Straight-ins at uncontrolled airports?

On 11 Feb 2007 17:04:05 -0800, "chris"
wrote:

On Feb 12, 1:07 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Mike Young writes:
Do you mean, unlearn basic airmanship before you can get proficient on
instruments?

Basic airmanship is independent of sensation. The sensations pilots feel are
unreliable. They consider them reliable because they unconsciously reinforce
them with visual information, which usually _is_ reliable. Proof that
sensations are useless is easy to obtain, by depriving the pilot of visual
references. No matter how much experience he has, without instruments he
rapidly becomes disoriented. If sensations were reliable, that wouldn't
happen. And since in fact they are unreliable, learning about them isn't
really important, as they won't help you to fly.


Umm, that logic is faulty... The other senses may be unreliable, but
that doesn't mean they don't help you fly. You can tell you are
climbing by feeling it in the seat of your pants, for instance. Do

So does the positive G when inverted while going over the top in a
loop.

you suggest we disregard every clue the aircraft give you except for
visual clues because they are unreliable?? No.. That would be silly.
You can tell a lot by the seat of your pants and by listening, and

There is little the seat of your pants can tell you under instrument
contitions except the amount of G you are pulling and whether you need
to go to the bathroom.

that helps you fly.. So we shouldn't disregard those senses. And we
certainly should learn about them. This is like your thread about
coordinated turns - we can feel the turn, so we should use that
feeling.

I can put you upside down and give you that same feeling and you will
never know you are inverted.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

So speaks a two dimensional person instructing those who live in a
three dimensional world.


On Feb 12, 12:50 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
chris writes:
I was thinking more in terms of mxs' assertion you shouldn't learn
about those senses because they don't help your flying..

Or did I read him wrong ???

I'm not saying that you shouldn't learn about them. But you should treat them
as incidental ... useful tips that can come in handy. They are not
fundamental to most types of flying (aerobatics and some other domains
excepted--even then, nobody does aerobatics blindfolded).

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

On 11 Feb 2007 19:02:09 -0800, "chris"
wrote:

On Feb 12, 2:34 pm, Jose wrote:
You can tell you are
climbing by feeling it in the seat of your pants, for instance.

Well, yes, but you can also feel (in the seat of your pants) that you
are climbing, when you aren't. As you said, the senses are unreliable,
and part of the skills of instrument flying is being =able= to disregard
those sensations when they disagree with the instruments.


I was thinking more in terms of mxs' assertion you shouldn't learn
about those senses because they don't help your flying..

Or did I read him wrong ???

I'm sure I'll hate myself for this, but... SOMETIMES he sorta, almost,
print near, gets thing right, be it on purpose or accidental, but be
careful with the phrasing.

Please let me rephrase it into a pilot's words which I hope are more
helpful.

There are two types of flying for most of us. Flying in VMC and
flying in IMC. "I see" these two types of flying as being worlds
apart both physiologically and Physiologically. They take different
mind sets and skill sets although both include basic airman ship.

In flying VFR or flying under visual flight rules in visual
metrological conditions we depend on all of our natural skills.
Vision, sound, balance, seat of the pants, and even the strength to
push or pull a control. We learn to use the instruments while using
the outside world for our horizon reference point and we lean to
navigate using what we see outside. Those who use only the radios or
GPS for navigation are not only setting up a bad dependency, but
missing out on one of the best parts of VFR flight. If you want a
real challenge, instead of flying around at 3,000 to 5,000 feet, get a
Cub or other simple plane and do a long cross country while staying
down low and do it without relying on GPS. It's a whole different
world and can give a real appreciation to flying by using a map,
ruler, compass and watch. It is far, far easier to get lost down low
than up higher. :-))

When flying under Instrument flight rules (IFR) in instrument
metrological conditions (IMC) we sill use basic airmanship, but we
have to ignore our five senses at least part of the time and rely on
the instruments. If they disagree the instruments are *probably* right
and our senses wrong. That is where our training comes in and we can
recognize when a specific instrument or set of instruments are
failing. Flying IFR requires much more precision than flight under VFR
and it is far less forgiving than flight under VFR. Even if you never
use the rating it can and most likely will make the pilot a better
pilot.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Feb 12, 10:05 pm, Roger wrote:
On 11 Feb 2007 19:02:09 -0800, "chris"
wrote:

On Feb 12, 2:34 pm, Jose wrote:
You can tell you are
climbing by feeling it in the seat of your pants, for instance.

