Stalls??

Michael wrote in news:01dbf2da-65ef-
:

On Feb 17, 9:13*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Anyhow, flying instruments has, for instance, one aspect that makes
it
very different and that is; you are constantly fighting a number of
signals coming from your body. I'm sure you've heard about spatial
disorientation arising from when the signal from your inner ear
conflicts with the info coming from your eyes. This never really
entirely goes away no matter how much intsrument flying you do. ( at
least it hasn't for me)

There are two kinds of pilots in this regard.

There are those who fly by feel naturally, solo relatively quickly
(even in a taildragger), and never quite get rid of the discomfort
caused by 'seat-of'the-pants' signals in instrument conditions.
They're the ones who need to be really careful about staying
instrument current because for them it's a perishable skill.

There are also those who have a hard time with coordination and with
the flare, take a long time to solo because of it, and find instrument
flying easy because feel doesn't matter anymore. Someone like that
could probably learn to fly takeoff to touchdown without looking
outside ab initio, as long as he ahd a good RADAR altimeter and GPS.
This is the same person who doesn't need to worry about losing his
instrument proficiency because he found getting the instrument rating
to be a cakewalk in the first place.

Of course those are the extremes - the reality is a continuum - but
you get the idea. As we have more and more people growing up in front
of computers, I think we're going to see the pilot population shifting
towards the second. In fact, I think over 100% of the reduction in
VFR-into-IMC accidents seen in the past few years can be attributed to
this trend (since without it things would have gotten worse).

Eventually, we're going to see student pilots who have an easier time
learning to do an ILS than a simple visual pattern. I think this is
already starting.


Well, the former pilot will always be better at the end of the day no
matter what type of flying is being done. The discomfort that comes from
flying insturments for the seat of the pants pilot is a good thing if
it's kept in it's place.


Bertie

On Feb 20, 8:05*am, Michael wrote:
On Feb 17, 9:13*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Anyhow, flying instruments has, for instance, one aspect that makes it
very different and that is; you are constantly fighting a number of
signals coming from your body. I'm sure you've heard about spatial
disorientation arising from when the signal from your inner ear
conflicts with the info coming from your eyes. This never really
entirely goes away no matter how much intsrument flying you do. ( at
least it hasn't for me)

There are two kinds of pilots in this regard.

There are those who fly by feel naturally, solo relatively quickly
(even in a taildragger), and never quite get rid of the discomfort
caused by 'seat-of'the-pants' signals in instrument conditions.
They're the ones who need to be really careful about staying
instrument current because for them it's a perishable skill.

There are also those who have a hard time with coordination and with
the flare, take a long time to solo because of it, and find instrument
flying easy because feel doesn't matter anymore. *Someone like that
could probably learn to fly takeoff to touchdown without looking
outside ab initio, as long as he ahd a good RADAR altimeter and GPS.
This is the same person who doesn't need to worry about losing his
instrument proficiency because he found getting the instrument rating
to be a cakewalk in the first place.

Of course those are the extremes - the reality is a continuum - but
you get the idea. *As we have more and more people growing up in front
of computers, I think we're going to see the pilot population shifting
towards the second. *In fact, I think over 100% of the reduction in
VFR-into-IMC accidents seen in the past few years can be attributed to
this trend (since without it things would have gotten worse).

Eventually, we're going to see student pilots who have an easier time
learning to do an ILS than a simple visual pattern. *I think this is
already starting.

