I give up, after many, many years!

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

If IFR an uncoordinated turn generally means either the instruments
have lunched or you've screwed up.

Nothing to do with sensation.

Wrong.

In that case the sensation may be the only indication of an uncoordinated
turn available.

If VFR you are supposed to be looking out the window, not staring at
the instruments, so the sensation of an uncoordinated turn would
normally be the first indication it is happening.

In VFR, if you aren't looking out the window or at your instruments, sensation
won't help you.

Point totally missed again.

In VFR you are supposed to be looking out the window. In that case the
sensation is your only indicator of an uncoordinated turn.

If your are doing something other than looking out the window or
glancing at the instruments, the sensation still tells you that you
are in an uncoordinated turn.

A real pilot in a real airplane does not need a turn and bank indicator
to make a coordinated turn.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On May 16, 4:25*pm, Clark wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote in news:9268454e-372c-404b-8a00-
:

On May 15, 9:40*pm, Clark wrote:
First off, don't even pretend to know what I will agree with. If you can't

do that then there is absolutely no point at all in responding. Got it?

Second, don't pretend to know what you need learn before getting in an
airplane. As I said before, talk to flight instructors and trust their
guidance in the matter. The instructors I know say that simulation before
flying is a detriment. Why would you assume to know better?????

I use the simulator for things that the simulator is good for.

You really don't seem to be open to other folk's opinions and guidance on
things they teach. That approach will set you back in any practical training
that you do.

It could be learning style. Some people would rather learn from a
person than from a book. I'm the opposite. I would rather learn what I
can from a book, then let the person fill in the gaps or
misunderstandings. It's more efficient (for me).

Getting experience with VOR tracking in a simulator is a lot cheaper
than hands-on-training in a cockpit at $100US/hour, for example.

Good luck with that approach. After you learn to fly a real aircraft be sure
and come back here to appologize for your arrogance.

What is there to apologize for?

Does everything about flying require an instructor to be present? If
that were the case, then there would be no point in buying books, etc.

There has to be something that a simulator can offer that does not
require the instructor to be present.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

On May 16, 2:59*pm, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

I use the simulator for things that the simulator is good for.

Getting experience with VOR tracking in a simulator is a lot cheaper
than hands-on-training in a cockpit at $100US/hour, for example.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

But you are learning, or not learning as is probably the case, out of
order. Sort of like learning Algebra before you know what 2 + 2 is.

Certainly the learning is not entirely linear. There has to be some
benefit of a simulator that can be gain independently of being in a
cockpit.

Someone wrote a post here not long ago claiming that all ATC reps
should have licenses, for example, which implies that there are ATC
personnel who do not.

Is all that knowledge useless? Is all of it irrelevant to flying? If
those ATC personnel without licenses decided to get licenses, would
they have to be brainwashed of all things learned for ATC and
retaught?

I am using MSFS to practice initerpretation of airport visual aids,
for example.

I doubt that, when I get my license, I will have to unlearn that and
and have an an instructor (at $40/hour) help me re-read the book.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

On May 16, 3:00*pm, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On May 16, 8:36 am, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote:
Because you don't fully understand the context of what you are learning..
* Back in the dark ages when I got my PPL it was common practice to take
the ground school at night while training. Sort of like having classroom
and lab.

What about books?

I am reading FAA Handbook from front to back currently.

Any danger in doing that without an instructor present?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Nope not at all. But if you ever do actually learn to fly I'll bet you
have to read them all over again.

Hmm...someone should write an email to FAA warning them that they
should warn readers that the HoAK should not be read by any aspiring
pilot who has not yet been properly instructed of its contents by
human.

But then, if the instructor is to tell all to the student that is in
the book, then there is no point in writing the book.

Maybe it should be retitled...

"Refresher Handbook For Pilot's Who Already Learned This Stuff From A
Person. But Not Anyone Else.."

