GA is priceless

bdl writes:

Not having any instrument flight experience you are not qualified to
evaluate your instrument flying ability.

I am qualified to evaluate my ability to handle activities of this
type without prior experience, however.

The tacit assumption in your post seems to be that everyone is bad at
instrument flight by default, and can only become good by doing it in
an actual aircraft. I'm not convinced that this is true. Some people
are able to fly an aircraft competently under VFR with no prior
instruction; they simply happen to be good at that sort of thing. The
same may also apply for IFR.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
bdl writes:

Not having any instrument flight experience you are not qualified to
evaluate your instrument flying ability.

I am qualified to evaluate my ability to handle activities of this
type without prior experience, however.

Which activities would these be?

The tacit assumption in your post seems to be that everyone is bad at
instrument flight by default, and can only become good by doing it in
an actual aircraft. I'm not convinced that this is true. Some people
are able to fly an aircraft competently under VFR with no prior
instruction; they simply happen to be good at that sort of thing. The
same may also apply for IFR.

You don't sound to sure.

So your position is that there are people that are naturally good at
flying, and also naturally good at flying IFR, and that you are one of
these enlightened souls because you've got so many hours in a simulator
in IFR conditions (albeit at a constant 1-g) and that ability would
naturally translate to a real aircraft in real IMC.

Oh wait, you did crack up one of your simulated aircraft didn't you.
That CFIT you mentioned.

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

Flying an aircraft level can be done by a 5 year old after 5 minutes
instruction. Take off, landing, and many of the things in between have
to be learnt.

Some people get it right the first time.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

bdl writes:

Which activities would these be?

Activities that involve primarily mental tasks, such as reading
instruments, assessing the information gained therefrom, and deciding
upon an appropriate course of action.

You don't sound to sure.

I'm not sure.

So your position is that there are people that are naturally good at
flying, and also naturally good at flying IFR ...

Yes.

... and that you are one of these enlightened souls because you've
got so many hours in a simulator in IFR conditions ...

I don't know if I'd be good at flying from a physical standpoint. I
tend to be uncoordinated at first compared to others, but I learn and
improve until I'm often better than average, although it's a long
process. I'm good at being precise rather than quick.

As for instrument flight, I'm pretty sure I'd be good at that. It's
the type of task that I generally do well.

... (albeit at a constant 1-g) and that ability would
naturally translate to a real aircraft in real IMC.

For instrument flight, yes. For visual flight, less so, although it
still would be significant.

Oh wait, you did crack up one of your simulated aircraft didn't you.
That CFIT you mentioned.

I haven't had a crash in quite a while. In general, though, if I
crash, it is from an overambitious attempt to land--what pilots call
getthereitis. In real life, I am vastly more prudent.

My most recent crashes have been due to extremely bad weather--weather
I'd never attempt to fly in in real life. On some occasions, I've
been lifted 20 feet while 10 feet above the runway, and then slammed
back down. I don't see how any pilot could land in conditions like
that.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
I don't know if I'd be good at flying from a physical standpoint. I
tend to be uncoordinated at first compared to others, but I learn and
improve until I'm often better than average, although it's a long
process. I'm good at being precise rather than quick.

IFR flying is a very physical process. It requires you to disregard
your senses. Something that is not able to be simulated in your chair
at your computer. This has been my point all along.

bdl writes:

IFR flying is a very physical process. It requires you to disregard
your senses.

These two statements conflict.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Bdl,

It requires you to disregard
your senses. Something that is not able to be simulated in your chair
at your computer. This has been my point all along.


It also requires to be quick, not precise, quite often.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert writes:

It also requires to be quick, not precise, quite often.

If you have to depend on the speed of your reflexes, you've already
made a mistake.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic,

If you have to depend on the speed of your reflexes, you've already
made a mistake.


How would you know?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Mxsmanic wrote:
bdl writes:

IFR flying is a very physical process. It requires you to disregard
your senses.

These two statements conflict.


Physically draining... That better? If I could put myself in a little
1-G bubble inside the cockpit, IFR flying would be a piece of cake.
See the attitude indicator? Keep it right side up.. (Except when it
fails).