You'd be onto the instruments straight away to determine
> th ecorrection required, though you'd already have a very good idea, and
> a big bootful of rudder and/ or aileron to keep you from rolling on your
> back. After this has settled down, you ensure your flight path is
> correct, and then you'd check out your engine instruments to determine
> what the problem is. And you have to do this carefully and judiciously,
> because they can lie to you too, particularly if some damage has
> occured. Of course, in a piston there's an additional problem that
> mxtard has no idea of either, and that is that the MP is next to useless
> in determining the side that's failed because the MP you might have been
> pulling could be the same as ambient anyway. Anyhow, the point is, the
> first clue you're going to get is your head bouncing off either a window
> or your copilot. If you've been staring at your engine gauges
> anticipating a failure as you fly along, you're probably going to fly
> into something sooner rather than later....
> But of course MX would ignore that feeling in his ass as one of the
> donkeys retired and quickly analize his clocks. Then, and only then,
> would he take the appropriate action, which , by this time, would be to
> make a brief utterance of regret as his aircraft entered the earth
> inverted.
>
> Bertie

no fair! His bonanza doesn't have turbo props!

Hell yes, it's the kick in the ass that usually lets you know
something untoward is in the offing, along with auditory cues, g-
loading, etc., but if you don't verify with instruments then you could
end up well and truly screwed...and sometimes that helps to only a
point. There was the case of the airliner in central america
(1980's?) that went into an inverted dive because the pilot's
artificial horizon (if memory serves) was slaved to the co-pilot's and
that one had a wiggy connection such that it was giving intermittently
correct readings. They did a perfect 1g maneuver too- right into the
ground (at night)....but the wings and such were come off first.

I've always wondered why, in such circumstances, one would not take
the time to verify the situation by checking rate of climb/descent and
indicated airspeed rather than trust *one* instrument?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

wrote in
:

> On May 20, 7:16 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote
>> innews:c0626994-688d-465b-b9bd-3d9d4878a612
@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.c
>> om:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 20, 4:51 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> >> :
>>
>> >> > A Lieberman writes:
>>
>> >> >> ANSWER HIS QUESTION ABOVE. WHICH ENGINE INDICATORS
>>
>> >> > For a piston airplane, tachometer, manifold pressure, CHT and
>> >> > EGT, engine monitor if I have one (I do in the Bonanza).
>>
>> >> That's not answering the question. Which one do you look at first
>> >> fjukkwit? And why would you look anyway? On my airplane, for
>> >> instance, the vast majority of the instruments are concealed after
>> >> engine start.. Only three left.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > Is it a series 35 or 50?
>>
>> B757. there are two center screens, the upper one dispays EPR N1 and
>> EGT and the lower screen displays the rest of the stuff. After engine
>> start we shut of the lower screen and if the EICAS system has
>> something to tell us that's of any interest on that screen, like your
>> oil has all disappeared, for instance, then the screen re-appears. We
>> leave it off for the duration of the flight, though. Keeps the
>> clutter in your head to a minimum.
>> In the event of an engine failure, though, that screen is the least
>> of your worries. Keeping the airplane straight is the main prioirity
>> and of course you're going to feel the yaw in your ass before you
>> notice anything else. You'd be onto the instruments straight away to
>> determine th ecorrection required, though you'd already have a very
>> good idea, and a big bootful of rudder and/ or aileron to keep you
>> from rolling on your back. After this has settled down, you ensure
>> your flight path is correct, and then you'd check out your engine
>> instruments to determine what the problem is. And you have to do this
>> carefully and judiciously, because they can lie to you too,
>> particularly if some damage has occured. Of course, in a piston
>> there's an additional problem that mxtard has no idea of either, and
>> that is that the MP is next to useless in determining the side that's
>> failed because the MP you might have been pulling could be the same
>> as ambient anyway. Anyhow, the point is, the first clue you're going
>> to get is your head bouncing off either a window or your copilot. If
>> you've been staring at your engine gauges anticipating a failure as
>> you fly along, you're probably going to fly into something sooner
>> rather than later.... But of course MX would ignore that feeling in
>> his ass as one of the donkeys retired and quickly analize his clocks.
>> Then, and only then, would he take the appropriate action, which , by
>> this time, would be to make a brief utterance of regret as his
>> aircraft entered the earth inverted.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> no fair! His bonanza doesn't have turbo props!
>
> Hell yes, it's the kick in the ass that usually lets you know
> something untoward is in the offing, along with auditory cues, g-
> loading, etc., but if you don't verify with instruments then you could
> end up well and truly screwed...and sometimes that helps to only a
> point. There was the case of the airliner in central america
> (1980's?) that went into an inverted dive because the pilot's
> artificial horizon (if memory serves) was slaved to the co-pilot's and
> that one had a wiggy connection such that it was giving intermittently
> correct readings. They did a perfect 1g maneuver too- right into the
> ground (at night)....but the wings and such were come off first.
>
> I've always wondered why, in such circumstances, one would not take
> the time to verify the situation by checking rate of climb/descent and
> indicated airspeed rather than trust *one* instrument?
>
>


Well, that was an interesting one. It was in Panama.Copa airlines, I
think.
You've got it pretty much right. The skipper was the chief pilot and
the FO was the greenest in the company, so there would have been a steep
cockpit gradient. IOW the FO would have been a bit reluctant to speak
out. Also, being a Latino cutlure, and paternal in it's roots, there is
an even stronger reluctance to criticise one's superiors. Maternal
societies produce behavior patterns more condusive to what we would call
good CRM.
Having said that, I don't know if there would have been enough awareness
of the situation on the part of the FO anyway. The 737-200 has a
ferocious roll rate when the stick is fully displaced. We're talking a
roll rate much faster than a cherokee or similar, BTW, and they were
probably on their backs before the FO could figure out what was going
on. As well as that, he might have been doiing something else, like
tuning a radio or picking up his clipboard when it all started.
Like you said, they did suspect the connectors on the back af the
Captains horizon, but if you saw the film, the guys who examined the
debris pulled the connectors through their seats on the wire side of the
connection. The hole they pulled them through was smaller than the
connector. The connecting wire, to be installed, has to be pushed clean
through, the connector attached, and then the wire pulled from the far
side to seat the connector. By pulling them clean through, they squashed
the connectors and destroyed any evidence of a loose connection forever.
They did this right on camera!
However, that airplane came from Brittania airlines and the Captain's
hrizon was modified in all of the Brittania 737s to come off a different
bus than Boeing origianlly intended. They did this to improve the
battery endurance so they could make longer overwater flights. Normally
the capt's horizon ( Flight Director is the proper term, in this case,
but we call them horizons just the same) is wired to the standby bus,
which is powered by the battery. Brittania had theirs modified, coming
off the #2 AC bus. Point being they interfered with the natural order of
things and that is often not such a good thing.
So, it is entirely possible that the horizon display was sticking in
various places and confusing the captain. He could easily have looked at
the standby horizon which is just to the right of the central display,
but if he was wrestling with the airplane and down to lizard brain
capability with the nonsensical picture he was getting he was probably
too far behind his mental power curve to do that. According to the
theory it not only froze, but it would then unlock and update suddenly
and then freeze again. It all certainly makes sense when you look at the
flight path. It's only a theory though. I hope if anything similar
hapens to me that his experience will cause me to have a quick look at
the standby horizon.
Another possibility is that this was the first 737 rudder hardover
accident. I kind of doubt it, and in fact, I'm not 100% convinced the
other two 737s were brought down by this, but the NTSB are pretty sure
so I'll defer to them!