Michael

Michael
I agree to a point. Perhaps 15 years ago I actually took a hard look
at the rapidly popular computer sims like Microsoft FlightSim?. To
that point I threw them into the same basket with "PONG" (date me huh?
gg). As I did some approaches and played with the program, I
realized it had genuine value for teaching procedures. When you get to
the bottom line, flying is mostly a mental game. At that time I was
actively working as an ag pilot flying both FW/RW and doing some
instruction in off times.
Back in the mid 60's I thought I was pretty good @1500 hrs. Not the
ace of the base, but better than most and I actively sought out
training and professional challenges. When I was offered a job crop
dusting, I took it. Didn't take but a few hours to learn how little I
really knew about "seat of the pants" flying and did a really FAST
catch up as I learned in the lowest reaches of the airspace system. At
the end of the season, I went back to work as a CFI/I and transfered
some of those rediscovered skills to nearly all the flying. The next
season I ran into a fog bank while in a 60deg bank/100agl in a Piper
Pawnee which has NO gyros, not even a turn and slip indicator. If it
hadn't been for all the fine tune IFR training, (including what I now
term "Primitive Panel" I had been teaching, there is no doubt I'd have
crashed. Those same skills have saved me several times in ag work
around the world.
None of us is born with feathers around our butt so flying is a
learned skill which deteriorates with dis-use. I'm still flying 5-6
hrs a day as a basic instructor with brand new Navy/USMC/USCG pilots
and teaching the very rudiments of flying. It includes about 2 hours
of instrument in the first 15 hours.
Using the idea that the youngsters of today are computer oriented, I
try to utilize that concept in some of my teaching. Frequently, and
this is the important part, while they can understand the concept of
instrument flying, when you add the visceral physical sensations (aka
life or death), it causes some brain farts and they get so far behind
the airplane I have to intercede. Once they get it figured out that
their brain can be played with and has to be approached with some
degree of discipline, they start to settle down and recognize all the
facets that go into flying.
I also recognize, as technology advances, and systems become more
complex, pilots will no longer rely on stick and rudder skills as much
as their abililty to manage computer or electronic systems. As I often
point out to my new students, I am coming to the end of my flying
career that started over 50 years ago with wood and fabric aircraft
and no electrical system, to this day and age of space travel. I'll
never go above FL 450 unless I hit the freakin lottery and buy a seat
on one of the new ventures for a rocket shot up and down. That would
be a great way to close out my logbook but it won't happen. So, I
continue to do the basic flight instruction with a building block
process that focuses more on VISUAL than the instruments. BUT it also
teaches how to best utilize the instrument input depending on the
flight condition.
Of course when we go IMC the instruments have to be relied on but they
frequently either lie or can be fooled and it takes a good instructor
to teach how to tell when any of that happens. Just looked at my log
and I've got more than 1400 actual IFR in both FW/RW. No idea of how
much IFR training I've done with students but I'm pressin hard on 6000
hrs of dual given.
Tickles hell out of me that my OP about stalls has generated so much
genuine solid discussion right to this point. I sure hope it continues
with the great input of so many, pros and newbies alike.
Best regards to you all
Rocky AKA Ol Shy & Bashful

On Feb 22, 1:10*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Well, the former pilot will always be better at the end of the day no
matter what type of flying is being done. The discomfort that comes from
flying insturments for the seat of the pants pilot is a good thing if
it's kept in it's place.

I don't agree with either of those statements.

When it comes to stick-and-rudder intensive flying, like aerobatics,
dropping jumpers, towing gliders (or flying them for that matter) -
then yes. When it comes to flying point to point in lousy weather and
complex equipment - then no. The pilot who makes use of somatic cues
naturally is always going to have to divert part of his attention to
fighting the wrong cues (that's the discomfort) and will never perform
at his best mentally - and weather flying is mostly a mental game. If
there's one thing I learned while teaching both flying and skydiving,
it is this - discomfort never improves performance. Flying a light
plane in IMC, you should be paying attention to potential weather
deterioration and potential developing systems failures - not fighting
your discomfort in controlling the plane by instruments.

I remember one time, I let a kid who had spent a lot of time playing
flight simulator games fly my airplane. VFR, he did about as well as
a low time student generally does with it - not well enough to have me
talk him through the landing (it was, at the time, an unmodified
PA-30, and they have some rough edges on landing - I've since
installed the wing fillets). But then, on a lark, I put him under the
hood. He was instantly better than most instrument pilots I know -
and he was easily able to carry on a conversation while doing it. I
was going to talk him through an ILS, but it turned out to be
unnecessary - he just needed some help setting up my radios and some
advice on power settings, and then he flew it to ATP standards on the
first attempt. If he ever learns to fly, he will make a spectacular
instrument pilot, consistently able to launch and arrive safely in
weather most people wouldn't handle, even if he has significant
multiple system failures in that weather. He will make an acceptable
and safe visual pilot if he gets the right training - but you will
never see him win an aerobatic competition or precision landing
contest. With good training, practice, and experience he might place
or show.

That's our future. You may not like it, but that's the pilot of
tomorrow. There is already a flight school out there (Part 141) where
lesson 3 is an ILS approach. Brave new world - by the time I first
flew an ILS approach, I had already flown from the Gulf to the Great
Lakes, and from the Statue of Liberty to the Golden Gate, in an
airplane that couldn't even do an ILS (or get an IFR certification
without major repairs). But I think those days are pretty much gone.

It is for that reason that we must be ever more vigilant about
watering down the stick-and-rudder component of training (remember the
discussion of spins?). While people on this group talk about how most
accidents are the result of stupidity like blundering into weather or
running out of fuel, the reality is very different. Most accidents
are the result of mishandling approach and landing, takeoff and
initial climb, and go-arounds. They're stick-and-rudder airplane
handling issues. We're turning out pilots who have no real concept of
how the airplane handles (or should be handled) at high anges of
attack, stay away from that region as much as possible (remember the
pilots who won't stall solo, never mind spin?), and thus get into
trouble. I would hate to see that kid handle a vacuum failure in IMC
like it was no big deal, and then wreck the plane because he was
trying to land on a short strip with gusty crosswinds.

I would be very comfortable dropping the time requirement (3 hours
now) for simulated instrument flight, though of course not the
performance standards. Most young pilots these days don't need
anything like 3 hours to learn the emergency instrument skills to the
level they are tested on the checkride (or needed by a VFR pilot). A
lot of them don't need 3 minutes. That would maybe have been a good
requirement back in the old days. Now we're better off using that
time in slow flight, stalls, spins, or short field crosswind landings
- because that's where the skill deterioration is happening.

