I give up, after many, many years!

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

A Lieberman writes:

Flying by sensation Jay. To make a blank statement you cannot fly in
IMC by sensations is flat out wrong.

It's entirely right.

No it isn't.


You cannot trust sensations in IMC.


Only one.


You must
trust your instruments.

While you have to ignore SOME sensations while flying inside a cloud,
some sensations give you warning of impending danger.

The instruments do a better job of that, and they are consistent and
reliable.

Nope.



Somebody already pointed out stall buffering. That is a sensation
you DON'T want to feel inside a cloud that will not show up on an
instrument until it's too late.

If you are watching your instruments and you know your aircraft, why
are you experiencing stall buffet?

You would also be surprised, flying by the seat of your pants does
work wonders on an ILS approach ...

I'm not sure that I'd want ILS needles in the seat of my pants.

... especially when you slip slightly
below glideslope and adding power to recapture the glide slope can be
felt in the seat of your pants, which is a confirmation of what the
instruments are reading.

You have it backwards: The instruments confirm, not the sensations.
You don't need a confirmation of instruments. If there is a
disagreement between sensations and instruments, the instruments take
priority.

If you don't feel that firmness in the seat of your pants, then
something is drastically wrong.

If you're instruments tell you that you're in trouble, you're in
trouble. If they tell you that you're not in trouble, you're safe.

You're a moron.

Bertie

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
:

On May 17, 7:33 am, "F. Baum" wrote:
On May 17, 4:44 am, Mxsmanic wrote:

Why do airline operators prefer that their pilots use a flight
management computer instead of flying by hand?

Misconception here. The FMC doesnt "Fly" the aircraft, it directs it.
You can hand fly with the FMC for guidance. The main purpose of the
autopilot is to manage the workload. FWIW I hand fly ALL approaches
that I am legal to do so.
Frank

A misconception in r.a.p, Bertie must be posting again.
Don't blame the group, blame its parents.

Guys like Yeager and Neil Armstrong where 2 in a
million, smack in the golden age of jet aviation.

After flying model's, and doing real piloting ,with the
advent of the electronic computer I/we designed started
aeronautical modeling, like a computerized wind tunnel.
Soon computer power, speed and memory enabled writing
a cockpit program to "fly" the model.
Personally, I could learn more aeronautical science
using that program in 1 hour than I could flying 10
hours, but both are necessary.

Everything you have posted to date would indicate otherwise.


Bertie

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
gatt writes:

The ones that are ignored are different sensations and typically have to
do with equilibrium and the inner ear. Examples are somatogravic and
coriolis and inversion illusions. If your ass leaves the seat or
compresses into it, however, it's not something you ignore.

Yes, it is, because it is no more reliable than any other sensation.

If you enter a coordinated turn at constant altitude, your buttocks will tell
you that you are climbing ... but you aren't. Your inner ear will tell you
the same thing, and it will be just as wrong.

Point totally missed yet again.

That sensation tells you that you are coordinated, which is the point.

There aren't many/any RC pilots who haven't catastrophically augured an
RC plane.

Of those who have, how did they manage, without sensation? Indeed, how do
they ever manage on any flight, without sensation?

Irrelevant.

The sensation in real airplanes allows you to fly more precisely and
safer.

UAV systems are much more sophisticated than those in the
average single-engine piston airplane, and--I've not flown a UAV so I'm
guessing here--they're not doing things like steep-bank turns or
short-field approaches.

But aviation is more than single-engine piston airplanes ... much more.

Irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Those are different sensations and you have to know the difference and
also what to reject or ignore. VFR pilots are subject to similar but
different sensations such as visual autokinesis, reversal of motion and
black hole approaches.

Can you fly safely with your eyes closed, relying only on sensations, and
selectively ignoring or accepting the sensations you feel?

A blazingly stupid comment that shows you know nothing about real
flight.

You can have those sensations while remaining perfectly still in normal
flight. When your ass is sliding toward the inside or outside of a
turn, or getting compressed into the seat or lifted into the lap belt,
those are not illusions.

But they may not be what you think they are, either.

It only takes a couple of hours in a real airplane to learn to interpret
what they are and what they mean.


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.

Bull****.

That's not what the "literature" says.

Get a dictionary from someone who owns one and look up the word "context".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

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

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
:

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

Like you could.


Bertie

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
A Lieberman writes:

Flying by sensation Jay. To make a blank statement you cannot fly in
IMC by sensations is flat out wrong.

It's entirely right. You cannot trust sensations in IMC. You must trust your
instruments.

It is obvious you've done a little reading, with emphasis on the little.

You also have zero practical application of that reading.

As has happened so many times in the past, your tunnel vision along
with your black and white viewpoint lead you to make pronouncements
that are not only wrong but laughable.

The bottom line is you flat out don't know what you are talking about.

That could be cured with a couple of hours in a real airplane, but we
all know that's never going to happen.

So you will keep on posting your nonsense.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

There is no visual reference that will tell you whether or not you are
coordinated in a turn and there is nothing magical or mystical to the
sensation once you've felt it.

Well, close your eyes and make the turn, and see where you end up.

That's yet another blazingly stupid comment to make.

True but irrelevant.

On the contrary, it's important. Can you really be sure that your turn is
perfectly coordinated and that you are holding altitude without ever looking
at the instruments?

Yes.

How do you know how far you've turned?

Looking out the window. It is a VFR turn, remember from the stuff you cut?

How do you tell
the difference between an uncoordinated turn and being pushed by the wind?

Once again a blazingly stupid comment that shows you know nothing about
flying.

In VFR you are much safer looking out the window than staring at the
instruments like a simmer, especially in a turn.

In VFR you are safest if you do both. And you can look out the window in a
sim, too.

Wrong.

You are safest spending as much time as possible looking out the window.

When low and slow I will occasionally glance at the turn coordinator,
but other than that it is basically ignored.

Wrong.

How do you know the difference between a coordinated turn and, say, an
uncoordinated turn that encounters wind that moves the aircraft? If you
depend on sensation alone, an updraft or downdraft might make you think that
an uncoordinated turn is level and coordinated, when in fact it is
uncoordinated and you are climbing or descending.

Utter nonsense.

Since you have never flown, you have no idea just how idiotic that statement
is.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Nomen Nescio writes:

I regularly travel a stretch of highway about 100 miles long.
2 trips
same time of the day
same traffic
same speed
When I use cruise control for the entire trip, I average about 18 mpg.
When I use my foot the whole way, I average over 20 mpg.

Do you look out the window, or look at the speedometer, or do you drive
blindfolded and rely on sensations?

You really have a fixation on the blindfold thing.

Do you like to be tied up?

And, just so you know, vision is a sensation.

Why do airline operators prefer that their pilots use a flight management
computer instead of flying by hand?

You haven't a clue what a FMC is, what it does, or how it is used.

Do tell us about the FMC in your Baron.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

It's entirely right. You cannot trust sensations in IMC. You must
trust your instruments.


No it isn't, you dumb ****. You have never flown a real airplane in the
clouds. You don't know **** from shinola. Stick your head back up your
ass, that's all you're good for.

Bertie the Bunyip wrote in
:

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
:

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

Like you could.


Bertie




You're a moron!