Head orientation in turns--how is it taught for aviation?

Actually, with respect to maintaining one g into the seat and doing a
kind of roll, you can, or at least Newton says so, but I'm not sure
the airplane exists that has the control authority to do it. If you
search the groups you'll be able to find the analysis, but the short
form is this. The airplane has got to accelelerate downward at 1 G,
then pull a G in a coordinated bank. It'll roll, but it won't be
pretty, and the pilot will feel 1 G into the seat.

The diameter of the roll is something like 80 feet! Almost a snap
roll.

Think of it this way, and you'll be able to see how it works. If you
roll into a level bank, you'll feel increasing Gs. If, on the other
hand, you push over, you'll feel decreasing Gs. Somewhere between the
two, a coordinated bank and a push over, you'll be able to feel 1 G.

Give it a try a few times when you're flying aerobatics, and I'll bet
you can get to 45 or even 60 degrees of bank in a decending term with
your G meter locked at one before you run out of control authority.



On Jun 10, 8:52 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote roups.com:

There was a thread a while ago about how not only could one stay with
the force into the seat, but actually maintain 1 G straight into the
seat through a roll.

You can't.

If one is flying coordinated, keeping normal to

the airplane makes sense. Those how fly aerobatics have a different
set of criteria.

Nope, I fly aerobatics.

Quite well, too.

The criteria is the same, only the level of undrstanding changes.

For what it's worth, watching the in cockpit cameras

of some moderatedly skilled pilots, like the Blue Angels, shows them
"upright" with respect to the airplane except when G forces sling
their heads around, but they do fly coordinated most of the time.

But what do they know?

Exactly. But fjukkwit won't buy it..

Bertie





On Jun 10, 8:35 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote
:

writes:

If the turn is coordinated, there is no "sideways" force to
perceive as that is the definition of a cooridinated turn.

False. The aircraft is being accelerated to one side.

Nope, wrong again, moron.

Bertie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jun 11, 7:26 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
It is also important to realize (!) that bike is _not_ doing a co-
ordinated turn.

Yes, it is. If it were not, it would fall over.

No, they do not.
A bike does not have to be co-ordinated, friction between tyre and
road.

-Kees.

writes:

Actually, with respect to maintaining one g into the seat and doing a
kind of roll, you can, or at least Newton says so, but I'm not sure
the airplane exists that has the control authority to do it. If you
search the groups you'll be able to find the analysis, but the short
form is this. The airplane has got to accelelerate downward at 1 G,
then pull a G in a coordinated bank. It'll roll, but it won't be
pretty, and the pilot will feel 1 G into the seat.

You cannot climb without exceeding 1 G, and you cannot stop a descent without
exceeding 1 G, either.

My I suggest you revisit Newton's laws of motion? Do the google search
I suggested, it's pretty clear there, but not, I would agree
intuitively obvious. Neither, however, is quantum mechanics.




On Jun 11, 8:57 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:
Actually, with respect to maintaining one g into the seat and doing a
kind of roll, you can, or at least Newton says so, but I'm not sure
the airplane exists that has the control authority to do it. If you
search the groups you'll be able to find the analysis, but the short
form is this. The airplane has got to accelelerate downward at 1 G,
then pull a G in a coordinated bank. It'll roll, but it won't be
pretty, and the pilot will feel 1 G into the seat.

You cannot climb without exceeding 1 G, and you cannot stop a descent without
exceeding 1 G, either.

Mxsmanic wrote:
When you make a coordinated turn in an aircraft, are you taught to
let your head tilt with the bank angle of the aircraft, or are you
taught to keep your head normal to the horizon?

The position of my head was never mentioned in any flight training I ever
received with the exception once I was told to get it out of my ass after a
particularly bad crosswind landing.

Gig 601XL Builder schrieb:
The position of my head was never mentioned in any flight training I ever
received with the exception once I was told to get it out of my ass after a
particularly bad crosswind landing.

I was emphatically tought to really move my head around all axes to have
a complete look out in all directions, especially to look over my
shoulder before initiating a turn (coordinated or not), and even more so
while thermalling in a gaggle with ten other gliders.

Conversely, I tell first time passengers not to move their heads at all
and to concentrate at the horizon, especially while thermalling, to
enhance the chance of keeping that certain bag empty.

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

I think he probably tried Viagra, but found it only made him taller.



Boom! Head shot!

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

You aren't attached to the horizon while in an aircraft in flight,
simulator boy, you are attached to the aircraft.

You aren't attached to either, and you have freedom of movement that allows
you to align your head with the aircraft or with the horizon, in anything less
than a 90-degree bank.

If you aren't attached to the aircraft while in flight, you have bigger
issues than head tilt.

The only force in coordinated flight is straight down, where "down"
is perpendicular to the wings.