Michael

On Feb 22, 8:06*am, Michael wrote:
On Feb 22, 1:10*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

Well, the former pilot will always be better at the end of the day no
matter what type of flying is being done. The discomfort that comes from
flying insturments for the seat of the pants pilot is a good thing if
it's kept in it's place.

I don't agree with either of those statements.

When it comes to stick-and-rudder intensive flying, like aerobatics,
dropping jumpers, towing gliders (or flying them for that matter) -
then yes. *When it comes to flying point to point in lousy weather and
complex equipment - then no. *The pilot who makes use of somatic cues
naturally is always going to have to divert part of his attention to
fighting the wrong cues (that's the discomfort) and will never perform
at his best mentally - and weather flying is mostly a mental game. *If
there's one thing I learned while teaching both flying and skydiving,
it is this - discomfort never improves performance. *Flying a light
plane in IMC, you should be paying attention to potential weather
deterioration and potential developing systems failures - not fighting
your discomfort in controlling the plane by instruments.

I remember one time, I let a kid who had spent a lot of time playing
flight simulator games fly my airplane. *VFR, he did about as well as
a low time student generally does with it - not well enough to have me
talk him through the landing (it was, at the time, an unmodified
PA-30, and they have some rough edges on landing - I've since
installed the wing fillets). *But then, on a lark, I put him under the
hood. *He was instantly better than most instrument pilots I know -
and he was easily able to carry on a conversation while doing it. *I
was going to talk him through an ILS, but it turned out to be
unnecessary - he just needed some help setting up my radios and some
advice on power settings, and then he flew it to ATP standards on the
first attempt. *If he ever learns to fly, he will make a spectacular
instrument pilot, consistently able to launch and arrive safely in
weather most people wouldn't handle, even if he has significant
multiple system failures in that weather. *He will make an acceptable
and safe visual pilot if he gets the right training - but you will
never see him win an aerobatic competition or precision landing
contest. *With good training, practice, and experience he might place
or show.

That's our future. *You may not like it, but that's the pilot of
tomorrow. *There is already a flight school out there (Part 141) where
lesson 3 is an ILS approach. *Brave new world - by the time I first
flew an ILS approach, I had already flown from the Gulf to the Great
Lakes, and from the Statue of Liberty to the Golden Gate, in an
airplane that couldn't even do an ILS (or get an IFR certification
without major repairs). *But I think those days are pretty much gone.

It is for that reason that we must be ever more vigilant about
watering down the stick-and-rudder component of training (remember the
discussion of spins?). *While people on this group talk about how most
accidents are the result of stupidity like blundering into weather or
running out of fuel, the reality is very different. *Most accidents
are the result of mishandling approach and landing, takeoff and
initial climb, and go-arounds. *They're stick-and-rudder airplane
handling issues. *We're turning out pilots who have no real concept of
how the airplane handles (or should be handled) at high anges of
attack, stay away from that region as much as possible (remember the
pilots who won't stall solo, never mind spin?), and thus get into
trouble. *I would hate to see that kid handle a vacuum failure in IMC
like it was no big deal, and then wreck the plane because he was
trying to land on a short strip with gusty crosswinds.

I would be very comfortable dropping the time requirement (3 hours
now) for simulated instrument flight, though of course not the
performance standards. *Most young pilots these days don't need
anything like 3 hours to learn the emergency instrument skills to the
level they are tested on the checkride (or needed by a VFR pilot). *A
lot of them don't need 3 minutes. *That would maybe have been a good
requirement back in the old days. *Now we're better off using that
time in slow flight, stalls, spins, or short field crosswind landings
- because that's where the skill deterioration is happening.

Michael

Michael
I recall back in about 1967 when all the additional IFR training was
being mandated and the ****ing and moaning. I said at that time the
commercial would require an IFR rating, and that within 20 years the
private pilot would too. Many people told me I was out of my mind.
But, I was also charging for my pre/post time and everyone said that
wouldn't fly either!!?? Now its pretty much a standard. Well, I hit it
for the commercial but missed on the private. I maintain, its coming
with the complexities of both aircraft and systems for ATC.
Best Pro regards
Rocky

Michael wrote in news:8102f8f5-5e85-
:

On Feb 22, 1:10*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Well, the former pilot will always be better at the end of the day no
matter what type of flying is being done. The discomfort that comes from
flying insturments for the seat of the pants pilot is a good thing if
it's kept in it's place.

I don't agree with either of those statements.

When it comes to stick-and-rudder intensive flying, like aerobatics,
dropping jumpers, towing gliders (or flying them for that matter) -
then yes. When it comes to flying point to point in lousy weather and
complex equipment - then no. The pilot who makes use of somatic cues
naturally is always going to have to divert part of his attention to
fighting the wrong cues (that's the discomfort) and will never perform
at his best mentally - and weather flying is mostly a mental game.

Depends on how much practice you get with each.


Bertie