Stability augmentation promises to give you even less control

On Aug 4, 10:22*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
a writes:
There was something in the literature recently about using a/p in IMC
is safer, but from my point of view I am much more aware of what's
going on hand flying (and have done so over the Rockies) than sitting
back and 'managing' the airplane while it's on auto pilot..

The workload for single-pilot IFR is substantial, particularly in actual IMC.
This is an important argument favoring the suggestion that autopilot be
heavily used for IFR. With two pilots, things are easier, although an
autopilot might still be preferable.

At least the autopilot only does what it is told. At the same time, it does
encourage a certain amount of complacency, which has even bit airline pilots
on more than one occasion.

A sad confession is the a/p does do a better job of keeping the
needles crossed on an ILS than I do, but the correct interpretation of
that is, I need more practice at it than the a/p does.

There's no shame in an automated system doing better than a human being at
something it is designed to do.

A huge 'and
moreover' is, I want hands on near minima, don't want to mess with the
a/p if I have to fly a miss, and don't want to transition from a/p to
manual when I decide conditions are not right for a landing.

Aviators understand this stuff.

It depends on the aircraft and the type of flying.

I hate responding to a troll, but his statement is nonsensical when
he claims a substantially higher workload for SEL under IFR/IMC. What
increase in workload? Control by reference to instruments? Navigating?
Communicating? Changing Frequencies? Flying a predetermined route?
Most of us rated for instrument flight would assert the workload is
NOT substantial and I, among many, prefer IFR than VFR because it is
in fact easier and certainly safer. It's a matter of training,
something a non-aviator would not understand. It would take a
completely abnormal set of circumstances before I would consider a
long night CAVU XC flight under VFR Abnormal would be, for example,
during the controller's slowdown/strike during the Reagan
presidency.

This is an aviator's forum, aviators understand this stuff.

a writes:

I hate responding to a troll, but his statement is nonsensical when
he claims a substantially higher workload for SEL under IFR/IMC. What
increase in workload? Control by reference to instruments? Navigating?
Communicating? Changing Frequencies? Flying a predetermined route?

Yes, all of these and more.

Most of us rated for instrument flight would assert the workload is
NOT substantial ...

I'm not sure who "us" might be, but every source I've read on the topic
asserts that single-pilot IFR represents a substantial workload. And IFR in
general is a higher workload than VFR, if it's done right.

... and I, among many, prefer IFR than VFR because it is
in fact easier and certainly safer.

It's easier when you've been doing it for a long time, and it's certainly
safer when it's done right, but that doesn't mean that the workload is
trivial. This is especially true when you are flying in IMC and you actually
need IFR, as opposed to flying in clear weather and choosing IFR for logistic
reasons.

It's a matter of training, something a non-aviator would not understand.

A lot of non-aviators teach it, so they obviously understand it.

On Aug 4, 9:48*pm, "Stephen!" wrote:
a wrote in news:d20d09bc-73c8-44dd-9654-
:

moreover' is, I want hands on near minima, don't want to mess with the
a/p if I have to fly a miss, and don't want to transition from a/p to
manual when I decide conditions are not right for a landing.

* The FBO from where I got my Instrument Ticket (in a '72 C-182RG) has a
new batch of DA-40's with the G1000 and a coupled autopilot. *This thing
will not only take you down to minimums hands-off, all it takes to do the
missed all the way to and including the hold is pressing a single "GA"
button.

* That might be a lot of fun to play with and very handy at the end of a
long and rough flight, but I think it would get rather boring and quite
possibly lead to losing the "edge" you need when all the fancy gizmos
quit working.

--
RCOS #7
IBA# 11465http://imagesdesavions.com

There is always the small likelihood of Murphy's Law making its
presence known, but for me at least hands on has more to do with the
aesthetics of flying and the intellectual and visceral pleasures it
brings. Some of us are privileged enough to know the sensations.
George, a few messages ago, talked about no outside reference over
unforgiving land masses, he's been there, and perhaps like me feels a
little sympathetic for those who would like to have been, but
can't.

My concern, and I expect it's true for many who find it convenient to
use SEL for transportation, has little to do with the workload --
aviators know training and experience make that almost trivial -- but
rather being aware and sensitive to the limited options I have if the
IO 360 dragging me around decides to irreversibly quit if visibility
is restricted all the way to the surface. "Glide, breathe, wait"
sucks as a checklist. Never the less, if the forecast for my
destination is good and I have a golden alternate, there are no pilot
reports of icing at reasonable altitudes, and there are no
thunderstorms around, I will not deprive myself the pleasure of
hearing departure control say "Radar contact, climb to . . ."

On Aug 4, 5:52*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

It's a matter of training, something a non-aviator would not understand..

A lot of non-aviators teach it, so they obviously understand it.

WRONG

On Aug 5, 8:50*am, "bds" wrote:
A couple of you guys seem to have a real obsession with Mx and will go to
any length to try to discredit anything and everything he posts here. *I
have to admit that it sometimes makes you look a little ridiculous,
especially when he's more right than wrong, and you're response is more
wrong than right.

Where am I even remotely wrong in this thread????????

He is dead wrong in what he says in this thread. He needs lessons on
English if he thinks a NON aviator can understand what it takes to fly
an airplane.

