Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

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

"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.

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

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.

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

"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

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

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

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

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.