Slick Goodlin dead at 82

wrote:
Newps,


Exactly. The same goes for the myth that getting an instrument rating

makes you a better pilot. It makes you a better instrument pilot. It
makes you a worse VFR pilot.

With all due respect, having flown with a few hundred pilots as a
flight instructor, my observation is that pilots who have their
instrument ratings are better all around pilots than those who do not.
(Again, that is a general statement, there are certainly exceptions,
but it is true in general.) It does not make them a worse VFR pilot.
Well to the contrary, in fact, it improves their VFR skills due to
their ability to fly the airplane more precisely, something that seems
to make a big difference on crosswind landings (once they get past
spending too much time head down in the cockpit, which is also true of
VFR pilots with a moving map GPS). While it is only my observation,
pilots without instrument ratings tend to be sloppier on speed control
on landing approach, and are more likely to err on the fast side,
something that is a common cause of loss of control accidents on
landing - more energy, a squared function, to manage, and it doesn't
always get managed well. Noninstrument rated pilots also, in my
observation, tend to be far sloppier on altitude and heading than
pilots with instrument ratings and seem to be more likely to fly at
altitudes that are in violation of the east-west rule.

While the instrument rating is certainly not for everyone, the skill
sets it teaches, mostly the process of thinking much further ahead of
the airplane than one is used to doing when flying VFR, has positive
carryover value, as is usually the case with any additional training,
it has benefits beyond the specific areas being addressed.


This is my experience as well. I find that I not only fly more
precisely than before, but I also am MUCH better in my communications
with ATC and in my understanding of weather and the ATC system. Still
much to learn to be sure, but the instrument rating definitely raised my
game another notch.


As was stated here, fighter pilots in WWII got a lot of instrument
time, especially in the European Theatre where the weather often was
just plain lousy. In fact, they were known to shoot approaches down to
less than 200 and a half to get in after missions.

Interestingly, Al White, combat fighter pilot in WWII with victories,
then military test pilot and then test pilot for North American, was
probably the finest pilots with whom I've ever flown, even when he was
in his late 60s. His handling of the airplane was absolutely fluid and
I've never, ever seen anyone fly more precisely than he could, VFR or
IFR. During one series of maneuvers in a Cessna 402, I tapped the
altimeter on my side of the cockpit because it had not moved through
several 60 degree banked turns and I thought it was stuck. It wasn't.

That just isn't right to fly like that! :-)

Matt

Newps wrote:



Matt Whiting wrote:


Exactly. The same goes for the myth that getting an instrument
rating makes you a better pilot. It makes you a better instrument
pilot. It makes you a worse VFR pilot.



How so?


Getting the IFR rating is all about ignoring what your senses are
telling you and trusting the gauges. Limiting banks to standard rate
turns, keeping the ball centered, very minor pitch and airspeed changes.
That's necessary when you can't see anything. It's also why guys in a
172 get all puckered up when the runway is only 3000 feet long, they
start to worry it's too short. They never explore the low end of the
performance envelope. I bought my Bonanza in August. The first thing I
looked at when I was deciding if I wanted a Bonanza was where is the
bottom of the white arc. My 182 was 60 MPH, the Bo is 62. Perfect I
thought, I won't give up hardly any short field performance.(And I
don't, the Bo lands in 550 feet, takeoff in 550-600) Then I started
asking Bo pilots what speed they fly on final with a load of just
themselves and a half tank of gas. The lowest was 90 MPH IAS and the
highest was 110. That's right, there's morons out there flying at 110
on final when the stall speed is less than half that. Instrument pilots
all. They are so scared of their planes I don't know why they even fly.

I don't think that is an issue related to the instrument rating. I
think that is related to their primary instructor and where they learned
to fly. I've found that folks that learned to fly at small airports,
preferably with a grass runway, and who had an instructor at least 50
years old, fly similar to how you fly ... which is how I fly. However,
people who learned at large controlled fields with instructors in their
early 20s seem to fly as do the Bo pilots you describe above.

If you really want to scare one take them up in a Skylane and perform a
short-field takeoff. I'm not sure if I remember this exactly, as I sold
my 182 more than 5 years ago, but I believe that Vx was something like
61 MPH. The deck angle in my 182 with flaps 20 and Vx was rather
impressive and tended to make most pilot friends of mine look for
something firm to grab onto. :-)

I really doubt these folks started flying this way upon receiving their
instrument rating.

