"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Only a pile of accident reports a mile high. And they were all
certain that what they saw out the window was more reliable than any
instrument.

Where are these accident reports? Show us ten from the last year. I doubt
you can come up with even one, but this supposed "mile high" pile ought to
provide you plenty of documented evidence with which to support your claim.
Show us.

Remember, we are talking about in-flight situations during good daytime
visibility here.

They are far less prone to failure than human perception. That's why
they are there.

They are NOT less prone to failure than human perception when one can see
outside the aircraft.

[...]
Instruments communicate their own perception of reality, viewed through
the
pilot's own perception of reality.

Which is much more trustworthy than the pilot's perception alone. In
IFR, 90% of the crucial interpretation is done by the instruments,
which do not get tired, confused, or overconfident; the other 10% is
done by the pilot, and since much less of the overall interpretation
is done by him, the overall system is more reliable.

Again, you have no clue with respect to what IFR flight entails. Most of
the interpretation is done by the pilot. The flight instruments provide raw
data, and the pilot is required to integrate that mentally into an overall
situational picture.

Moving map GPS has alleviated this somewhat, but a) most non-transport
airplanes still don't have moving map displays, and b) they introduce a
whole slew of new ways to become confused by the flight instruments.

Until such time as you have actually flown a REAL aircraft in REAL
instrument conditions BY YOURSELF, do not presume to lecture this newsgroup
about what happens in IFR conditions.

They are an indirect and highly suspect
means of determining reality when compared to using one's own eyes to
directly observe reality.

Highly suspect? How frequently do instruments fail in flight?

Well, according to a recent informal survey in this newsgroup, about one
instrument failure per 500 hours is about average. My personal average is a
little higher than that, but in all but one case the instruments were
non-critical engine instruments. That one exception was a vacuum pump
failure, resulting in the failure of both my attitude indicator and my
directional gyro.

During the entire timespan of those failures, I have not once had my sensory
perceptions fail me during good daytime visual conditions.

[...]
All of the history of aviation demonstrates that instruments are more
reliable.

There is nothing about the history of aviation that demonstrates any such
thing.

That's why instruments are the reference when things are
confusing, and even when they are not.

Instruments are not the reference when things are not confusing. Any
certificated pilot is perfectly capable of flying an airplane without any
instruments whatsoever.

The sky is very unforgiving of
those who think they know better than their instruments.

It is even more unforgiving of those who arrogantly insist that they know
more than people with actual first-hand experience.

I'll say one thing, perhaps the only thing, you have exactly right: you
definitely do NOT belong in the pilot seat of any aircraft.

Pete