Well, yes, but you can also feel (in the seat of your pants) that you
are climbing, when you aren't. As you said, the senses are unreliable,
and part of the skills of instrument flying is being =able= to disregard
those sensations when they disagree with the instruments.

I was thinking more in terms of mxs' assertion you shouldn't learn
about those senses because they don't help your flying..

Or did I read him wrong ???

I'm sure I'll hate myself for this, but... SOMETIMES he sorta, almost,
print near, gets thing right, be it on purpose or accidental, but be
careful with the phrasing.

Please let me rephrase it into a pilot's words which I hope are more
helpful.

There are two types of flying for most of us. Flying in VMC and
flying in IMC. "I see" these two types of flying as being worlds
apart both physiologically and Physiologically. They take different
mind sets and skill sets although both include basic airman ship.

In flying VFR or flying under visual flight rules in visual
metrological conditions we depend on all of our natural skills.
Vision, sound, balance, seat of the pants, and even the strength to
push or pull a control. We learn to use the instruments while using
the outside world for our horizon reference point and we lean to
navigate using what we see outside. Those who use only the radios or
GPS for navigation are not only setting up a bad dependency, but
missing out on one of the best parts of VFR flight. If you want a
real challenge, instead of flying around at 3,000 to 5,000 feet, get a
Cub or other simple plane and do a long cross country while staying
down low and do it without relying on GPS. It's a whole different
world and can give a real appreciation to flying by using a map,
ruler, compass and watch. It is far, far easier to get lost down low
than up higher. :-))

When flying under Instrument flight rules (IFR) in instrument
metrological conditions (IMC) we sill use basic airmanship, but we
have to ignore our five senses at least part of the time and rely on
the instruments. If they disagree the instruments are *probably* right
and our senses wrong. That is where our training comes in and we can
recognize when a specific instrument or set of instruments are
failing. Flying IFR requires much more precision than flight under VFR
and it is far less forgiving than flight under VFR. Even if you never
use the rating it can and most likely will make the pilot a better
pilot.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)www.rogerhalstead.com

Excellent. I, of course am only speaking from a VFR pilot's
perspective so it is good to hear both sides of the equation.

Don Tuite wrote:

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 05:33:25 GMT, "Crash Lander"
wrote:

"Don Tuite" wrote in message
...
The first part says somebody "on final" has RoW. The second says
the lower aircraft "approaching an airport for the purpose of
landing" has the RoW. Is the second part clarifying or
contradicting the first part?

Don

I'd say the second part clarifies it if 2 a/c are about to land.
The a/c on it's 5 mile final will most definitely be at a higher
altitude than the one who is at pattern altitude and is about to
turn onto final. This reads to me that the a/c already in the
pattern has ROW over the a/c on a long final. Oz Lander

Just for the sake of argument, what if the lower aircraft is on
downwind? On the 45?

Don

Well, if the low a/c was on the downwind, it's possible the a/c on the
5 mile final would get down before the downwind a/c. Having said that,
the a/c on downwind can easily extend the downwind leg to allow the 5
mile final a/c to land. An a/c on base cannot extend the leg to allow
the 5 miler to land.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:

Orval Fairbairn writes:

Actually, since you are already in the pattern, and he is calling a
straight-in entry, he is not yet in the pattern! Therefore, you
have the ROW and he must adjust for you.

But if he is coming straight in, isn't he on final, and thus given
the right of way?