Bertie

[Benjamin Dover]

gatt > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Viperdoc writes:
>>
>>> Anthony, were all of your pronouncements based upon your instrument
>>> training? Who was your instructor? What did you get on the written
>>> exam? How much time do you have in IMC (real, not simulated?)
>>
>> All of my statements are based on study.
>
> Bull****. What did you study? The usenet?
>
> -c
>

Anthony studies by sticking his head up his ass and farting.

[romeomike]

Dudley Henriques wrote:

>
> I'm afraid we're still not on the same page.
> If you are USING a seat of the pants sensation as a cue to ACT rather
> than as a cue that expansion of the cross check is warranted, you are
> going to die in instrument conditions.....period!
> You NEVER include a seat of the pants feeling into your reactive action
> path when on instruments.
> Look; let me make this perfectly clear. There is NO actionable
> difference between the "leans" and a "seat of the pants" sensation. BOTH
> are present and of course felt. BOTH might be telling you something so
> they should not be ignored. But BOTH are physical sensations and as such
> are NEVER used as a source to make a control change while IFR.
> If you feel a physical sensation while on instruments, it is indeed a
> cue, but NOT an actionable cue. ALL sensations are simply there. You
> NEVER act in ANY way on what ANY sensation is giving you in the way of a
> cue. If the sensation is expected by something you have done control
> wise that's fine. If it isn't, don't act on it. Your scan is in progress
> at all times. If something looks out of line, EXPAND THE SCAN!
> You control the aircraft based on instrument cues ONLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> You exist in a world of physical cues. Simply know they are there and go
> to the panel!!
> God.I hope this clears this up!
>

Clear and concise. Excellent!!

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 20, 9:55*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> BOTH might be telling you something so
> they should not be ignored.

Exactly my point. Especially the absense of an expected sensation
(see further down).

> But BOTH are physical sensations and as such
> are NEVER used as a source to make a control change while IFR.

Agree, and I never said to make a control change. I use it to VERIFY
an existing condition. If I am climbing, AI shows normal pitch up and
I feel positive G's life is good. If I add power to capture the glide
slope to to drive it level to capture it, needles move in the
directioin expected and I feel it in the seat of my pants, life is
good. The feeling is CONFIRMING the instrument trends, life is good.

> If you feel a physical sensation while on instruments, it is indeed a
> cue, but NOT an actionable cue. ALL sensations are simply there. You
> NEVER act in ANY way on what ANY sensation is giving you in the way of a
> cue.

And this is where I may digress a little, operative word is a little.
It's actionable in the sense of expanding your scan in determining why
something is not right. I am not saying make a control change based
on a sensation, but I am saying start looking elsewhere on your panel
to resolve the discrepancy between what you feel and what you see.

Using my example, pitch up AI, and not feeling G's made me look
elsewhere for discrepancies. If I would have followed the AI, first
instinct would have been push the nose over and rectify the AI WITHOUT
considering other instruments. It was the discrepancy of not feeling
the G's and showing a pitch up that made me ACT to further my scan to
the VSI and airspeed QUICKER then my normal scan process would have
taken. I made NO changes in my airplane configuration until I
furthered my scan to my secondary gauges

> If the sensation is expected by something you have done control
> wise that's fine.

THIS IS EXACTLY what I am saying. Based on control INPUTS, I should
have a corresponding feeling in the seat of my pants.

> If it isn't, don't act on it. Your scan is in progress
> at all times.

THIS IS EXACTLY what I am saying. If there is a discrepancy, need to
search further for what is going on, not act on sense.

> You control the aircraft based on instrument cues ONLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Agree, and what you feel should be what the instrument reads. If
climbing, feel some G's. The feeling CONFIRMS what the instruments
read, not the other way around. This is what I am trying to drive
home.

> God.I hope this clears this up!

Hopefully what I say above clears it up. I really think we are on the
same page, just a matter of how I am wording it :-)

[Ken S. Tucker]

On May 20, 9:16 am, romeomike > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
> > I'm afraid we're still not on the same page.
> > If you are USING a seat of the pants sensation as a cue to ACT rather
> > than as a cue that expansion of the cross check is warranted, you are
> > going to die in instrument conditions.....period!
> > You NEVER include a seat of the pants feeling into your reactive action
> > path when on instruments.
> > Look; let me make this perfectly clear. There is NO actionable
> > difference between the "leans" and a "seat of the pants" sensation. BOTH
> > are present and of course felt. BOTH might be telling you something so
> > they should not be ignored. But BOTH are physical sensations and as such
> > are NEVER used as a source to make a control change while IFR.
> > If you feel a physical sensation while on instruments, it is indeed a
> > cue, but NOT an actionable cue. ALL sensations are simply there. You
> > NEVER act in ANY way on what ANY sensation is giving you in the way of a
> > cue. If the sensation is expected by something you have done control
> > wise that's fine. If it isn't, don't act on it. Your scan is in progress
> > at all times. If something looks out of line, EXPAND THE SCAN!
> > You control the aircraft based on instrument cues ONLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > You exist in a world of physical cues. Simply know they are there and go
> > to the panel!!
> > God.I hope this clears this up!
>
> Clear and concise. Excellent!!

