Rudder for final runway alignment (?)

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

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.


Only if the simulator is set for IMC. It won't fool your sensations when
set for VMC.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

"Marty Shapiro" wrote in message
...
Only if the simulator is set for IMC. It won't fool your sensations when
set for VMC.

That's not true. In fact, one of the primary ways that full-motion
simulators create such realism is by taking advantage of the way your body
turns your very-accurate sensations of acclerations into phantom sensations
of velocity, position, and even acceleration (by tilting you backward, when
combined with the misleading forward view of the simulator, acceleration due
to gravity makes you think you are accelerating forward instead).

Pete

Peter Duniho writes:

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.

I wonder how anyone manages to fly IFR, then, since all they have is
vision in that case.

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.

Autopilots can fly the aircraft better than a human pilot can, and
they don't depend on sensations.

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.

If sensations were sufficient, it would be possible to fly
blindfolded.

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

Mark Hansen writes:

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?

Sometimes what looks like the ground isn't. The ground on your right
could just be the slope of a mountain, and you might indeed be flying
straight and level.

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

Peter Duniho writes:

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.

A lot of pilots die by trusting what they think they see out the
window, even when all the instruments disagree.

If you can't trust what your eyes see out the window, you can't trust
what they see on the instruments.

What you see out the window is a matter of your subjective
interpretation; what the instruments say is not.

The instruments only trump sensory input when one does NOT have external
visual information.

One can have _incorrect_ external visual information.

Reality trumps flight instruments, always.

Instruments communicate reality, much more often than the view out the
window does.

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).

They are pretty much always more reliable, but some pilots don't like
to bother with instruments.

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

Peter Duniho writes:

You read the instruments with your eyes. How do your eyes disagree with the
instruments?

When you see something out the window that seems to conflict with what
the instruments say.

If you can't trust what your eyes see, you can't trust what
they tell you about outside OR inside the airplane.

I get the impression that this newsgroup is haunted mainly by VFR
pilots. I didn't realize that there was such a large distinction
between the VFR mindset and the IFR mindset. No wonder VFR pilots are
often so helpless if the weather changes. Are pilots required to know
anything at all about instruments for VFR flight?

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.

That's a good way to get killed.

Under any conditions, the chances of the instruments all being wrong
are much smaller than the chances of your eyes or sensations fooling
you about what's happening to the aircraft.

Wrong. The sensations of acceleration, even in full-motion simulators, are
accurate and reliable.

No, they are not. Full-motion simulators can move only a short
distance, so they cannot produce real-world accelerations anything
like the real thing. However, by taking advantage of the inability of
human pilots to properly judge accelerations, orientation, etc., and
providing appropriate visual cues, full-motion simulators can give
pilots the unmistakable impression of continuous acceleration, even
where there is none in the simulator.

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.

It's exactly the other way around.

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

Marty Shapiro writes:

Only if the simulator is set for IMC. It won't fool your sensations when
set for VMC.

The only difference is the view out the window, and that view is not
reliable.

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

"Peter Duniho" wrote in
:

"Marty Shapiro" wrote in message
...
Only if the simulator is set for IMC. It won't fool your sensations
when set for VMC.

That's not true. In fact, one of the primary ways that full-motion
simulators create such realism is by taking advantage of the way your
body turns your very-accurate sensations of acclerations into phantom
sensations of velocity, position, and even acceleration (by tilting
you backward, when combined with the misleading forward view of the
simulator, acceleration due to gravity makes you think you are
accelerating forward instead).

Pete




Simulating IMC, absolutely.

Note that I stated "set for VMC". Simulating VMC in a top-of-the-line full
motion simulator with realistic views out all windows is going to be very
close to what you see and feel flying in VMC.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Marty Shapiro writes:

Only if the simulator is set for IMC. It won't fool your sensations
when set for VMC.

The only difference is the view out the window, and that view is not
reliable.


Considering that I and others on this news group have flown real airplanes
safely in VMC either in aircraft with just the mininum required instruments
(compass, altimiter, airspeed indicator) or have safely completed VMC
flights in aircraft which encountered in flight instrument failure, such as
loss of the vacuum system, and not had any problems doing so, your
statement is simply wrong. The view out the window was all that was needed
to safely conduct and complete the flight.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

"Marty Shapiro" wrote in message
...
Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Marty Shapiro writes:

Only if the simulator is set for IMC. It won't fool your sensations
when set for VMC.

The only difference is the view out the window, and that view is not
reliable.


Considering that I and others on this news group have flown real airplanes
safely in VMC either in aircraft with just the mininum required
instruments
(compass, altimiter, airspeed indicator) or have safely completed VMC
flights in aircraft which encountered in flight instrument failure, such
as
loss of the vacuum system, and not had any problems doing so, your
statement is simply wrong. The view out the window was all that was needed
to safely conduct and complete the flight.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

I wonder how one would fly an ultralight with NO instruments.