If thye a/c on base is at a lower altitude, which he most likely will
be, then no. The a/c on base has ROW.

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

I was thinking more in terms of mxs' assertion you shouldn't learn
about those senses because they don't help your flying..

Or did I read him wrong ???

What he says isn't always what I think he has in mind. But that's often
true of all of us. As you point out, in instrument conditions the
senses are misleading, and one must rely on the instruments. Senses can
give hints as to what's going on, and those hints can be helpful or
dangerous. Instrument flying involves sorting this out, which visual
flying does not require.

It looks like a case of two people saying the same thing differnetly,
and being misinterpreted.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Actually, since you are already in the pattern, and he is calling a
straight-in entry, he is not yet in the pattern! Therefore, you have the
ROW and he must adjust for you.

Maybe... but I wouldn't count on him doing it. I'll speak up.

Jose
--
Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a deep need to
follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob. Whosoever fully
understands this holds the world in his hands.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

There's always the question of flight instruction, but the more I read about
flight instructors, the more wary I am of their alleged utility in training
pilots. While some may be very good, it sounds like the majority are rather
mediocre.

I've taught hundreds of pilots to fly. The worst ones, BY FAR, were the
ones who came to me with hundreds of hours of simulator-game time. They
thought they knew what they were doing, and got a rude awakening when
they tried to fly a real plane.

Those with a lot of sim experience consistently required more hours and
more training to learn to fly, when compared with someone who had no
simulator or airplane time at all. You're learning lots of bad habits
in the simulators, but you don't know it, because you have nothing with
which to compare it.

Roger writes:

... and we lean to navigate using what we see outside.

You must be really heavy!

Those who use only the radios or
GPS for navigation are not only setting up a bad dependency, but
missing out on one of the best parts of VFR flight. If you want a
real challenge, instead of flying around at 3,000 to 5,000 feet, get a
Cub or other simple plane and do a long cross country while staying
down low and do it without relying on GPS. It's a whole different
world and can give a real appreciation to flying by using a map,
ruler, compass and watch. It is far, far easier to get lost down low
than up higher. :-))

The less sophisticated the instruments I use to navigate, the more difficult
it becomes to avoid getting lost.

Last night, going from KDEN to Aspen on a route that had been suggested to me
here to avoid the mountains, I vowed to use only VORs for RNAV. To that end,
I worked out my routing in advance, developing my own waypoints that were
either the VORs themselves or radials and DME distances from the VORs. I used
a sectional to actually plot the route. When I actually executed this, in
near total darkness (occasionally I'd see a glimpse of trees below, or a
highway, or the lights of a town or airport), I still got lost, because I had
forgotten one small leg on the route that was needed to get me past some of
the many mountains in the area. I spent 20 minutes puzzling over what seemed
like an abnormally great distance from one VOR (HBU, if you must know) that
didn't seem to be diminishing according to plan, and finally I happened to
look up to see the trees of a very large mountain looping a few thousand feet
ahead. Not knowing exactly where I was, it seemed to me that the only safe
path was an immediate 180-degree turn to retract my path back to the last fix
that I knew to be correct. As I went back, I stepped through the route again
checking each point, and then I found what I had missed on the chart. Since I
was in flight and a good distance from the nearest VORs, I used dead reckoning
from the last good fix to get through the small pass that I needed to
traverse, and then when I found myself back on an expected radial at an
expected distance, I was able to continue.

All the while I was perilously close to the mountains. And I had the
advantage of minimal turbulence, something I'd probably not be able to enjoy
in real life. I don't think I'd try navigating through the mountains to Aspen
in real life, but it was certainly good exercise in the sim.

Of course, the "real" pilots here may laugh at all this, but unless they've
actually navigated in the Rockies at night in a real aircraft -or- simulated
it in a simulator as I have, I now know more about this type of navigation
than they do, because I've done it, and they have not. Were I ever to get
into a real-life situation like this, I'd have a distinct advantage.

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