I can't imagine you even agreeing with what he says. If you fly a
REAL airplane, you wouldn't have said what you did above.

A couple of you guys seem to have a real obsession with Mx and will go to
any length to try to discredit anything and everything he posts here. I
have to admit that it sometimes makes you look a little ridiculous,
especially when he's more right than wrong, and you're response is more
wrong than right.

Just because the guy isn't a pilot doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't
understand anything about aviation. I know quite a few pilots that know a
lot less than he appears to know.


wrote in message
...
On Aug 4, 5:52 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

It's a matter of training, something a non-aviator would not understand.

A lot of non-aviators teach it, so they obviously understand it.

WRONG

On Aug 4, 10:06*pm, a wrote:

I will not deprive myself the pleasure of
hearing departure control say "Radar contact, climb to . . ."- Hide quoted text -

Can't wait to hear our resident troll say I hear this in MSFS. LOL

The difference is that I understand EXACTLY what you are saying as
hearing it in MSFS and hearing it in a REAL Cessna or a Sundowner are
worlds apart in the feeling of self satisfaction of ones
accomplishment.

On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 08:50:16 -0500, bds wrote:

A couple of you guys seem to have a real obsession with Mx and will go to
any length to try to discredit anything and everything he posts here. I
have to admit that it sometimes makes you look a little ridiculous,
especially when he's more right than wrong, and you're response is more
wrong than right.

Just because the guy isn't a pilot doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't
understand anything about aviation. I know quite a few pilots that know a
lot less than he appears to know.

Goodie, now take you and the other troll and go shove one up your ass.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

Mxsmanic wrote:
This article is strongly slanted in favor of new
stability-augmentation gadgets for light aircraft:

http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/going...-your-airplane

Not surprisingly, Cirrus is installing the gadget first, and Garmin
is writing the poorly-tested software for it.

Apparently the author does not understand the distinction between
flying for fun and flying for transportation. The pilot who flies for
fun is unlikely to want a computer to fly for him, no matter how well
the computer does it or how safe the computer can make things. A
pilot who flies for transportation might welcome more computer
control. But putting gadgets like this on every light aircraft makes
no sense. Sure, it might improve safety, but so would automating the
entire flight, giving the pilot no control at all--and yet complete
automation of flights would defeat the purpose of flying for many
hobby pilots.

This is sort of like saying that electronic stabilisation systems common in
todays cars take all the fun out of driving. Sure they do, if you're trying
to skid sideways on a frozen lake or push the envelope on a racetrack. But
flying for fun, just like driving for recreational reasons, rather seldomly
involves going to the edge like that. I guess that 99% of drivers never even
notice any override from the electronics unless they are about to loose
control of their car. In which case they will be very thankful for having
them aboard. The fun neither in driving nor in flying is in loosing control.
ESP undenieably saved thousands of lifes, and the conceived systems for
airplanes could possibly do the same.

Just like in cars electronic systems can also outperform humans in airplanes
when it comes to tasks involving very rapid an precise reactions. No need to
feel embarrassed about that. There is really not much point in arguing about
stability systems taking away authority from the pilot. Remember how pilots
first detested the stall prevention systems implemented by airbus? Not one
case has been proven, where a system override over the pilots stick input
has been to the worse and caused an undesireable result.

And just like ESP on a car I would imagine that the stability augmentation
systems in airplanes could be disabled if you intendedly want to push the
envelope of your plane and know what you are doing.

regards,
Friedrich

On Aug 5, 2:55*pm, "Stephen!" wrote:

* In other words, without ground school I was able to not only take (and
pass) the written but also the practical.[1] *Before I even had my
introductory flight I already had an understanding of "what it takes to
fly".

[1] *My primary CFI quizzed me and determined that I was ready for the
written. *I'd spent the previous 30+ years doing 'self-study' and he
realized that trying to do ground school would be a waste of time for
both of us.

Book knowledge won't get you out of inadvertant IMC. Book knowledge
won't help you if you need to divert. If you fly far enough on a
regular basis, it's not if but when these situations will happen.
Book knowledge tells you wat to do to avoid it and how to get out of
it but doesn't allow you to experience it first hand.

Would you want to be taught by a CFI WITH ONLY MSFS experience and no
real airplane flying experience??????

I'd think and hope not! I know I would not!

Ever try to reach for something in heavy turbulence in a real plane
such as a throttle? Compare that to MSFS and then come back and lets
talk. The two doesn't compare. Ever experience leans and have to be
forced to ignore your bodily sensations. Compare that to MSFS and
then come back and lets talk.

Mx has absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE of what it takes to fly a real plane
with his ZERO PIC time and only MSFS time. ZERO, NADA. MSFS and real
world flying don't compare as he wants his readership to believe.

You can talk all the theories about what it take to fly a plane but
when the rubber meets the road, it's you that is flying the plane, not
the books. I have yet had to have a hard time reaching for my keyboard
in MSFS severe turbulence LOL yet conversly try reaching for the
throttle or tune a radio in light to moderate chop.

He talks like he flies XC's in a citation. HE SIMULATES, he doesnt'
fly. He presents himself as a pilot. He is not a pilot, he is
simulating being a pilot on a desktop computer.

He outright lies by misleading people.

'nuf said.....