Yeah I really love that word "ACTIONABLE".
I'm going to use it actionably.
Give Dud another star"*".
Ken

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

A Lieberman wrote:
> On May 20, 9:55 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> BOTH might be telling you something so
>> they should not be ignored.
>
> Exactly my point. Especially the absense of an expected sensation
> (see further down).
>
>> But BOTH are physical sensations and as such
>> are NEVER used as a source to make a control change while IFR.
>
> Agree, and I never said to make a control change. I use it to VERIFY
> an existing condition. If I am climbing, AI shows normal pitch up and
> I feel positive G's life is good. If I add power to capture the glide
> slope to to drive it level to capture it, needles move in the
> directioin expected and I feel it in the seat of my pants, life is
> good. The feeling is CONFIRMING the instrument trends, life is good.
>
>> If you feel a physical sensation while on instruments, it is indeed a
>> cue, but NOT an actionable cue. ALL sensations are simply there. You
>> NEVER act in ANY way on what ANY sensation is giving you in the way of a
>> cue.
>
> And this is where I may digress a little, operative word is a little.
> It's actionable in the sense of expanding your scan in determining why
> something is not right. I am not saying make a control change based
> on a sensation, but I am saying start looking elsewhere on your panel
> to resolve the discrepancy between what you feel and what you see.
>
> Using my example, pitch up AI, and not feeling G's made me look
> elsewhere for discrepancies. If I would have followed the AI, first
> instinct would have been push the nose over and rectify the AI WITHOUT
> considering other instruments. It was the discrepancy of not feeling
> the G's and showing a pitch up that made me ACT to further my scan to
> the VSI and airspeed QUICKER then my normal scan process would have
> taken. I made NO changes in my airplane configuration until I
> furthered my scan to my secondary gauges
>
>> If the sensation is expected by something you have done control
>> wise that's fine.
>
> THIS IS EXACTLY what I am saying. Based on control INPUTS, I should
> have a corresponding feeling in the seat of my pants.
>
>> If it isn't, don't act on it. Your scan is in progress
>> at all times.
>
> THIS IS EXACTLY what I am saying. If there is a discrepancy, need to
> search further for what is going on, not act on sense.
>
>> You control the aircraft based on instrument cues ONLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Agree, and what you feel should be what the instrument reads. If
> climbing, feel some G's. The feeling CONFIRMS what the instruments
> read, not the other way around. This is what I am trying to drive
> home.
>
>> God.I hope this clears this up!
>
> Hopefully what I say above clears it up. I really think we are on the
> same page, just a matter of how I am wording it :-)

Mentally "looking for confirmation" or "expecting confirmation" from a
physical sensation and referencing physical sensation in any shape or
form to what the instruments are telling you in any way at all is an
extremely dangerous practice while IFR.

I can't honestly tell you from reading your posts that you and I are on
the same page at all. I can tell you that if you are relying on physical
sensation in any way whatsoever while on instruments, you and I are on
VERY different pages with this issue.
We all know physical sensation exists when on instruments. It is NOT
there to be used, for verification, or confirmation! It is there to be
understood and blocked out from any part of the instrument scan.
If you agree with this comment, we are in agreement. If you feel that
physical sensation can be used as a confirmation tool while in
instrument conditions, I'm afraid you and I simply have to part company
on this issue. In that case, I wish you the very best believe me, but
I'll bug you no more on this as I've been repeating the same mantra now
for about a dozen exchanges.
No hard feelings I hope, but I just don't seem to be sharing your
opinions on this issue.


--
Dudley Henriques

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
:

> On May 20, 9:16 am, romeomike > wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>
>> > I'm afraid we're still not on the same page.
>> > If you are USING a seat of the pants sensation as a cue to ACT
>> > rather than as a cue that expansion of the cross check is
>> > warranted, you are going to die in instrument
>> > conditions.....period! You NEVER include a seat of the pants
>> > feeling into your reactive action path when on instruments.
>> > Look; let me make this perfectly clear. There is NO actionable
>> > difference between the "leans" and a "seat of the pants" sensation.
>> > BOTH are present and of course felt. BOTH might be telling you
>> > something so they should not be ignored. But BOTH are physical
>> > sensations and as such are NEVER used as a source to make a control
>> > change while IFR. If you feel a physical sensation while on
>> > instruments, it is indeed a cue, but NOT an actionable cue. ALL
>> > sensations are simply there. You NEVER act in ANY way on what ANY
>> > sensation is giving you in the way of a cue. If the sensation is
>> > expected by something you have done control wise that's fine. If it
>> > isn't, don't act on it. Your scan is in progress at all times. If
>> > something looks out of line, EXPAND THE SCAN! You control the
>> > aircraft based on instrument cues ONLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You exist in
>> > a world of physical cues. Simply know they are there and go to the
>> > panel!! God.I hope this clears this up!
>>
>> Clear and concise. Excellent!!
>
> Yeah I really love that word "ACTIONABLE".
> I'm going to use it actionably.


I'm sure you will.


Bertie

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 20, 12:56*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> No hard feelings I hope, but I just don't seem to be sharing your
> opinions on this issue.

Absolutely no hard feelings :-))

I think we all have the same goal, and that's the safe outcome of any
flight.

One thing for sure, we are not robots, and don't do the same thing,
but that's the human side of us.

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberman writes:

> Hopefully what I say above clears it up. I really think we are on the
> same page, just a matter of how I am wording it :-)

You'll be on the same page when you admit that you are wrong.

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberman writes:

> One thing for sure, we are not robots, and don't do the same thing,
> but that's the human side of us.

Some human sides lead to safety; others lead to danger.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> Liar.
>
> "You're demonstrating a poor attitude." -you

I was attempting to deal with extreme intransigence on a matter of extreme
importance. It's vital that people not get the idea that you don't have to
fly on instruments in instrument flight. That's just not the way it works.

[Mxsmanic]

Tina writes:

> You might have noticed it takes a LONG time in a sim to arrive at a
> real destination.

It takes the same amount of time in the sim that it takes in real life.

> It's not often we climb aboard our airplane without
> wanting to actually, after a flight, be in a different place.

Do you fly for travel, or do you fly for the sake of flying?

> There are a few real life issues your simming may not correctly
> represent. For example, one can fly in IMC and have excellent
> visibility and outside reference. IMC does NOT mean being in the
> clouds.

IMC that does not include impaired visibility is a legal construct and not
relevant to this discussion.

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> Next time you go there Mx do you reckon you could get me a souvenir
> cloth badge, Ive been collecting them for years, and I havent got
> KLAX. I'll pay of course and add $5 for your trouble. Was that the
> 2 or 4 seat sim?

It was the Baron, with club-style seating.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> You also tried to 'fly' from KTEX to KASE, slammed into a mountain , and
> lived.

That was VFR.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> Don't preach to me about what pilots do in IMC.

If you disagree with what I say, cite the parts with which you don't agree,
and explain why.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> The physical sensations allow a pilot to be proactive rather than
> reactive.

Not under IFR.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> The sensations are immediate.

Not always. And they are often wrong.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> Not necessary. I completed an Instrument Proficiency Check three weeks
> ago. I wasn't even due for it, just did it anyway. Six different
> approaches, radar vectoring, unusual attitude recovery, etc.

What were the weather conditions?

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 20, 2:27*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Lieberman writes:
> > Hopefully what I say above clears it up. *I really think we are on the
> > same page, just a matter of how I am wording it :-)
>
> You'll be on the same page when you admit that you are wrong.

WRONG.

Difference of opinion does not make me or Dudley wrong. It's a
discussion.

What makes us both right is THE GOAL OF THE ultimate outcome and that
is a safe landing.

Of course knowing what MSFS is like AND flying a real airplane is
like, you will never know.

GUESS THAT MAKES YOU WRONG.

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 20, 2:31*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> IMC that does not include impaired visibility is a legal construct and not
> relevant to this discussion.