Matt

Newps wrote:
Exactly. The same goes for the myth that getting an instrument rating
makes you a better pilot. It makes you a better instrument pilot. It
makes you a worse VFR pilot.

How so?

Getting the IFR rating is all about ignoring what your senses are
telling you and trusting the gauges. Limiting banks to standard rate
turns, keeping the ball centered, very minor pitch and airspeed changes.
That's necessary when you can't see anything.


It keeps things from getting out of hand when you can't see out. It's a whole
different game when it's VFR. I still strive for smoothness over pulling Gs
when trying to impress someone. Any damned fool can pull Gs... but not all can
achieve smoothness and accuracy in flying.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
Newps wrote:

Exactly. The same goes for the myth that getting an instrument rating
makes you a better pilot. It makes you a better instrument pilot. It
makes you a worse VFR pilot.

How so?

Getting the IFR rating is all about ignoring what your senses are
telling you and trusting the gauges. Limiting banks to standard rate
turns, keeping the ball centered, very minor pitch and airspeed changes.
That's necessary when you can't see anything.



It keeps things from getting out of hand when you can't see out. It's a whole
different game when it's VFR. I still strive for smoothness over pulling Gs
when trying to impress someone. Any damned fool can pull Gs... but not all can
achieve smoothness and accuracy in flying.


And fewer still can pull Gs with smoothness and accuracy! :-)

Matt

Getting the IFR rating is all about ignoring what your senses are
telling you and trusting the gauges. Limiting banks to standard rate
turns, keeping the ball centered, very minor pitch and airspeed changes.
That's necessary when you can't see anything. It's also why guys in a
172 get all puckered up when the runway is only 3000 feet long, they
start to worry it's too short. They never explore the low end of the
performance envelope.

I think you're going off the deep end, drawing the inferences you do.

In naval flight training, we learned instrument flying in D Stage.
We had to fly a Charlie Pattern, a very complicated series of ascents,
descents, turns, to limits you probably won't believe: we had to stay
within 3 degrees on heading, 20 feet on altitude, and 3 seconds on
timing of turns, ascents and descents.

Then we went on to E stage, night flying (VFR), F Stage, formation
flying (VFR, of course, and requiring smooth flying), G Stage, gunnery
(ditto), ACM (ditto) and carrier qualification --where I think you
could say we explored the low end of the envelope.

It worked pretty well. Cadets with barely over 200 hours total time
landed on the boat after the above training schedule.

vince norris

In article ,
says...
Newps wrote:



Jay Honeck wrote:

He didn't like Gabreski and considered both Hoover and Yeager to be
marginal on the gages.



I wonder if that's not uncommon? Being a fighter ace and flying on
the gauges are totally different skills.

In fact, now that I ponder it, being the aggressive, unpredictable,
sharp-eyed fighter ace is almost diametrically opposed to the image of
a skillful, competent IFR pilot.


Exactly. The same goes for the myth that getting an instrument rating
makes you a better pilot. It makes you a better instrument pilot. It
makes you a worse VFR pilot.

How so?

Because such pilots can become complacent about VFR flight. Say they're
VFR in borderline VMC - not uncommon for such pilots to do a bit of
'cheating' by using IFR instruments to "help out". It can lead to bad
accidents...
McDonnell-Douglas DC10-30 ZK-NZP collision with terrain, Ross Island,
Antarctica, 28 November 1979 (257 deaths).

If yer VFR, yer fly by VFR.

--
Duncan

"rdurden" == rdurden writes:

rdurden Dave, It's quite interesting to spend time with test
rdurden pilots who had worked with Yeager. The real test pilots
rdurden from the days of the early jets and rocket planes are
rdurden extremely quiet, not cocky at all; as if they know just
rdurden how very lucky they were just to survive.

rdurden Funny how the truly great test pilots don't get well
rdurden known, for example, Ivan Kinchloe, ... Al White, who
rdurden hand flew the XB-70 at Mach 3 at over 70,000 feet ...

rdurden Slick Goodlin, who did all the initial testing on the
rdurden X-1, before it was in condition to be handed over to the
rdurden military, got shafted by an author, and despite all he
rdurden did with humanitarian airlifts, is recalled by the public
rdurden as a greedy person. It doesn't matter what kind of
rdurden person one really is, I guess, it only matters how one is
rdurden portrayed by the popular media.

