On May 20, 7:56*am, Stealth Pilot
wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2008 15:47:19 -0700 (PDT), A Lieberman





wrote:
On May 18, 5:34*pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:

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.

I think my point was when there is an action, there should be a
reaction, and if I don't feel the reaction (which is faster then
registering on the instrument), then I need to explore further.

I am talking the very subtle changes, not changes requiring large
power changes.

For example, I come down the ILS at 90 knots with 1900 rpm. *If
headwinds cause my groundspeed to drop below 90 knots and I add lets
say 25 RPM to recapture the glideslope and I DON"T feel it in my seat
of the pants, first place I will look is the temperature probe.
Again, talking subtle 25 RPM just finger tip touch to the controls.

If I feel the extra oomph / firmness in my seat of the pants with the
extra 25 RPM and the glideslope starts to recapture, that is a
verification of my action and reaction.

Again, very subtle changes I am look and feeling for. *I am not saying
make turns by the seat of my pants, primarily verifying actions of
power settings.

In my Friday incident, I could tell my attitude indicator of 20 to 30
degree pitch up AND not feeling the extra G's in my rear end, that
something was discrepant having flown this plane for over 600 hours..
That had me going to my backup instruments IMMEDIATELY *(VSI and
airspeed) for my analysis and quickly identifying the vacuum as
suspect..

It's not that I even remotely navigated by the seat of my pants, but
something was amiss was felt.

I absolutely agree based on time and time again history, that any
feelings in the head absolutely has to be ignored, instruments are
there for that, but for verification of power adjustments, I see no
reason why AS A TOOL, the feeling in your rear end cannot be used as a
verification of the reaction of your actioin (adding or reducing
power).

The feeling of the seat of your pants is NOT to be used in determining
upright status in IMC, that I will say, and don't want to mislead
anybody that I condone that, just using it to verify my action of
power is working and the reaction of instrumentation TRENDS are
following what my seat of the pants feel is.

you are setting your self up for a fatal accident.
you need to learn about somatogravic thresholds, the effect of alcohol
on the viscosity of the fluids of the inner ear and above all you need

Did you read my entire post???? I am not talking about inner ear or
leans. I have already addressed this with Dudley.

I am talking about a feeling a response to an input of power. If I
add power, I should feel it in the seat of my pants. This has nothing
to do with head sensations.

I think the rest of my posts explain very clearly what I am looking
for (or absense of).

NOTHING in my posts says to ignore the instruments. All of my posts
do say to ignore what you feel in your head and trust the instruments.

The feeling of thrust in the seat of your pants confirms and verify
the instruments motions especially when you slip below the glideslope,
or in a climb.

Everything you talk about above I agree with but what I am doing is
adding a tool in my tool kit by expecting a certain feeling in the
seat of my pants.

If I don't get it, then I am going to cross check my primary
instrumentation with my secondary to sort out the discrepancy.

In my case that I have repeated so many times, an AI showing a 20
degree pitch up should have placed some G's in the seat of my pants.
THIS WAS A DRAMATIC CHANGE. This has nothing to do with leans. The G
feeling in the seat of my pants was absent, so I went to secondary
instruments and within 20 seconds of time, found I had a bad AI.

I'd hardly think that troubleshooting a vacuum system and resolving
the descrepancy within 20 seconds is setting me up for a statistic.

The seat of your pants is a tool that can be used in an IA
environment. This does not replace the instruments in no manner shape
or form nor is it to be confused with leans. Two different
sensations, one is to be ignored COMPLETELY (leans), one not to be
ignored, but a supplement to verify what you see on your panel (seat
of your pants).