WRONG.

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 20, 2:33*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> If you disagree with what I say, cite the parts with which you don't agree,
> and explain why.

I DID! YOU FAIL TO READ MY POSTS.

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 20, 2:34*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Not always. *And they are often wrong.

WRONG. If you disagree with me, tell me why with real time flying
experiences.

MSFS does not give you physical feedback so you have no foundation to
say the above.

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 19, 9:05*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Viperdoc writes:
> > Anthony, were all of your pronouncements based upon your instrument
> > training? Who was your instructor? What did you get on the written exam?
> > How much time do you have in IMC (real, not simulated?)
>
> All of my statements are based on study.

ANSWER HIS QUESTIONS ABOVE!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are 4 questions to be answered.

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberman writes:

> Difference of opinion does not make me or Dudley wrong. It's a
> discussion.

If it were only different wordings for the same concept, there would be no
problem. But there are fundamental differences in what the two of you
believe.

> What makes us both right is THE GOAL OF THE ultimate outcome and that
> is a safe landing.

What makes Dudley right is his understand of the importance of relying on
instruments and not sensations.

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberman writes:

> WRONG. If you disagree with me, tell me why with real time flying
> experiences.

What's wrong with just pointing out the facts.

> MSFS does not give you physical feedback so you have no foundation to
> say the above.

I don't need physical feedback in MSFS, because IFR is all about flying by
instruments alone.

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 20, 2:33*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> gatt writes:
> > The physical sensations allow a pilot to be proactive rather than
> > reactive.
>
> Not under IFR.

How do you know since MSFS does not give you physical feedback?

Besides the above is WRONG. IFR means Instrument Flight Rules which
is different then IMC.

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 20, 3:00*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I don't need physical feedback in MSFS, because IFR is all about flying by
> instruments alone.

WRONG.

Do you get leans in MSFS? Do you get spatially disoriented in MSFS

[A Lieberman[_2_]]

On May 20, 2:59*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> What makes Dudley right is his understand of the importance of relying on
> instruments and not sensations.

Show me where I say I rely on sensations AND NOT INSTRUMENTS.

You won't which makes you WRONG above.

[Scott Skylane]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>
> Well, that was an interesting one. It was in Panama.Copa airlines, I
> think.
> You've got it pretty much right. The skipper was the chief pilot and
> the FO was the greenest in the company, so there would have been a steep
> cockpit gradient. IOW the FO would have been a bit reluctant to speak
> out. Also, being a Latino cutlure, and paternal in it's roots, there is
> an even stronger reluctance to criticise one's superiors. Maternal
> societies produce behavior patterns more condusive to what we would call
> good CRM.
/snip/

If that's the one I'm thinking about, the Captain was also a relatively
low time pilot. He was a celebrated military hero in his country, but
actually had just a few hours in fighters, and a few in Hercs. Then,
after military retirement, *bam*, chief pilot of a "major" airline, with
about 1000 total time. And yes, the -200 does have a very sporting roll
rate, which certainly exacerbated the situation.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Lieberman writes:
>
>> One thing for sure, we are not robots, and don't do the same thing,
>> but that's the human side of us.
>
> Some human sides lead to safety; others lead to danger.
>

You don't have a human side, you moron.

[Tina]

We take pleasure in flying, as we do in driving, but we use both
airplane and car to get to other places.

IMC is a defined condition -- that specific sequence of words has in
the context of flight in the US means something to pilots. That you
choose to ignore its meaning demonstrates something unpleasant about
you.

As for a sim flight taking as long to get somewhere as one in a real
airplane? What an odd mind you have. When we arrive somewhere we are
actually there. We can meet with friends who live there, dine with
them, play golf, whatever.





Your statement that it takes as long On May 20, 3:31 pm, Mxsmanic
> wrote:
> Tina writes:
> > You might have noticed it takes a LONG time in a sim to arrive at a
> > real destination.
>
> It takes the same amount of time in the sim that it takes in real life.
>
> > It's not often we climb aboard our airplane without
> > wanting to actually, after a flight, be in a different place.
>
> Do you fly for travel, or do you fly for the sake of flying?
>
> > There are a few real life issues your simming may not correctly
> > represent. For example, one can fly in IMC and have excellent
> > visibility and outside reference. IMC does NOT mean being in the
> > clouds.
>
> IMC that does not include impaired visibility is a legal construct and not
> relevant to this discussion.

[Benjamin Dover]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Tina writes:
>
>> You might have noticed it takes a LONG time in a sim to arrive at a
>> real destination.
>
> It takes the same amount of time in the sim that it takes in real
> life.
>

BULL ****. You don't get anyware in real time in a sim. Only an infantile
moron would think that a sim goes anywhere.

>> It's not often we climb aboard our airplane without
>> wanting to actually, after a flight, be in a different place.
>
> Do you fly for travel, or do you fly for the sake of flying?

Many of us fly for both reasons. We enjoy flying AND we want to go
somewhere. If we didn't, we'd just play with a sim. But we want to go
somewhere. Only a moron like you confuses simming with real flying.
>
>> There are a few real life issues your simming may not correctly
>> represent. For example, one can fly in IMC and have excellent
>> visibility and outside reference. IMC does NOT mean being in the
>> clouds.
>
> IMC that does not include impaired visibility is a legal construct and
> not relevant to this discussion.
>

In this case, IMC means "Ignoramus Mxsmanic Claims".

You really don't know **** from shinola. You lack the real world
experience to differentiate **** from shinola. All you do is regurgite
whatever character string you find that you half-wittedly think matches
what's being discussed.

[Benjamin Dover]

A Lieberman > wrote in
:

> On May 20, 2:31*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> IMC that does not include impaired visibility is a legal construct
>> and not
>
>> relevant to this discussion.
>
> WRONG.
>
>

Just remeber that when it comes to Anthony, IMC = "Ignoramus Mxsmanic
Claims".

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> terry writes:
>
>> Next time you go there Mx do you reckon you could get me a souvenir
>> cloth badge, Ive been collecting them for years, and I havent got
>> KLAX. I'll pay of course and add $5 for your trouble. Was that the
>> 2 or 4 seat sim?
>
> It was the Baron, with club-style seating.
>

You really set up four seats in your sim? What a doofus.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> You also tried to 'fly' from KTEX to KASE, slammed into a mountain , and
>> lived.
>
> That was VFR.
>

Now you're saying that crashing while VFR is non-fatal, but crashing while
IFR is. In your case, IMC = Ignoramus Mxsmanic Claims.



