I give up, after many, many years!

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

That's exactly what it says. Trust your instruments, ignore your
sensations.

Hey, you dumb ****, vision is a sense.

You don't know **** from shinola Anthony. You're a moron.

writes:

On the contrary, it's important. Can you really be sure that your turn is
perfectly coordinated and that you are holding altitude without ever looking
at the instruments?

Yes.

How?

Looking out the window. It is a VFR turn, remember from the stuff you cut?

Looking out the window is no longer flying by the seat of your pants, which
disproves your assertion.

How do you tell
the difference between an uncoordinated turn and being pushed by the wind?

Once again a blazingly stupid comment that shows you know nothing about
flying.

How do you tell the difference between an uncoordinated turn and being pushed
by the wind?

You are safest spending as much time as possible looking out the window.

Why? I thought you could fly by the seat of your pants?

writes:

You haven't a clue what a FMC is, what it does, or how it is used.

I know quite a bit about how a FMC works.

Do tell us about the FMC in your Baron.

There is no FMC in the Baron.

On May 17, 9:30*am, A Lieberman wrote:
Listening to your engine is a secondary airspeed ***TREND***
indicator. *Ignore that, and you will be in more of a boatload of
trouble when your vacuum system goes belly up. *Hearing my engine
while under partial panel procedures probably was the sense that made
my life exponentially easier, and the last I know of, hearing is a
sense or a sensation..

I never expected a simulator to replace physical feedback in a real
cockpit, but this last paragraph is interesting because noticed that,
in a sim, it is a lot easier to fly if the engine can be heard. Many
time I have fumble to find the voice control because information was
lacking.

But as mentioned, I only use a Sim for theory, not physical feedback.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

I never expected a simulator to replace physical feedback in a real
cockpit, but this last paragraph is interesting because noticed that,
in a sim, it is a lot easier to fly if the engine can be heard. Many
time I have fumble to find the voice control because information was
lacking.

I've noticed the same thing, but it's no surprise. Often there is no direct
indication of what the engine(s) is doing on the visible instruments, and
there is no motion in the sim. That, coupled with the delay inherent in the
response of many engines and the delay in the airframe's reaction, makes it
easier to fly if the engine can be heard. Fortunately, MSFS handles engine
sounds in a fairly consistent and predictable way.

On May 17, 11:24*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

It's entirely right. *You cannot trust sensations in IMC. *You must trust your
instruments.

Did you read my post? Did you forget the fact my vacuum system wasn't
working? How can I trust the instruments?

The instruments do a better job of that, and they are consistent and reliable.

Not when the vacuum system is broke. I just experienced it
yesterday. Are you telling me I am wrong that my attitude indicator
showed a pitch up yet I was on level flight that I am to ignore my
senses and fly by the attitude indicator?

If you are watching your instruments and you know your aircraft, why are you
experiencing stall buffet?

Uh, did you forget climb is pretty close to stall buffet? A couple of
degrees pitch up and you will get close to stall buffet. Of course
you don't feel that in the simulator.

I'm not sure that I'd want ILS needles in the seat of my pants.

That's because you don't fly a real plane. Again, you are in the
wrong newsgroup.

You have it backwards: The instruments confirm, not the sensations. *You don't
need a confirmation of instruments. *If there is a disagreement between
sensations and instruments, the instruments take priority.

Wrong. I have been there. You have not. The ABSENSE of a feeling is
more important then defective instruments (see above, hint vacuum
failure).

If you're instruments tell you that you're in trouble, you're in trouble. *If
they tell you that you're not in trouble, you're safe. *The seat of your pants
may tell you all sorts of things, but relying on it will result in an
accident.

WRONG. See above regarding vacuum failures.

Completely false. *In IMC, you must trust your instruments if you want to stay
alive. *Ignore what you feel.

WRONG See above regarding vacuum failures.

Look at your instruments; they'll tell you if something is wrong.

WRONG See above regarding vacuum failures.

ILS minimums, it's only 20 seconds. *The more you use your senses WITH
instruments in IMC, the better chance your outcome will be.

You aren't in IMC below minimums.

WRONG Re-read what I said above. You got to use your senses to get
to minimums.

Again, you are talking to a pilot, who just experienced IMC and a
vacuum failure. The primary instruments failed, I cannot use them.

Everything on a sim doesn't even come close to what I experienced. Oh
yeah, it wasn't straight and level flight, instrument approaches
require turns. Using an attitude indicator that displays level flight
and a DG that doesn't move and my GPS shows degrees ticking off,
doesn't bode well for survival if I don't trust my senses ALONG with
the backup instruments.

Can't wait for your answer on the above.

On May 17, 2:54*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
*Fortunately, MSFS handles engine
sounds in a fairly consistent and predictable way.

So, in this case the simulator fails in teaching the real world as
engine sounds are not consistent or predictable. Take a XC in a REAL
plane over a rural area, and you will KNOW what I am talking about.

Sim won't do it.

On May 17, 11:30*am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
I orient myself visually, either looking out the window or looking
at the instruments. I navigate visually. But I FLY by feel.

I do as well, especially the last 6 inches of flight on landing :-)
Touch of power just to feel it in the seat of my pants so wheels
gently meet terra firma. That touch of power, while not noticeable to
the passenger shows up vividly on my videos by watching the strobing
of the prop in my flare. Invariably, you will see it reverse
direction as I treat the last few inches over the runway.

Same for ILS, slip below glide slope, add just enough power to feel it
in my britches to "drive it" back to glide slope.

No sim will ever be able to simulate the finer points of flying as it
takes sensation even in solid IMC. In my case, the instrument is
confirming what I feel by the recapture of a glide slope.

writes:

Did you read my post? Did you forget the fact my vacuum system wasn't
working? How can I trust the instruments?

You don't need vacuum for electric instruments.

If you have no instruments and you're in IMC, you have a big problem.

Not when the vacuum system is broke. I just experienced it
yesterday.

Don't fly IFR until it's fixed.

Uh, did you forget climb is pretty close to stall buffet?

Is it? You mean "pretty close" as "within 45 degrees"?

A couple of degrees pitch up and you will get close to stall buffet.
Of course you don't feel that in the simulator.

If you're a good pilot, you should never feel it at all.

Wrong. I have been there. You have not.

Maybe next time you're there, you won't come back. Trust your instruments.

The ABSENSE of a feeling is
more important then defective instruments (see above, hint vacuum
failure).

I'm not talking about defective instruments. You should never fly IFR with
defective instruments.

WRONG Re-read what I said above. You got to use your senses to get
to minimums.

No, you can use instruments to get to minimums. After that, you use your eyes
and instruments.

Again, you are talking to a pilot, who just experienced IMC and a
vacuum failure.

You're a very lucky pilot, then, if you're here posting to this newsgroup.

Everything on a sim doesn't even come close to what I experienced. Oh
yeah, it wasn't straight and level flight, instrument approaches
require turns. Using an attitude indicator that displays level flight
and a DG that doesn't move and my GPS shows degrees ticking off,
doesn't bode well for survival if I don't trust my senses ALONG with
the backup instruments.

You were lucky.

A Lieberman writes:

So, in this case the simulator fails in teaching the real world as
engine sounds are not consistent or predictable.

They are very consistent and predictable. So much so that they can be used
for analysis of accidents.