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Algebra is mathematics. 2+2 is arithmetic. It is possible to learn one
without the other, or learn them in either order, although in most instances
they compliment each other nicely.

Jim

--
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it."
--Aristotle


"Gig 601Xl Builder" wrote in message
...

But you are learning, or not learning as is probably the case, out of
order. Sort of like learning Algebra before you know what 2 + 2 is.

Benjamin Dover writes:

What do you call stall buffet?

A sensation that you might feel in some aircraft under some circumstances when
approaching a stall.

It is also an all-you-can-eat meal in a stable.

It's something you sense. Any pilot knows what it is.

Even some non-pilots know what is is. So what?

writes:

In that case the sensation may be the only indication of an uncoordinated
turn available.

If you have neither instruments nor visual references to depend on, you're in
serious trouble, no matter what the magic sensations to which you've become
mystically attuned as a pilot.

In VFR you are supposed to be looking out the window. In that case the
sensation is your only indicator of an uncoordinated turn.

You're permitted to look at instruments even under VFR.

If your are doing something other than looking out the window or
glancing at the instruments, the sensation still tells you that you
are in an uncoordinated turn.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. If you really need to know, you have an
instrument that will tell you.

A real pilot in a real airplane does not need a turn and bank indicator
to make a coordinated turn.

So pilots wimpy and cowardly enough to resort to instruments are not Real
Pilots, eh? Where have I seen mention of this attitude in the literature?

Benjamin Dover writes:

Unless you have autoland, it is.

You can land visually without sensations, particularly if you have instruments
as well.

And landing isn't the only use for sensations.

I'm very puzzled by this preoccupation with sensations. I can only assume
that it has much to do with the type of pilots who are being most vocal here.

Benjamin Dover writes:

You're recent crash of a 172 in Colorodo, moron.

I was not in IMC.

The sensations might not tell you which way something is
happening, but they tell you something is happening.

What do the leans tell you is happening?

You then snap your attention from whatever you're doing (like
reading charts) and get them back on the instuments to see what exactly is
happening.

In IMC, you maintain an instrument scan that does not require you to depend on
sensations to alert you to changes.

Mxsmanic wrote:
gatt writes:

Those sensations are very important. Knowing how to interpret them
(and how to avoid misinterpreting them) is especially important.

Then why must they be ignored for safe IFR flight?

The ones that are ignored are different sensations and typically have to
do with equilibrium and the inner ear. Examples are somatogravic and
coriolis and inversion illusions. If your ass leaves the seat or
compresses into it, however, it's not something you ignore.


"There are three sources of actual 'feel' that are very important to the
pilot. One is the pilot's own body as it responds to the forces of
acceleration. The 'G' loads imposed on the airframe are also felt by the
pilot. Centripetal accelerations for the pilot down into the seat or
raise the pilot against the seat belt. Radial accelerations, as they
produce slips or skids of the airframe, shift the pilot from side to
side in the seat. These forces need not be strong, only perceptible by
the pilot to be useful. An accomplished pilot who had excellent 'feel'
for the airplane will be able to detect even the minutest change.

How do pilots of RC models and UAVs manage to fly, given that they do not have
these sensations?

There aren't many/any RC pilots who haven't catastrophically augured an
RC plane. UAV systems are much more sophisticated than those in the
average single-engine piston airplane, and--I've not flown a UAV so I'm
guessing here--they're not doing things like steep-bank turns or
short-field approaches.

I understand why so many pilots without IFR training last only a few minutes
in IMC before they spin out of control, if they have such an overwhelming
dependence on relatively unreliable physical sensations.

Those are different sensations and you have to know the difference and
also what to reject or ignore. VFR pilots are subject to similar but
different sensations such as visual autokinesis, reversal of motion and
black hole approaches.

You can have those sensations while remaining perfectly still in normal
flight. When your ass is sliding toward the inside or outside of a
turn, or getting compressed into the seat or lifted into the lap belt,
those are not illusions.

-c