--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Tina]

On May 20, 4:46 pm, Buster Hymen > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > Steve Foley writes:
>
> >> You also tried to 'fly' from KTEX to KASE, slammed into a mountain , and
> >> lived.
>
> > That was VFR.
>
> Now you're saying that crashing while VFR is non-fatal, but crashing while
> IFR is. In your case, IMC = Ignoramus Mxsmanic Claims.
>
> --
> Marty Shapiro
> Silicon Rallye Inc.
>
> (remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Helen Waite]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Lieberman writes:
>
>> WRONG. If you disagree with me, tell me why with real time flying
>> experiences.
>
> What's wrong with just pointing out the facts.
>
>> MSFS does not give you physical feedback so you have no foundation to
>> say the above.
>
> I don't need physical feedback in MSFS, because IFR is all about
> flying by instruments alone.

When in VMC you must still scan for traffic even if you are IFR. Obviously
you don't know anything about IFR. You just play games.

[Helen Waite]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> Not necessary. I completed an Instrument Proficiency Check three weeks
>> ago. I wasn't even due for it, just did it anyway. Six different
>> approaches, radar vectoring, unusual attitude recovery, etc.
>
> What were the weather conditions?
>

Are you really that stupid? Why does the weather conditions matter. Show
us from the FARs what weather conditions are required for an IPC.

[gatt[_3_]]

> You really set up four seats in your sim? What a doofus.

I edited the art on one of my sim planes. I can't post it here,
obviously, but let me tell you guys:

Nicole Kidman's butt looks really nice on the nose of my P-38.


-c

[Tina]

With respect to Anthony, one can conclude he enjoys any attention,
positive or negative. Success in his mind may very well be defined by
the length of a thread. Useful clarifications sometimes are posted --
not often by him -- so there is utility in reading some of it.
Arrogance and ignorance is an entertaining combination, unless the
arrogant and ignorant person is in a position to do harm.

If he 'presents' (that word is being used in the sense mental health
professionals us it) in real life the way he does here he can probably
count all of his friends on the fingers of one foot.

On May 20, 4:49 pm, Helen Waite >
wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > A Lieberman writes:
>
> >> WRONG. If you disagree with me, tell me why with real time flying
> >> experiences.
>
> > What's wrong with just pointing out the facts.
>
> >> MSFS does not give you physical feedback so you have no foundation to
> >> say the above.
>
> > I don't need physical feedback in MSFS, because IFR is all about
> > flying by instruments alone.
>
> When in VMC you must still scan for traffic even if you are IFR. Obviously
> you don't know anything about IFR. You just play games.

[[email protected]]

On May 20, 3:50*pm, Helen Waite >
wrote:

> Are you really that stupid? *Why does the weather conditions matter. Show
> us from the FARs what weather conditions are required for an IPC.

Remember you are talking to a NON PILOT who says sensory feelings are
not a part of IFR flying.

That's should wrap this thread up in a nutshell. :-)

[gatt[_3_]]

>>> You also tried to 'fly' from KTEX to KASE, slammed into a mountain , and
>>> lived.

>> That was VFR.


Good god. Who slams into a mountain in VMC and then preaches to others
about how to fly in IMC?! By the way, it's not VFR. 14 CFR 91 does
not apply to video games.

-c

[Tina]

It would seem it was not simulated VMC. It was simulated idiocy. Maybe
not simulated.



On May 20, 5:53 pm, gatt > wrote:
> >>> You also tried to 'fly' from KTEX to KASE, slammed into a mountain , and
> >>> lived.
> >> That was VFR.
>
> Good god. Who slams into a mountain in VMC and then preaches to others
> about how to fly in IMC?! By the way, it's not VFR. 14 CFR 91 does
> not apply to video games.
>
> -c

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> You also tried to 'fly' from KTEX to KASE, slammed into a mountain , and
>> lived.
>
> That was VFR.

Video Flicker Rate?

[gatt[_3_]]

Helen Waite wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in

>>> Not necessary. I completed an Instrument Proficiency Check three weeks
>>> ago. I wasn't even due for it, just did it anyway. Six different
>>> approaches, radar vectoring, unusual attitude recovery, etc.
>> What were the weather conditions?


It was an IPC. Anybody who has done an IPC in flight knows they're
typically done under the hood.

> Are you really that stupid? Why does the weather conditions matter. Show
> us from the FARs what weather conditions are required for an IPC.

Well, Ash might call me an arrogant ass for pointing this out, but when
I did my instrument checkride, it included getting stuck in a 20-minute
hold in solid IMC. Not only did I live, I passed the checkride.

I've shot plenty of approaches in zero visibility, in a Frasca Tru
Flight--a REAL flight simulator--so I've pretty much got it covered no
matter how you look at it. I've certainly got nothing to prove to some
video-game addict, regardless of what he claims he read somewhere.

-c

[Helen Waite]

" > wrote in news:845081e2-95d9-4a7e-
:

> On May 20, 3:50*pm, Helen Waite >
> wrote:
>
>> Are you really that stupid? *Why does the weather conditions matter. Sho
> w
>> us from the FARs what weather conditions are required for an IPC.
>
> Remember you are talking to a NON PILOT who says sensory feelings are
> not a part of IFR flying.
>
> That's should wrap this thread up in a nutshell. :-)
>

I'm well aware that Anthony is a non-pilot simmer who thinks that MSFS has
made him god's gift to the real world of aviation. He has to be exposed
each and every time he opens his mouth, especially in a student forum.

Isn't it interesting that while he is always asking other's for cites, he
doesn't supply any to back his twisted conclusions. As another poster very
accurately said, IMC stands for "Ignoramus Mxsmanic Claims" whenever
Anthony posts.

[Benjamin Dover]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in
:

> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Steve Foley writes:
>>
>>> You also tried to 'fly' from KTEX to KASE, slammed into a mountain ,
>>> and lived.
>>
>> That was VFR.
>
> Video Flicker Rate?
>
>
>

Maybe Vidiot Fjukktard Reality?

[Helen Waite]

gatt > wrote in
:

> Helen Waite wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote in
>
>>>> Not necessary. I completed an Instrument Proficiency Check three
>>>> weeks ago. I wasn't even due for it, just did it anyway. Six
>>>> different approaches, radar vectoring, unusual attitude recovery,
>>>> etc.
>>> What were the weather conditions?
>
>
> It was an IPC. Anybody who has done an IPC in flight knows they're
> typically done under the hood.
>
>> Are you really that stupid? Why does the weather conditions matter.
>> Show us from the FARs what weather conditions are required for an
>> IPC.
>
> Well, Ash might call me an arrogant ass for pointing this out, but
> when I did my instrument checkride, it included getting stuck in a
> 20-minute hold in solid IMC. Not only did I live, I passed the
> checkride.
>
> I've shot plenty of approaches in zero visibility, in a Frasca Tru
> Flight--a REAL flight simulator--so I've pretty much got it covered no
> matter how you look at it. I've certainly got nothing to prove to
> some video-game addict, regardless of what he claims he read
> somewhere.
>
> -c
>

I know that YOU know what real IFR flight is. Anthony doesn't. His
question to you was yet another example of what another poster aptly
referred to as IMC = Ignoramus Mxsmanic Claims.

