If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
Mike Isaksen has brought this to us :
"Gezellig" wrote ... Why do I feel like singing out loud with Barbra Streisand? That could be considered Medically disqualifying !!! ;-) I recant to David Bowie. Which may continue my disqualification. :'( |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
on 5/19/2008, A Lieberman supposed :
On May 18, 10:42*pm, Gezellig wrote: A Lieberman brought next idea : The problem with feelings is that no two sets of feelers feel with the same feeling. lol Then there are the sets of feelings that are felt that are not consciously felt in terms of being able to explain them. ABSOLUTELY AGREE. And when that happens, instruments MUST be trusted. It's the absence of an EXPECTED feeling that should question the validity of instrumentation. In my case, and SUDDEN extreme pitch up displayed on my AI, I should have expected positive G's in the seat of my pants. I did not get that, therefore me flagging the AI and starting my cross check to my secondary instruments for troubleshooting. Sensory inputs are checkpoints. I see I feel I see I see more I resolve to what I see. Basic piloting, best constrained and confirmed to the sciences of engineering and physics. This is what I struggle the most, I am neither physicist, mathmetician or engineering inclined. :-? I flunked Legos. :') |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
: On May 18, 4:09 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote: Ken S. Tucker wrote: On May 18, 3:34 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote: Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote: "Dudley Henriques" wrote in message .. . ... Without getting into a whole magilla concerning right and wrong, simply let me say that in my opinion physical sensation should never, and I repeat it again so that there's NO mistake....NEVER be used to verify or augment an instrument reading. In my opinion, this is what proper scan technique is all about. You verify instruments CONSTANTLY using other instruments, right on down to primary panel if necessary, but in my opinion, the basic concept of ignoring physical cues and sensations while on instruments is a sound principle ans should be followed to the letter. ... I won't argue with a single word of that. But... That doesn't make physical sensations irrelevent or unimportant. In fact, it is the MISLEADING sensations that are very important in the sense that, if you don't have significant experience "playing over" them, one typically ends up dead (in real life). Sitting on your lazy boy, those sensations don't happen - you always feel "coordinated" - you don't get disoriented, you don't experience vertigo - which makes flying in simulated IMC stupid easy compared to real life. And, I would argue that _no_ _ammount_ of desktop simulation will _ever_ prepare you for the assult on your senses that can happen when things aren't going well in real life soup. One may think that one can handle real IMC based on desktop experience - but without realizing just how difficult it is to ignore your inner ear screaming lies at you, one doesn't really have any idea what flying real IMC is like - I would bet that an experienced "sim only" pilot would pull the wings off in less than 3 minutes in real life. I believe you and I are in complete agreement. Perhaps something being misread. The understanding of sensations and how they interact with the IFR experience is of paramount importance. In fact, a lack of this understanding can get you killed quicker than anything else I can think of at the moment. Where I was referring to the sensations issue was directly concerned with one pilot who commented that verifying an instrument reading with a physical sensation was important. My point was that instrument verification should be done against other instruments with the EXCLUSION of physical sensation from that equation. When I was a kid, I was spun to dizzy, and then staggered when I tried to walk. IIRC it took a concentrated focus on some point to sustain balance, which is me in VFR, but that doesn't work in a fog. Another thing I noticed is flying VFR with a lot of turbulence, (especially with towering cumulus) screwed my inner ear. (That is my weakness). I was very lucky that after just a couple of hours, my flight instructor got me going on IFR. He knew I had a basic handle on geometry and algebra so he was the type to promote the advance early on in instruction. Ken I tend to keep things on the basic level with students. It helps to hide my shortcomings :-) After a few hours, my instructor had me doing shallow (30's), medium (45's) and steep (60's) turns and would critcize me because I focused on the VFR horizon and he'd smirk and point to the Indescent Indicator showing a 50'/per minute loss, and the IAS loss of energy and my off-center-ball, so my turn performance was gauged by instruments. Obviously, I should have pulled a bit more elevator, put on some RPM, and applied more rudder, so that's what I did via instruments, and that's in a well done bank at 60 degs even when VFR is available. Ken You're an idiot. No instructor in his right mind would have told you that unless it was in sheer desperation after your repeated failures to do anything like a decent turn. And "indescent indicator"? Bwawhahwhahwahwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhhahwhahwha! Bertie |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
