On Feb 17, 5:17*pm, wrote:
I guess I'm going to have to start (and perhaps finish) my primary
training in order to understand this comment completely.

I understand that being able to see outside helps the brain make a
connection between the behavior of the airplane and what it looks
like. *However, couldn't you learn to feel the airplane and how it
behaves only on instruments ever? *

Conceivably (except for landing, of course). But in VMC, you need to
be looking out the window almost all the time in order to scan for
other traffic (at least with current technology). The more time you
spend looking at your instruments, the less time you're devoting to
collision avoidance. So it's important to be able to perceive as much
as possible without reference to the instruments.

There's also the problem that instruments can fail, sometimes
unobviously. VFR aircraft aren't required to provide as much
rednundant information as IFR instruments. So again, it's important
not to rely too much on the instruments.

I have done enough research to understand the difference between VFR,
VMC, IFR, and IMC and who and why you would fly in each one. *I would
imagine this is part of training when getting a PPL. *So how would a
pilot mix up these two worlds?

If the transition to IMC is unexpected, a pilot may delay switching to
instrument flight, clinging instead to fading and inadequate visual
cues. Even in established, solid IMC, misleading perceptions of the
plane's orientation often conflict with the instruments, creating
illusions that can be dangerously hard to ignore.

Conversely, in VMC, many pilots spend too much time looking at their
instruments, creating an unnecessary collision hazard.