Since he posts his drivel to a student news group and has NEVER flown a
real airplane, even the slightest error on his part should be pounced upon
and verified so students who are unaware of his total and complete lack of
qualifications will not ever listen to anything he says.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Benjamin Dover wrote:
>>> That was VFR.
>>
>> Video Flicker Rate?
>>
>>
>>
>
> Maybe Vidiot Fjukktard Reality?


Virtual ****ing Reality.

[Tina]

Most likely another thing he only simulates, Mortimer. Stimulating
simulation? Does MS have such a sim?



On May 20, 7:04 pm, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com>
wrote:
> Benjamin Dover wrote:
> >>> That was VFR.
>
> >> Video Flicker Rate?
>
> > Maybe Vidiot Fjukktard Reality?
>
> Virtual ****ing Reality.

[More_Flaps]

On May 21, 12:56*am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:

> you need to learn about somatogravic thresholds, the effect of alcohol
> on the viscosity of the fluids of the inner ear

How much alcohol are we talking about here? Dies the viscosity of the
endolymph actually change?

Cheers

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Tue, 20 May 2008 13:36:51 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:
>
>> On Mon, 19 May 2008 04:29:11 +0200, Mxsmanic >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>A Lieberman writes:
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>The danger in instrument flight is that all sorts of things are felt,
>>>but none of them is reliable. It is called instrument flight because
>>>the pilot ignores things felt and flies exclusively by the
>>>instruments.
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>The feeling in your rear end is no more reliable than the feeling from
>>>your inner ear.
>>>
>>>It sounds like your Friday incident has given you a false sense of
>>>security.
>>
>> during the history of scientific endeavour there have been many
>> individuals who have arrived at the correct answers for the wrong
>> reasons.
>>
>> anthony you are perpetually one of those people.
>>
>> while you may occasionally say the correct things a careful read of
>> your posts has always revealed the fact that you have inherently an
>> incompetent understanding of what you write about.
>>
>> Stealth Pilot
>>
>>
>
>Difference is, he doesn;t arrive at the answer, he starts there. Then he
>works his way back the Anthony land until he begins with a premise that
>is straight out of alice in wonderland.
>
>Bertie

absolutely true bertie.
so you, I and others like us take on the duty of correcting his posts,
not ever in the hope of educating him but to warn others learning into
aviation that he is wrong.
personally I think we'd all be better off if we flew to paris and shot
the *******.
Stealth Pilot

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Tue, 20 May 2008 09:21:48 -0700 (PDT), A Lieberman
> wrote:

>On May 20, 9:55*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> BOTH might be telling you something so
>> they should not be ignored.
>
>Exactly my point. Especially the absense of an expected sensation
>(see further down).
>
>> But BOTH are physical sensations and as such
>> are NEVER used as a source to make a control change while IFR.
>
>Agree, and I never said to make a control change. I use it to VERIFY
>an existing condition. If I am climbing, AI shows normal pitch up and
>I feel positive G's life is good. If I add power to capture the glide
>slope to to drive it level to capture it, needles move in the
>directioin expected and I feel it in the seat of my pants, life is
>good. The feeling is CONFIRMING the instrument trends, life is good.
>
>> If you feel a physical sensation while on instruments, it is indeed a
>> cue, but NOT an actionable cue. ALL sensations are simply there. You
>> NEVER act in ANY way on what ANY sensation is giving you in the way of a
>> cue.
>
>And this is where I may digress a little, operative word is a little.
>It's actionable in the sense of expanding your scan in determining why
>something is not right. I am not saying make a control change based
>on a sensation, but I am saying start looking elsewhere on your panel
>to resolve the discrepancy between what you feel and what you see.
>
>Using my example, pitch up AI, and not feeling G's made me look
>elsewhere for discrepancies. If I would have followed the AI, first
>instinct would have been push the nose over and rectify the AI WITHOUT
>considering other instruments. It was the discrepancy of not feeling
>the G's and showing a pitch up that made me ACT to further my scan to
>the VSI and airspeed QUICKER then my normal scan process would have
>taken. I made NO changes in my airplane configuration until I
>furthered my scan to my secondary gauges
>
>> If the sensation is expected by something you have done control
>> wise that's fine.
>
>THIS IS EXACTLY what I am saying. Based on control INPUTS, I should
>have a corresponding feeling in the seat of my pants.
>
>> If it isn't, don't act on it. Your scan is in progress
>> at all times.
>
>THIS IS EXACTLY what I am saying. If there is a discrepancy, need to
>search further for what is going on, not act on sense.
>
>> You control the aircraft based on instrument cues ONLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>Agree, and what you feel should be what the instrument reads. If
>climbing, feel some G's. The feeling CONFIRMS what the instruments
>read, not the other way around. This is what I am trying to drive
>home.
>
>> God.I hope this clears this up!
>
>Hopefully what I say above clears it up. I really think we are on the
>same page, just a matter of how I am wording it :-)

no. there is a fundamental principle long written in the deaths of
people who think the way you do which you are getting wrong.

NEVER rely on your senses. they have all sorts of biological
limitations which the instruments do not have. I encourage you to
research this because it is fascinating as subject in itself. hunt out
some good 'human factors' books.

let me develop one mental picture that should show you the folly of
your approach. you seem to assume IFR flight in stratus conditions,
benign grey opaque almost still air.
just picture yourself in ifr conditions in a breeze over the rounded
hills north east of Adelaide in South Australia. you pull up and
expect the seat of the pants response. you have been flying through a
section of air rising over the hills (you can see the influence
3,500ft above them) you fly over the crest of the hill and enter the
descending air on the other side at about the time of the pull up.

no seat of the pants reaction there. so you go into a totally spurious
response. what would you do? pull up even harder to get the response?

if that doesnt convince you picture youself flying through a
developing thunder storm (in IFR you cant see them ahead) now consider
a pull up in a downdraft.

the accident report reads... it is likely that the aircraft stalled
and entered a spin in ifr conditions. sections of the wreckage were
strewn down the slope of a nearby hill.

Dudley is bang on the money! for heavens sake learn!!!!!!!

Stealth Pilot

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Tue, 20 May 2008 19:00:25 -0700 (PDT), More_Flaps
> wrote:

>On May 21, 12:56*am, Stealth Pilot >
>wrote:
>
>> you need to learn about somatogravic thresholds, the effect of alcohol
>> on the viscosity of the fluids of the inner ear
>
>How much alcohol are we talking about here? Dies the viscosity of the
>endolymph actually change?
>
>Cheers

yes. you can be quite sober and still have the viscosity reduction
active in your ears some 48 hours or more later.
never, never, never drink alcohol in the week before flying IFR.

do some serious human factors reading. the subject is fascinating.
our human sensations have some amazing limitations.

if you need a good introductory text on human physiology to get some
underlying understanding I can recommend 'Human Anatomy and
Physiology' by Elaine N Marieb. It is published by Pearson Benjamin
Cummings in san francisco. excellent!