Then if your head is not perpendicular to the wings, you will perceive a force
that is not straight down. QED.

Nonsense.

This is no different than standing still on the ground and tilting your
head.

When I do that I feel nothing other than I'm tilting my head.

Down is still down.

Your brain wiring may, however, be different than the rest of the
human race.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

That's because pilots here really don't know much. Yet you continue
to ask.

I don't have any other sources (there are some paying sources, but I cannot
afford them).

And if you can discern probable good answers from suspect answers, it
suggests you know what the answer is.

It suggests that I have a good idea, but I like confirmation. And in some
cases it's more a matter of opinion than established fact, and surveying
opinions is useful.

Nonsense, you just like to argue and see how much consternation you
can cause.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jun 10, 1:26 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Bob Moore writes:
Head and body should remain perpendicular to the floor of the
cockpit. This comes naturally if the turn is coordinated.

Interesting. When you learn to ride a motorcycle, you're taught to keep your
head normal to the horizon in turns ... because turning your head with the
bike as you lean into a turn results in disorientation.

Perhaps pilots would be less prone to disorientation if they kept their heads
normal to the horizon, even in turns (for instrument flight, this would mean
keeping one's head level with the horizon of the attitude indicator).

I note from in-cockpit videos of aerobatic pilots that they keep their heads
level with the horizon, not level with the aircraft.

Normally I avoid engaging in the normal name-calling and slander that
attends almost all of your posts, but today I cannot resist. I will,
however avoid the temptation for infantile popping off at you, and
just answer the question as well as a few observations, and a parable
from the history of science ...

I will note immediately, that you do seem the use the word "But" far
too often for someone who is asking for factual responses to specific
questions about pilots' actual experience; of their training, or post-
training flying. For example, quoting you:

"But you can look where you're going in both cases: with
your head level with
the horizon, and with your head level with the aircraft. "


"But" implies that you are interested more in entering into a
discussion or argument about what "ought" to be true, rather than a
discussion of what "is" true in the experience of the people / group
you are asking questions of.

I should not have to quote you back to you again, however you did ask
"Head orientation in turns--how is it taught for aviation?", and:

"When you make a coordinated turn in an aircraft, are you
taught to let your
head tilt with the bank angle of the aircraft, or are you
taught to keep your
head normal to the horizon?"

Your response immediately below indicates that you are more interested
in exploring your own theories on this subject, rather than the actual
experience of people while they were being taught:

"Interesting. When you learn to ride a motorcycle, you're
taught to keep your
head normal to the horizon in turns ... because turning your
head with the
bike as you lean into a turn results in disorientation."

Unfortunately, this seems to be your most common approach, a form of
the bait and switch, you ask for experiences then seek to discount
these experiences with your own theoretical structure of how things
"ought" to be.

Descartes did this too, even in the face of the overwhelming empirical
(and theoretical) power of Newtonian mechanics. Descartes kept harping
on about the "occult" nature of the force of gravity (on the basis
that it "ought" not be true because it involved believing in forces
that act at a distance without a mechanism or particles for the
transmission of the force). Descartes himself had an extremely non-
empirical theory that involved whirling "vortices" of particles in an
"ether" ... strange his reluctance to embrace a complex and powerful
mathematical system such as Newton's universal gravitation, from such
a good mathematician as Descartes was.

Newton said "yes ... I have no mechanism, but I don't care ... it
works ... and very well". Rather than evaluate whether real
observations showed that universal gravitation "is" a good description
of the world, Descartes kept insisting that it "ought" not be true.
The fact that Einstein later supplanted Newtonian mechanics is
irrelevant ... Descartes' approach was still wrong-headed and failed
in its own time, and did not lead anywhere later either, as it turned
out.

Descartes was an idealist (that is, the belief that truth should
somehow be deducible from just the power of thought, without any
reference to the world outside of one's head). Idealism used to be
called the "French disease" (so was syphillis) by the English speaking
world, and it seems as if you might have caught it (the idealist bug
that is). Remember "is" and "ought" are very different things.

Back to your original question ... I will supply an answer of what
"is" ... I was (as you asked) taught during my ab initio flight
training to keep my head and body in a straight line, and not bend at
the neck, neither away from nor toward the direction of the turn.
Swiveling the head and/or moving the eyes to watch the patch of sky
you were heading toward is taught (of course). Swiveling the head in
the other direction is also taught to look for possibly converging A/
C. However, one is taught to NOT bend your neck during turns. The
argument is made that doing this makes you more prone to
disorientation, sloppy flying, and a phenomenon called "the leans"
after prolonged turns or during instrument flying.

And before you start ... spare us the inevitable "But, ...". Don't
argue with me about whether this "ought" to be true ... you asked "how
is?" and I just answered your question, from my actual experience of
private pilot flight training.

J