Human beings classify people on a few perceived characteristics, and
in general are unable to reevaluate based on later evidence,
preferring instead to add the newer evidence as as sub-grouping of
their main initial evaluation. So it is not really possible for people
generally to accept that a person can be of "characteristic" a,b,c,d
at different times, but not be classified as any one of them.
--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:40:06 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug
wrote in ::

Human beings classify people on a few perceived characteristics, and
in general are unable to reevaluate based on later evidence,
preferring instead to add the newer evidence as as sub-grouping of
their main initial evaluation. So it is not really possible for people
generally to accept that a person can be of "characteristic" a,b,c,d
at different times, but not be classified as any one of them.

If that statement is true, someone who commits the act of murder, for
instance, and may be capable of many other altruistic acts, is not
classified as a murderer while being altruistic. That is, of course,
absurd.

My point is, a person who has demonstrated the capacity to commit a
given act is not in the same class as one who hasn't committed that
act regardless of their capacity to demonstrate other characteristics.

"Larry" == Larry Dighera writes:

Larry On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:40:06 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug
Larry wrote in ::

Human beings classify people on a few perceived
characteristics, and in general are unable to reevaluate based
on later evidence, preferring instead to add the newer evidence
as as sub-grouping of their main initial evaluation. So it is
not really possible for people generally to accept that a
person can be of "characteristic" a,b,c,d at different times,
but not be classified as any one of them.

Larry If that statement is true, someone who commits the act of
Larry murder, for instance, and may be capable of many other
Larry altruistic acts, is not classified as a murderer while
Larry being altruistic. That is, of course, absurd.

Hi Larry, thanks for the reply (in this forum)

To illustrate my point, I don't categorize you as dense just because I
think what you posted is rubbish :-) Just kidding - here is the
explanation: categorizing the person as a murderer is giving him an
epithet due to an action and an idea that you have about that
action. That is related to the human notion of character, and we
extend that to our other ideas about the person in dealing with
them. Think of someone who is a convicted murderer, and someone who
was let off due to some legal shenanigans. Do you feel more
comfortable with one than with the other? Sure, that's how the human
mind works. We cannot imagine having to recategorize again and again
based on new information, instead we prefer sub-categories of existing
ones. Children learn this way, and adults are not that different in
detail. What is most difficult is to come to a new upper-level
categorization to replace an existing one. In fact, the problem is
that such a hierarchal idea is fundamentally flawed.

Larry My point is, a person who has demonstrated the capacity to
Larry commit a given act is not in the same class as one who
Larry hasn't committed that act regardless of their capacity to
Larry demonstrate other characteristics.

The statement of "in the same class" exactly makes my point, as
explained above, and if you do a bit of research on this topic in
psychology you will be convinced yourself (for laypeople, try "The
Tipping Point" and "Blink" and references therein). We choose to
categorize a person due to a certain perception (action noted,
thoughts expressed, etc.), instead of accepting that all manner of
"classes" live together inside that one person, and appear at one
moment or another (think of the difference in your own mind when
seeing a person you categorize as nice doing something mean, and
someone you think of as sort of unpleasant doing something nice for
someone: one is a nice person having a bad day, the other is a nasty
person uncharacteristically doing something nice). This realization is
of course critical in a number of areas related to decision-making in
human society, both to predict and to understand behaviour. Quite
fascinating stuff, I strongly recommend the books above.

Damn OT though, hope we'll be forgiven for this one! cheers!
--
G Hassenpflug * IJN & JMSDF equipment/history fan

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 15:13:57 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug
wrote in ::

"Larry" == Larry Dighera writes:

Larry On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:40:06 +0900, Gernot Hassenpflug
Larry wrote in ::

Human beings classify people on a few perceived
characteristics, and in general are unable to reevaluate based
on later evidence, preferring instead to add the newer evidence
as as sub-grouping of their main initial evaluation. So it is
not really possible for people generally to accept that a
person can be of "characteristic" a,b,c,d at different times,
but not be classified as any one of them.

