On May 17, 9:30 am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: "Jay Honeck"

What people are asserting here is 180 degrees different from what I
read in all the literature. You cannot fly by the seat of your pants.
You can't fly based on sensations. They are too unreliable.
Conversely, you can fly without sensations, as long as you have visual
and/or instrument information.

You're a moron. You're not competent to read with comprehension.
Anthony, you don't know **** from shinola.

Presuming we're talking about IFR flight, what, precisely, do you find
incorrect in MX's paragraph, above?

Many years ago, on a bet, I did a pretty fair 4 point roll.......BLINDFOLDED!
I got lunch and a half dozen beers out of the deal.

A plane is flown by sensations. In the short term, it's quite reliable. In the long
term, slight errors start to compound and need to be eliminated by squaring
things up with the instruments or horizon.
When you catch an updraft coming over a ridge, do you wait for the altimeter
to tell you you're climbing? Or do you slightly lower the nose based on
FEELING the additional lift?
How about landing. Are you FLYING visually or by feel? Do you NEED to look
at the airspeed indicator to tell if you're trending faster or slower?
I fly by feel. I orient myself visually, either looking out the window or looking
at the instruments. I navigate visually. But I FLY by feel.
Humans are hard wired with a decent inertial nav. system. MX is a few wires
short of a complete circuit.

I pretty much agree with MX, the human inertial nav
is clumsy, we didn't have the evolution of birds.
An example is a "spiral dive", it's actually quite benign
from the standpoint of inertial inputs, it's better to use
instruments.
Ken