Stealth pilot

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Tue, 20 May 2008 22:42:44 +0200 (CEST), Benjamin Dover
> wrote:


>
>You really don't know **** from shinola. You lack the real world
>experience to differentiate **** from shinola. All you do is regurgite
>whatever character string you find that you half-wittedly think matches
>what's being discussed.
>
Ben dover the technical precision of your comment is encouraging.
Stealth Pilot

[More_Flaps]

On May 21, 9:59*pm, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 19:00:25 -0700 (PDT), More_Flaps
>
> > wrote:
> >On May 21, 12:56*am, Stealth Pilot >
> >wrote:
>
> >> you need to learn about somatogravic thresholds, the effect of alcohol
> >> on the viscosity of the fluids of the inner ear
>
> >How much alcohol are we talking about here? Dies the viscosity of the
> >endolymph actually change?
>
> >Cheers
>
> yes. you can be quite sober and still have the viscosity reduction
> active in your ears some 48 hours or more later.
> never, never, never drink alcohol in the week before flying IFR.
>
> do some serious human factors reading. the subject is fascinating.
> our human sensations have some amazing limitations.
>
> if you need a good introductory text on human physiology to get some
> underlying understanding I can recommend 'Human Anatomy and
> Physiology' by Elaine N Marieb. It is published by Pearson Benjamin
> Cummings in san francisco. excellent!
>

I've got several physiology/toxicology text books but I can't see a
reference to _viscosity_ changes in endolymph with alcohol. Are you
sure you mean viscosity and not density?


Cheers

[[email protected]]

On May 21, 4:22 am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:

> >Difference is, he doesn;t arrive at the answer, he starts there. Then he
> >works his way back the Anthony land until he begins with a premise that
> >is straight out of alice in wonderland.
>
> >Bertie
>
> absolutely true bertie.
> so you, I and others like us take on the duty of correcting his posts,
> not ever in the hope of educating him but to warn others learning into
> aviation that he is wrong.
> personally I think we'd all be better off if we flew to paris and shot
> the *******.
> Stealth Pilot

So you mean it doesn't work because the lift fairies flap their wings
and push up on the underside of the aircraft?

Are you telling me the sky sucks????

I feel so cheap and used.

[[email protected]]

On May 19, 12:48 am, Gezellig > wrote:
> Mike Isaksen has brought this to us :
>
> > "Gezellig" wrote ...
> >> Why do I feel like singing out loud with Barbra Streisand?
>
> > That could be considered Medically disqualifying !!!
> > ;-)
>
> I recant to David Bowie. Which may continue my disqualification. :'(

Turn and face the strange.

[Steve Foley]

"Tina" > wrote in message
...
> With respect to Anthony, one can conclude he enjoys any attention,

I agree with that statement 100%


> If he 'presents' (that word is being used in the sense mental health
> professionals us it) in real life the way he does here he can probably
> count all of his friends on the fingers of one foot.

That would certainly explain why he is alone and unemployed. If you want
further insite into his personality, check the blog he claims to have never
written.

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://aprenta.blogspot.com

and his entry for wikipedia is pretty good too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Agateller

He really is one sick puppy.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Wed, 21 May 2008 04:52:29 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>On May 21, 4:22 am, Stealth Pilot >
>wrote:
>
>> >Difference is, he doesn;t arrive at the answer, he starts there. Then he
>> >works his way back the Anthony land until he begins with a premise that
>> >is straight out of alice in wonderland.
>>
>> >Bertie
>>
>> absolutely true bertie.
>> so you, I and others like us take on the duty of correcting his posts,
>> not ever in the hope of educating him but to warn others learning into
>> aviation that he is wrong.
>> personally I think we'd all be better off if we flew to paris and shot
>> the *******.
>> Stealth Pilot
>
>So you mean it doesn't work because the lift fairies flap their wings
>and push up on the underside of the aircraft?
>
>Are you telling me the sky sucks????
>
>I feel so cheap and used.

look you walked in late to your class and missed the introduction.
stop bothering the aeroplane people and get back into the helicopter
classes. :-)

aeroplanes fly because of lift generated by pressure differences on
the wing surfaces. these pressure differences are caused by the shape
of the aerofoil of the wing and its relative speed with the
surrounding air. bernouli's theorem, newtonian mechanics etc are
theroretical models which can be used to calculate the effects of
varying various components at play in causing the pressure
differences.

simple enough.

Stealth Pilot

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Wed, 21 May 2008 03:33:18 -0700 (PDT), More_Flaps
> wrote:

>On May 21, 9:59*pm, Stealth Pilot >
>wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 19:00:25 -0700 (PDT), More_Flaps
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On May 21, 12:56*am, Stealth Pilot >
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >> you need to learn about somatogravic thresholds, the effect of alcohol
>> >> on the viscosity of the fluids of the inner ear
>>
>> >How much alcohol are we talking about here? Dies the viscosity of the
>> >endolymph actually change?
>>
>> >Cheers
>>
>> yes. you can be quite sober and still have the viscosity reduction
>> active in your ears some 48 hours or more later.
>> never, never, never drink alcohol in the week before flying IFR.
>>
>> do some serious human factors reading. the subject is fascinating.
>> our human sensations have some amazing limitations.
>>
>> if you need a good introductory text on human physiology to get some
>> underlying understanding I can recommend 'Human Anatomy and
>> Physiology' by Elaine N Marieb. It is published by Pearson Benjamin
>> Cummings in san francisco. excellent!
>>
>
>I've got several physiology/toxicology text books but I can't see a
>reference to _viscosity_ changes in endolymph with alcohol. Are you
>sure you mean viscosity and not density?
>
>
>Cheers

I mean exactly what I wrote.

human factors stuff is reasonably new. it is probable that the
research in the human factors work doesnt make it into the other text
books because it is fairly specialised.
btw I dont quote human factors books because I was taught this stuff
in my commercial pilot studies. it is standard modern australian
commercial level aviation knowledge.

Stealth Pilot

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

> God.I hope this clears this up!

It won't -- but thanks for trying.

For reasons known only to them, some posters here are going to extraordinary
lengths to prove that "seat of the pants" sensations are a part of IFR
flight -- even though every published source (and every expert here) has
agreed with MX's statements to the contrary.

It's like they are willing to go to ANY length to try to prove the statement
wrong simply because the source (in this case) was a non-pilot. I don't
know what mysterious power MX has over some participants in this group, but
it's downright creepy.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mxsmanic]

Stealth Pilot writes:

> aeroplanes fly because of lift generated by pressure differences on
> the wing surfaces.

Airplanes fly because the wings divert the air through which they pass
downwards, creating a downwash and exerting a force in doing so that engenders
an opposite force that is lift.

> ... these pressure differences are caused by the shape
> of the aerofoil of the wing ...

