This should settle it!

On 2007-04-15 06:01:45 -0700, "Oz Lander" said:

http://overtheairwaves.com/

I refer to the first article on this page.

Settle what?

I disagree with him vehemently on several points, not least the
usefulness of view limiting devices.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

C J Campbell wrote:

On 2007-04-15 06:01:45 -0700, "Oz Lander" said:

http://overtheairwaves.com/

I refer to the first article on this page.

Settle what?

I disagree with him vehemently on several points, not least the
usefulness of view limiting devices.

I was mostly referring to his thoughts on how use of a simulator is
nothing like flying the real thing.

--
Oz Lander.
I'm not always right,
But I'm never wrong.

Oz Lander writes:

I was mostly referring to his thoughts on how use of a simulator is
nothing like flying the real thing.

So you notice the parts you agree with and ignore the parts you don't?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On 2007-04-15 06:01:45 -0700, "Oz Lander" said:

http://overtheairwaves.com/

I refer to the first article on this page.

To expand a little on my earlier reply:

I have a real problem with instructors who begin by running down other
instructors, the FAA, the manufacturers, etc. It demonstrates a serious
authority problem, a very dangerous attitude. Apparently he does not
like the instructional techniques that have proven successful for years.

Who is Bob Miller? Yet, he thinks he knows more than the FAA, more than
the Kings, more than Rod Machado, more than the AOPA, more than Bob
Gardner, and even more than me. Only two people seem to know anything
about flight instruction: Bob Miller and God, and God is sometimes
wrong but Miller never is. What, is this guy a retired surgeon or
something?

The US Air Force, which presumably knows something about flying,
successfully uses simulators and view limiting devices for instrument
training.

I strongly believe that the instrument student should get all the
simulator time he can (we are talking about real flight simulators, not
toys published by game companies). I do not think that simulator time
is enough, obviously. You have to fly in order to learn to fly, and
that includes instrument training. But flight simulators are invaluable
in getting your procedures down cold.

As for view limiting devices, I should point out that they have been
use since the very earliest days of instrument flying. We don't paint
the cockpit black like Jimmy Doolittle did, but we come close. I am
convinced that it is harder to fly an airplane with a view limiting
device than it is in actual instrument conditions.

As for the "weather adverse" (sic) flight instructor, perhaps Mr.
Miller has forgotten that most of the largest flight schools are
located in the desert? And for good reason -- the instructors are not
weather averse, as he claims, but you cannot learn to fly unless you
fly. Most places have too many days where the weather is below minimums
-- and surely Mr. Miller is not recommending that anyone fly in weather
like that.

Neither are "personal minimums" training to less than competency.
Aircraft vary widely in equipment, and their pilots in experience. I
have much higher personal minimums for a piston single equipped with
only one VOR and one radio than I do for a turbo-prop with a flight
director. It is not a matter of competence, it is a matter of allowing
a margine of error for equipment error or outright failure. You lose
that single VOR on the piston single in an approach to minimums and you
might as well get yourself measured for another, more permanent set of
wings.

This guy probably has a problem with the whole concept of dangerous
attitudes. If this is the way he really thinks, he is a statistic
already. He just doesn't know it yet.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

C J Campbell writes:

I have a real problem with instructors who begin by running down other
instructors, the FAA, the manufacturers, etc. It demonstrates a serious
authority problem, a very dangerous attitude. Apparently he does not
like the instructional techniques that have proven successful for years.

Invite him to this newsgroup. He'd fit right in.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

C J Campbell writes:

I have a real problem with instructors who begin by running down
other
instructors, the FAA, the manufacturers, etc. It demonstrates a
serious
authority problem, a very dangerous attitude. Apparently he does not
like the instructional techniques that have proven successful for
years.

Invite him to this newsgroup. He'd fit right in.


How would you knoiw fjukktard.

You don't know one thng about real flying .

Not one.


Bertie

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 12:39:23 -0700, C J Campbell wrote:

I am convinced
that it is harder to fly an airplane with a view limiting device than it
is in actual instrument conditions.

There are certain aspects of instrument flying that are poorly simulated
by view-limiting devices. Two examples that come to mind are the low
approach (ie. looking for the airport rather than simply removing the
device in 10 miles visibility) and the lack of illusions such as a false
horizon from the clouds.

Just as simulation have a role, so do view limiting devices. But there's
nothing that's a *perfect* simulation for flying in IMC. That really
needs to be part of IFR training.

A friend "graduated" (passed his IFR checkride) with almost no actual
time (from one of those "get your license in 10 days" places). He was
sufficiently aware of this lack that his next step was to take one of
those "IMC flying tours" (which also sounded like a lot of fun {8^).

I worry about the IFR pilots that don't.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
Just as simulation have a role, so do view limiting devices. But there's
nothing that's a *perfect* simulation for flying in IMC. That really
needs to be part of IFR training.

I read a book a few years back titled "Weekend Pilot". Some guy bought a
Cessna 120 or 140 (don't remember which) and took lessons in it. I believe
this was during the 1950's or 1960's.

When he described the instrument training, he said the instructor covered
the inside of the cockpit with orange cellophane, and had the student wear
blue glasses (it may have been blue cellophane and orange glasses) .
According to the author, this effectively blinded him to the outside world,
while allowing him to still see the instruments.

It sounded like a workable situation. Has anyone ever heard of this actually
being done? And, if so, why isn't it done now?

When he described the instrument training, he said the instructor covered
the inside of the cockpit with orange cellophane, and had the student wear
blue glasses (it may have been blue cellophane and orange glasses) .
According to the author, this effectively blinded him to the outside world,
while allowing him to still see the instruments.

It sounded like a workable situation. Has anyone ever heard of this actually
being done? And, if so, why isn't it done now?

I have heard of this as an air force technique. It may be effective,
but it seems to be a pain in the neck to actually accomplish, and it
does reduce (somewhat) the view for the safety pilot.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:50:19 +0000, Steve Foley wrote:

It sounded like a workable situation.

Since I've never found a perfectly comfortable view-limiting device, I do
like the idea at least conceptually. Since I fly w/o anti-icing, it's
tough to maintain currency during the period of the year when the icing
level is below the runway w/o sticking something over my face. And I
don't especially like that.

But I don't see that this does anything to improve the realism of these
devices with regard to those illusions or visual efforts I mentioned
earlier. Am I missing this?

- Andrew