I give up, after many, many years!

Buster Hymen wrote in
02:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote in
:

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
news:4df208ad-4920-4f77-93c1-
:

On May 17, 9:30 am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: "Jay Honeck"

What people are asserting here is 180 degrees different from
what
I read in all the literature. You cannot fly by the seat of
your
pants.
You can't fly based on sensations. They are too unreliable.
Conversely, you can fly without sensations, as long as you have
visual and/or instrument information.

You're a moron. You're not competent to read with
comprehension.
Anthony, you don't know **** from shinola.

Presuming we're talking about IFR flight, what, precisely, do you
find incorrect in MX's paragraph, above?

Many years ago, on a bet, I did a pretty fair 4 point
roll.......BLINDFOLDED! I got lunch and a half dozen beers out of
the
deal.

A plane is flown by sensations. In the short term, it's quite
reliable. In the long term, slight errors start to compound and
need
to be eliminated by squaring things up with the instruments or
horizon. When you catch an updraft coming over a ridge, do you wait
for the altimeter to tell you you're climbing? Or do you slightly
lower the nose based on FEELING the additional lift?
How about landing. Are you FLYING visually or by feel? Do you NEED
to
look at the airspeed indicator to tell if you're trending faster or
slower? I fly by feel. I orient myself visually, either looking out
the window or looking at the instruments. I navigate visually. But
I
FLY by feel. Humans are hard wired with a decent inertial nav.
system. MX is a few wires short of a complete circuit.

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

Like you could.


Bertie




You're a moron!



You're a moron!


Bertie