Rudder for final runway alignment (?)

Peter Duniho writes:

Focusing on the instruments is one of the worst,
least efficient ways to fly in visual conditions.

If what you see or feel and what the instruments say disagree, trust
the instruments.

And you need to find better literature to read.

Literature is like instruments, and USENET is like sensations.

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

T o d d P a t t i s t writes:

But most flying has reliable visual input - the horizon, and
when you don't have that, you switch to instruments.

What do you do when your eyes and your instruments disagree?

Human sensations of acceleration are reliable.

They can easily be fooled in full-motion simulators.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Scott Post writes:

Sure it is. In VFR conditions your eyes give the frame of reference for
all your other senses to operate correctly. In IFR conditions your eyes
aren't available to keep your inner ear calibrated and the physical
sensations become unreliable.

In other words, all the important information is visual, and
sensations don't matter.

No. Absolutely, positively no. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Remove the sensations, and you can still fly visually without
instruments (in VMC). Remove the visual input, and you cannot fly in
any conditions with sensations alone.

"Can" is not the same as doing it with mastery.

A person without any sensation except vision probably could fly an airplane.
But they would be severely handicapped relative to a pilot with all of their
senses. Balance, proprioception (that is, knowing where your own body is
and how it's positioned), hearing, and feeling all contribute and in many
cases offer more accurate and instantaneous information than vision alone
can provide.

A pilot not taking advantage of these additional sensory inputs is not going
to be able to control the aircraft with nearly the precision than a
masterful pilot applying all of those sensory inputs can.

I'm a low time pilot, but in VMC I can fly an approach with no
instruments
whatsoever in any of the 3 aircraft I've flown.

Try it blindfolded.

Irrelevant. His point is that none of the instruments inside the airplane
are required for visual flight. Obviously VISUAL FLIGHT is not possible
blindfolded. To suggest that as a comparison is just stupid.

Pete

On 09/22/06 15:55, Mxsmanic wrote:
Peter Duniho writes:

Focusing on the instruments is one of the worst,
least efficient ways to fly in visual conditions.

If what you see or feel and what the instruments say disagree, trust
the instruments.

So if you look out the window and see that your diving into the
ground, but the instruments show that you're flying straight and
level, you would just fly into the ground?

Preposterous.


And you need to find better literature to read.

Literature is like instruments, and USENET is like sensations.




--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

Mxsmanic wrote:

Peter Duniho writes:


Focusing on the instruments is one of the worst,
least efficient ways to fly in visual conditions.


If what you see or feel and what the instruments say disagree, trust
the instruments.

No, wrong. Not in visual conditions.

If what you see or feel and what the instruments say disagree, trust
the instruments.
So if you look out the window and see that your diving into the
ground, but the instruments show that you're flying straight and
level, you would just fly into the ground?

Preposterous.

You've never seen the cartoon of the pilot in a small airplane, smiling,
saying everything is just fine, and right in front of him is the ground
tilted at 90 degrees?

If you can see the ground out the window, then you can pretty much rely
on that as an indicator of your attitude (except in low visibility
conditions over sloping terrain). But if you are in the clouds, even if
you can see out, what you see can be deceiving. For example, seeing a
sloping cloud deck (not at all uncommon) can give the sensation of being
banked and turning when you are actually straight and level. If you
rely on your visual and inner ear sensations, you could end up in a
spiral dive, the outcome of which would not be pretty. This is
especially true at night in between the clouds.

It's not so preposterous at all.

But in daytime, in good visibility, where you can see the ground, sight
is pretty reliable, and you don't need any flight instruments at all.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On 09/22/06 16:57, Jose wrote:
If what you see or feel and what the instruments say disagree, trust
the instruments.
So if you look out the window and see that your diving into the
ground, but the instruments show that you're flying straight and
level, you would just fly into the ground?

Preposterous.

You've never seen the cartoon of the pilot in a small airplane, smiling,
saying everything is just fine, and right in front of him is the ground
tilted at 90 degrees?

If you can see the ground out the window, then you can pretty much rely
on that as an indicator of your attitude (except in low visibility
conditions over sloping terrain). But if you are in the clouds, even if
you can see out, what you see can be deceiving. For example, seeing a
sloping cloud deck (not at all uncommon) can give the sensation of being
banked and turning when you are actually straight and level. If you
rely on your visual and inner ear sensations, you could end up in a
spiral dive, the outcome of which would not be pretty. This is
especially true at night in between the clouds.

It's not so preposterous at all.

It was preposterous because the comment was made about VMC. Not about
being in the clouds. Unfortunately, you trimmed that part of the
thread from your response.


But in daytime, in good visibility, where you can see the ground, sight
is pretty reliable, and you don't need any flight instruments at all.

Jose



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:
Scott Post writes:

I'm a low time pilot, but in VMC I can fly an approach with no instruments
whatsoever in any of the 3 aircraft I've flown.

Try it blindfolded.

You claim to know something about aviation, yet don't know what the "V"
in "VMC" stands for.

I give up. I started reading Usenet in 1985 so you'd think I'd have
sense enough by now not to get sucked in by a troll. Mea Culpa.

--
Scott Post

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Focusing on the instruments is one of the worst,
least efficient ways to fly in visual conditions.

If what you see or feel and what the instruments say disagree, trust
the instruments.

Again, absolutely not. The instruments all provide information through
one's vision. If the visual sense shows one thing out of the window of the
airplane, and another from the instruments in the airplane, reality (the
view out the window) is the information to trust. If you can't trust what
your eyes see out the window, you can't trust what they see on the
instruments.

The instruments only trump sensory input when one does NOT have external
visual information. Reality trumps flight instruments, always. The only
reason the instruments must be trusted completely in instrument conditions
is that in that situation, they are known to be much more reliable than
other sensory input (vision being obscured, and some other physical senses
being unreliable when vision is obscured).

And you need to find better literature to read.

Literature is like instruments, and USENET is like sensations.

Usenet *is* literature. And like all literature, some of it is crap.

Pete

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
But most flying has reliable visual input - the horizon, and
when you don't have that, you switch to instruments.

What do you do when your eyes and your instruments disagree?

You read the instruments with your eyes. How do your eyes disagree with the
instruments? If you can't trust what your eyes see, you can't trust what
they tell you about outside OR inside the airplane.

Conversely, if you are trusting your eyes and you can see out the airplane,
you ALWAYS trust the view outside the airplane over the instruments.

Human sensations of acceleration are reliable.

They can easily be fooled in full-motion simulators.

Wrong. The sensations of acceleration, even in full-motion simulators, are
accurate and reliable. What ARE fooled are the secondary interpretations of
the human sensations of acceleration.

The reason full-motion simulators work as well as they do is that the human
sensations of acceleration are so reliable, even in full-motion simulators.

Pete