The air is diverted because the wing has a positve angle of attack. It can be
perfectly flat and it will still generate lift.

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberman writes:

> Show me where I say I rely on sensations AND NOT INSTRUMENTS.

You've said multiple times that sensations tell you when something is
happening, and that you look at instruments when you feel sensations. You are
relying on sensations.

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> For reasons known only to them, some posters here are going to extraordinary
> lengths to prove that "seat of the pants" sensations are a part of IFR
> flight -- even though every published source (and every expert here) has
> agreed with MX's statements to the contrary.
>
> It's like they are willing to go to ANY length to try to prove the statement
> wrong simply because the source (in this case) was a non-pilot. I don't
> know what mysterious power MX has over some participants in this group, but
> it's downright creepy.

I hope that this compulsion on their part does not extend beyond this
newsgroup, because if they exhibit the same obstinacy while flying ...

[Mxsmanic]

Tina writes:

> As for a sim flight taking as long to get somewhere as one in a real
> airplane? What an odd mind you have. When we arrive somewhere we are
> actually there. We can meet with friends who live there, dine with
> them, play golf, whatever.

I simulate for the sake of flying. I'm not interested in meeting friends,
dining, or playing golf. I'm only interested in flying. The sim has the
advantage in this respect.

[Mxsmanic]

Buster Hymen writes:

> You really set up four seats in your sim? What a doofus.

The aircraft has six seats, including those of the pilot(s).

[Mxsmanic]

Buster Hymen writes:

> Now you're saying that crashing while VFR is non-fatal, but crashing while
> IFR is.

No, I'm saying that a VFR crash is irrelevant to a discussion of IFR.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> Who slams into a mountain in VMC and then preaches to others
> about how to fly in IMC?!

I thought it was just a simulation. Is it real now?

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberman writes:

> How do you know since MSFS does not give you physical feedback?

The law requires it.

> Besides the above is WRONG. IFR means Instrument Flight Rules which
> is different then IMC.

I wrote IFR because I meant IFR, not IMC.

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberman writes:

> Do you get leans in MSFS? Do you get spatially disoriented in MSFS

Only rarely.

[Mxsmanic]

Helen Waite writes:

> Are you really that stupid? Why does the weather conditions matter.

If weather conditions don't matter, then flying in heavy IMC should be no more
difficult than flying under a hood in VMC.

[Mxsmanic]

gatt writes:

> ... a REAL flight simulator ...

This looks like an oxymoron to me.

[Mxsmanic]

A Lieberman writes:

> ANSWER HIS QUESTIONS ABOVE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Or else what?

[Tina]

How do you trim without relying on sensations?


On May 21, 1:57 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> A Lieberman writes:
> > Show me where I say I rely on sensations AND NOT INSTRUMENTS.
>
> You've said multiple times that sensations tell you when something is
> happening, and that you look at instruments when you feel sensations. You are
> relying on sensations.

[Peter Dohm]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Stealth Pilot writes:
>
>> aeroplanes fly because of lift generated by pressure differences on
>> the wing surfaces.
>
> Airplanes fly because the wings divert the air through which they pass
> downwards, creating a downwash and exerting a force in doing so that
> engenders
> an opposite force that is lift.
>
So near, and yet so far...

>> ... these pressure differences are caused by the shape
>> of the aerofoil of the wing ...
>
> The air is diverted because the wing has a positve angle of attack. It
> can be
> perfectly flat and it will still generate lift.

God! Grant me strength!

Peter

[BDS[_2_]]

"Tina" > wrote

> How do you trim without relying on sensations?
>
>
> On May 21, 1:57 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > A Lieberman writes:
> > > Show me where I say I rely on sensations AND NOT INSTRUMENTS.
> >
> > You've said multiple times that sensations tell you when something is
> > happening, and that you look at instruments when you feel sensations.
You are
> > relying on sensations.
>

In the PC sim the trim is just like another elevator. You hold the yoke in
the position for level flight, trim in the appropriate direction, then move
the yoke to the new position for level flight, rinse and repeat.

It's just like flying, only different. :>)

BDS

[Gezellig]

On Tue, 20 May 2008 07:27:28 -0700 (PDT), A Lieberman wrote:

>> you are setting your self up for a fatal accident.
>> you need to learn about somatogravic thresholds, the effect of alcohol
>> on the viscosity of the fluids of the inner ear and above all you need
>
> Did you read my entire post????

He's a Stealth Pilot, no need to learn to read. lol

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Buster Hymen writes:
>
>> You really set up four seats in your sim? What a doofus.
>
> The aircraft has six seats, including those of the pilot(s).
>

Thanks, Anthony. You just proved you're an even bigger doofus.

[Tina]

We trim by holding the yoke, and adjust trim to reduce perceived
pressure. That is very much a sensation and the use of sensation to
fly the airplane correctly.

The point being, we are using sensation to correctly fly an airplane
in actual IMC, or VFR, or whatever.


Anyone who asserts we do not use those kinds of sensations are not
appropriate is incorrect.


On May 21, 3:06 pm, "BDS" > wrote:
> "Tina" > wrote
>
>
>
> > How do you trim without relying on sensations?
>
> > On May 21, 1:57 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > > A Lieberman writes:
> > > > Show me where I say I rely on sensations AND NOT INSTRUMENTS.
>
> > > You've said multiple times that sensations tell you when something is
> > > happening, and that you look at instruments when you feel sensations.
> You are
> > > relying on sensations.
>
> In the PC sim the trim is just like another elevator. You hold the yoke in
> the position for level flight, trim in the appropriate direction, then move
> the yoke to the new position for level flight, rinse and repeat.
>
> It's just like flying, only different. :>)
>
> BDS

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Buster Hymen writes:
>
>> Now you're saying that crashing while VFR is non-fatal, but crashing
>> while IFR is.
>
> No, I'm saying that a VFR crash is irrelevant to a discussion of IFR.
>


What a marooon!

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> Who slams into a mountain in VMC and then preaches to others
>> about how to fly in IMC?!
>
> I thought it was just a simulation. Is it real now?
>

Anthony, you don't know the difference. Never have and never will.

[Steve Foley]

"Tina" > wrote in message
...

>
> Anyone who asserts we do not use those kinds of sensations are not
> appropriate is incorrect.
>

Never stopped MX.

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> A Lieberman writes:
>
>> How do you know since MSFS does not give you physical feedback?
>
> The law requires it.
>
>> Besides the above is WRONG. IFR means Instrument Flight Rules which
>> is different then IMC.
>
> I wrote IFR because I meant IFR, not IMC.
>

Ok, fjukktard, cite the FAR which requires MSFS to give physical feedback.

Do you ever know what you mean?

[Buster Hymen]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> gatt writes:
>
>> ... a REAL flight simulator ...
>
> This looks like an oxymoron to me.
>

Wow, Anthony. You're looking in the mirror again.