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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
Hi folks;
Please bear with me on this post. I've just spent the entire day thinking about some things and have a few what I hope will be accepted as friendly thoughts to share. Keep in mind if you're reading this that what I'm going to say isn't meant to be critical of anyone in any way and that I totally respect the right of everyone on this forum to make up their own mind on these issues. What I'd like to share with you are simply my own thoughts on some things. All of what I'm saying here is simply how I personally view the issues involved. So bear with me as I try and get this stuff down without ****ing off half the world in the process. First of all, I've been reading a thread here where pilots are dealing with Mxsmanic on the issue of physical sensation vs instruments in an IFR environment, specifically when certain instrument failures are either involved or suspected. 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. Now, on to the subject of Mxsmanic. I have no idea whether Mxsmanic was posting from knowledge or from a source when he posted on the above issue, but in my opinion he was right in what he was saying about physical sensation vs IFR procedure, and yes, I am aware Mxsmanic doesn't fly. Please know I'm not faulting those who take him on. That's between you and Mxsmanic. If it's your choice to answer this person the way some of you have chosen (and I've been just as guilty myself on occasion) then that is your choice, and I'll make no attempt here to play internet cop or even to try to change your mind. This is a matter of individual choice, but I will try and explain to you how I personally will be attempting to deal with Usenet from now on. If some of you follow my lead, I'll be grateful, but if you don't, I won't attempt to chastise you. It's totally an individual decision. What I'm going to try and do on the forum from now on is to treat every post I see and have addressed to me as an individual post. If the person posting to me is respectful and polite, I won't care if it's someone I like or dislike. I won't care if it's someone who blasted me with a flame thrower the last time around. If that specific post is respectful, I'll be answering that post in kind. If it isn't, I'll make a decision to engage or pass based on my mood at the moment, but hopefully I'll be able to pass on it. I'm going to try anyway. Look guys and dolls, this forum is a great place to exchange information. Most of us have enjoyed it here for eons. I for one don't want to see this forum die out from becoming nothing more than an exchange of venom from angry people. What I'm saying here gang is that I for one have decided that unless someone posts something disrespectful to me personally, I intend to give people a decent shot...and yes, that goes for Mxsmanic and any other simulator pilot who shows up here with a respectful on topic post. Like I said gang, it's everybody's personal decision to make. I'm simply stating here what I'm going to do myself. I'll not be ragging on those who don't think the way I do on these issues. I am hopeful however, that Mxsmanic and those who have been his adversaries will simply read what I've said here and say nothing to each other about it but rather simply and silently take a few steps backward and consider re-engaging with each other, each giving a little without saying or admitting they are giving a little. Who knows; I'll be giving it a shot anyway. My best to everybody here; friends, old enemies, and yes, Mxsmanic too. -- Dudley Henriques |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
"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. -- Geoff The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
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. -- Dudley Henriques |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
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. Not faulting anyone. I just want to make it absolutely clear that in my opinion, the ONLY relationship between physical sensation and IFR is in understanding how physical sensations can harm you and how to deal with them by instrument referencing all the way through the scan down to primary panel. I would NEVER attempt to verify an instrument reading by referencing a physical sensation. In ANY situation where an instrument reading was suspect, I would immediately extend my primary scan to include peripheral instruments to verify the quality of the data that was suspect. Under NO circumstance, would I EVER allow the time line necessary to include a physical sensation in this equation. To do so in my opinion is dangerous not only in a possible erroneous attitude input, but as well extends the time line to a recovery input. Physical sensation as relates to IFR is to be understood for it's hazzards, but avoided when in the soup. -- Dudley Henriques |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
Dudley Henriques brought next idea :
I just want to make it absolutely clear that in my opinion, the ONLY relationship between physical sensation and IFR is in understanding how physical sensations can harm you and how to deal with them by instrument referencing all the way through the scan down to primary panel. I would NEVER attempt to verify an instrument reading by referencing a physical sensation. In ANY situation where an instrument reading was suspect, I would immediately extend my primary scan to include peripheral instruments to verify the quality of the data that was suspect. Under NO circumstance, would I EVER allow the time line necessary to include a physical sensation in this equation. To do so in my opinion is dangerous not only in a possible erroneous attitude input, but as well extends the time line to a recovery input. Being primarily creatures earthbound (land underfoot), where feelings are our primary sources of instrument accuracy (speed in a car, wind in our hair), its kewl to trust those sensory inputs. A lot of day-in/day-out experiences too. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
I would NEVER attempt to verify an instrument reading by referencing a
physical sensation. Thank you, Dudley, for weighing in on this all-important topic. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
A Lieberman writes:
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. If you are on top of your instruments, no "exploration" is needed. The reaction you feel may be leading you astray. It may seem uncorrelated to what the instruments say. If it is possible for you to feel a sensation that does not represent any change in the instruments (and it is), then logically it is also possible for the instruments to change without you feeling anything. If the instruments say that you've entered a turn, you've entered a turn, whether you felt anything or not. I am talking the very subtle changes, not changes requiring large power changes. Subtle changes are even more misleading. 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. Watch the instruments to begin with, not when you fail to feel something you expect. 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. If the tachometer rises by 25 RPM, that's a much more reliable indicator. 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. You have way too much trust in your sensations. 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.. Why weren't you checking the backup instruments to begin with? If they do not disagree, chances are that all the instruments are working, no matter what sensations you experience. If they disagree, at least one instrument probably has a problem--again, no matter what sensations you experience. If an instrument does not have a backup, you correlate it with other instruments. They will behave in predictable ways in relation to each other. If one of them does not seem to correlate with the others, perhaps it has a problem. It's not that I even remotely navigated by the seat of my pants, but something was amiss was felt. The danger in instrument flight is that all sorts of things are felt, but none of them is reliable. It is called instrument flight because the pilot ignores things felt and flies exclusively by the instruments. 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 in your rear end is no more reliable than the feeling from your inner ear. It sounds like your Friday incident has given you a false sense of security. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
On Mon, 19 May 2008 04:29:11 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote: A Lieberman writes: The danger in instrument flight is that all sorts of things are felt, but none of them is reliable. It is called instrument flight because the pilot ignores things felt and flies exclusively by the instruments. The feeling in your rear end is no more reliable than the feeling from your inner ear. It sounds like your Friday incident has given you a false sense of security. during the history of scientific endeavour there have been many individuals who have arrived at the correct answers for the wrong reasons. anthony you are perpetually one of those people. while you may occasionally say the correct things a careful read of your posts has always revealed the fact that you have inherently an incompetent understanding of what you write about. Stealth Pilot |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
A Lieberman brought next idea :
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 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. The discussion can be both descriptive and indescriptive unless it is abouit what actions can or cannot be applied to your sets of feelings. Why do I feel like singing out loud with Barbra Streisand? |
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 |