Robert Moore wrote in
46.128: Dudley Henriques wrote Without getting into a whole magilla concerning right and wrong, simply let me say that in my opinion physical sensation should never, and I repeat it again so that there's NO mistake....NEVER be used to verify or augment an instrument reading. Absolutely Correct Dudley! I have been an Instrument Instructor in the US Navy, in the Heavy Jet Airline Industry, and as a General Aviation CFII, and I can't believe what some of these amateur, mostly armchair pilots are posting as gospel. Well, my rad ion what they are posting is that various sensory inputs, especially sounds, are suplemental to the info being gleaned form the insturment scan and help to flesh out the big picture. Even the errant vestibular apparatus provides clues and these clues, as well as those provided by the muscles in your body, sounds and periperal visual clues ( changes in light sources, etc) can, when taken with a large grain of salt, help flesh out the big picture.It fills the gaps in the scan aside form anything else. The inner ear thing in particular is widely misunderstood to be completely unreliable. It is certainly true that used on it's own it's completely useless without the aid of some visual cues, but of course its still working, just in a different way. Humans can get used to almost anything and the innner ear can be wired into a pilot's loop and used to help particulalry in rates. That is to say, it can be an aid in flying the airplane more smoothly. The more smoothly you fly the airplane, the less upset it receives. Try flying instruments with an inner ear problem and see how rotten it feels and you'll see that it is still making a contribution even in instrument flight. Trust it completely? Of course not. Neccesary? Not at all. Useful? Definitely. Bertie |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
Robert Moore wrote in
46.128: A Lieberman wrote I don't ever diss anybody, and my posting history will back me, but this is one of the most closed minded statements I have seen since being in newsgroups, and I do go a long way back. It might be closed minded, but it is straight out of the FAA Instrument Flying Handbook, Chapter 1, Human Factors: Eyes During flight in visual meteorological conditions (VMC), the eyes are the major orientation source and usually provide accurate and reliable information. Visual cues usually prevail over false sensations from other sensory systems. When these visual cues are taken away, as they are in IMC, false sensations can cause the pilot to quickly become disoriented The only effective way to counter these false sensations is to recognize the problem, disregard the false sensations, AND WHILE RELYING TOTALLY ON THE FLIGHT INSTRUMENTS, use the eyes to determine the aircraft attitude. The pilot must have an understanding of the problem and the self-confidence to control the aircraft using ONLY instrument indications. Bob Moore All of which is absolutely true. You'll notice that they said "major orientation source, though" I'm not advocating anyone ty flying by the seat of their pants IMC. In fact, making a conscious decision to use the other senses isn't really a very good idea either, but they do come into play and, as in the case of A L they did guide him to the source of the problem, which is what one would expect. I don;'t believe he's saying they guided him to a zero zero landing, only that it prevented an upset. Remember the guys in New York state that were test flying the 727 and got an ASI malfunction? You know, the accident that resultd in the installation of the active pitot heat warning rather than just having greens to indicate they were on? Bertie |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
Mxsmanic wrote in
: writes: Hopefully for an instrument pilot, NEVER, but when you have an instrument go out, it does up the anti in IDENTIFYING the problem and then tossing that instrument out of your scan. You identify a failing instrument by correlating it with other instruments. If you are continuously scanning the instruments, you should notice something wrong very quickly, if it's a sudden failure, and still in plenty of time, if it's a gradual failure. So, which one failed, fjukwit? Which one do you follow? You have no idea, none at all. Bertie |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
Mxsmanic wrote in
: Le Chaud Lapin writes: Also, I read somewhere that JFK Junior's plane crashed probably because he did not trust his intstruments. What's the likelihood of that? Extremely high, for pilots unfamiliar with IFR flight. How would you know, fjukktard? you don't fly. pronouncements like this are pointless coming from an idiot such as you. Even more worthless than the crap you see on the 11:00 news Bertie Bertie |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
Mxsmanic wrote in
: A Lieberman writes: Did you forget what system failed? What DG???????????? Does the altimeter require vacuum? Why, you gonna plug your head into the monitor? Bertie |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Apology re mxsmanic | terry | Piloting | 96 | February 16th 08 05:17 PM |
I saw Mxsmanic on TV | Clear Prop | Piloting | 8 | February 14th 07 01:18 AM |
Mxsmanic | gwengler | Piloting | 30 | January 11th 07 03:42 AM |
Getting rid of MXSMANIC | [email protected] | Piloting | 33 | December 8th 06 11:26 PM |
Feeling aircraft sensations | Ramapriya | Piloting | 17 | January 12th 06 10:15 AM |