Larry If that statement is true, someone who commits the act of
Larry murder, for instance, and may be capable of many other
Larry altruistic acts, is not classified as a murderer while
Larry being altruistic. That is, of course, absurd.

Hi Larry, thanks for the reply (in this forum)

You're welcome.

To illustrate my point, I don't categorize you as dense just because I
think what you posted is rubbish :-) Just kidding

And I don't categorize you as an arrogant, pseudo superior,
passive-aggressive sociopath spoiling for a fight either. Now we're
both palterers. :-)

- here is the explanation: categorizing the person as a murderer is
giving him an epithet due to an action and an idea that you have about
that action.

Given the laws throughout the world against murder, the religious
mandate, and the disgusting repugnance of the act, I have to believe
that my idea is reasonable regarding the idea I have about that act.

What epithet would you ascribe to someone who commits the wanton act
of murder?

That is related to the human notion of character, and we
extend that to our other ideas about the person in dealing with
them.

Absolutely. If we failed to recognize a person's past acts in judging
their character, we'd be at quite a disadvantage in dealing with them.
Think of someone who is a convicted murderer, and someone who
was let off due to some legal shenanigans. Do you feel more
comfortable with one than with the other?

Not at all. They have both demonstrated their capacity for ruthless
mayhem, and will evoke a cautious and guarded regard in me.

Sure, that's how the human mind works.

I completely fail to understand why you would erroneously jump to the
conclusion that there is a difference in how I would react to a
murderer regardless if they had been jailed or not. Perhaps you'd be
kind enough to explain what lead you to that conclusion.

We cannot imagine having to recategorize again and again
based on new information,

What new information. Are you intimating, that somehow doing a long
prison sentence for murder excuses the act and renders the murderer
more comfortable to be around? That would be ludicrous.

instead we prefer sub-categories of existing ones.

I'm having trouble understanding your meaning. Perhaps an example
would help. What's a sub-category of an existing category into which
we have placed our regard for a murderer?

Children learn this way, and adults are not that different in detail.

You've failed to make yourself clear on this point, as I have no idea
what sort of sub-category it is to which you refer. Please be more
explicit.

What is most difficult is to come to a new upper-level categorization
to replace an existing one. In fact, the problem is that such a hierarchal
idea is fundamentally flawed.

It's easy to come to a new upper-level categorization of Catholic
priests, for instance. Once they were held in great esteem; now they
are seen for the pedophiles they have been all along.

Larry My point is, a person who has demonstrated the capacity to
Larry commit a given act is not in the same class as one who
Larry hasn't committed that act regardless of their capacity to
Larry demonstrate other characteristics.

The statement of "in the same class" exactly makes my point, as
explained above,

Which point was that? Perhaps you can state it more succinctly and
explicitly.

and if you do a bit of research on this topic in
psychology you will be convinced yourself (for laypeople, try "The
Tipping Point" and "Blink" and references therein).

Perhaps you'll be good enough to provide a quoted passage or two from
those texts that elucidate your point.

We choose to categorize a person due to a certain perception (action
noted, thoughts expressed, etc.), instead of accepting that all manner of
"classes" live together inside that one person, and appear at one
moment or another

In the example we are using of a murderer, one who has DEMONSTRATED
the capacity to commit that act rightly deserves to be in a different
class from one who has not. That's why they are put to death in this
country.

While we may all be physically capable of the act of murder, some of
us have the emotional control and intelligence to refrain from acting.
Those who cannot, are unstable sociopath, and deserve to be
categorized as such.

(think of the difference in your own mind when
seeing a person you categorize as nice doing something mean, and
someone you think of as sort of unpleasant doing something nice for
someone: one is a nice person having a bad day, the other is a nasty
person uncharacteristically doing something nice).

I make no such rationalizations in my objective judgment of behaviors.
Each act is a data point to be factored into the aggregate in
reassessing the categorization.

This realization is of course critical in a number of areas related to
decision-making in human society, both to predict and to understand
behaviour.

Which realization?

Quite fascinating stuff, I strongly recommend the books above.

Damn OT though, hope we'll be forgiven for this one! cheers!

If this newsgroup's readership's past behavior is any indication,
they'll hardly notice. :-(