Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

On May 18, 7:23 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
....
Also, I read somewhere that JFK Junior's plane crashed probably
because he did not trust his intstruments. What's the likelihood of
that?
-Le Chaud Lapin-

Approaching an airport with limited VFR usually
requires a radio call for barometric altitude reset,
to the airport intended for landing, especially if
flying into a Low pressure, which causes barometer
reading of the altitude to give a false higher altitude.

His altimeter may have been reading 200' when he
was at sea level...that's a big oops.
Ken

JFK was in a spiral from about 5000 feet when he crashed. A 200 foot
error in his altimeter was the least of his problems.

He had more training for in IR than most do when they pass the test.
This was a case of a pilot who, it would seem, was crossing the sound
with an auto pilot engaged. Radar showed a smooth flight until that
point when most would have started down to pattern altitude from 5000
feet. The airplane went from pretty straight and pretty level to
impact in less than 30 seconds.

The NTSB report is vivid and frightening.



On May 19, 10:52 am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On May 18, 7:23 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
...

Also, I read somewhere that JFK Junior's plane crashed probably
because he did not trust his intstruments. What's the likelihood of
that?
-Le Chaud Lapin-

Approaching an airport with limited VFR usually
requires a radio call for barometric altitude reset,
to the airport intended for landing, especially if
flying into a Low pressure, which causes barometer
reading of the altitude to give a false higher altitude.

His altimeter may have been reading 200' when he
was at sea level...that's a big oops.
Ken

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in news:c3925500-014d-
:

On May 18, 7:23 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
...
Also, I read somewhere that JFK Junior's plane crashed probably
because he did not trust his intstruments. What's the likelihood of
that?
-Le Chaud Lapin-

Approaching an airport with limited VFR usually
requires a radio call for barometric altitude reset,
to the airport intended for landing, especially if
flying into a Low pressure, which causes barometer
reading of the altitude to give a false higher altitude.



Good grief


His altimeter may have been reading 200' when he
was at sea level...that's a big oops.


No, a big oops is letting you anywhere near any kind of machine.


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

A Lieberman writes:

You tell me.

It depends on the aircraft.


Nope, wrong again fjukkwit.



Bertie

A Lieberman writes:

You tell me.

It depends on the aircraft.

On May 19, 7:58 am, Tina wrote:
JFK was in a spiral from about 5000 feet when he crashed. A 200 foot
error in his altimeter was the least of his problems.

He had more training for in IR than most do when they pass the test.
This was a case of a pilot who, it would seem, was crossing the sound
with an auto pilot engaged. Radar showed a smooth flight until that
point when most would have started down to pattern altitude from 5000
feet. The airplane went from pretty straight and pretty level to
impact in less than 30 seconds.

The NTSB report is vivid and frightening.

Thank you Tina, I just reread this,
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?...MA178& akey=1
Somewhat applicable to this thread!
Ken

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
:

On May 19, 7:58 am, Tina wrote:
JFK was in a spiral from about 5000 feet when he crashed. A 200 foot
error in his altimeter was the least of his problems.

He had more training for in IR than most do when they pass the test.
This was a case of a pilot who, it would seem, was crossing the sound
with an auto pilot engaged. Radar showed a smooth flight until that
point when most would have started down to pattern altitude from 5000
feet. The airplane went from pretty straight and pretty level to
impact in less than 30 seconds.

The NTSB report is vivid and frightening.

Thank you Tina, I just reread this,



Not that it would mean anything to you.


Bertie

On May 18, 5:09 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On May 18, 4:09 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On May 18, 3:34 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
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.
When I was a kid, I was spun to dizzy, and
then staggered when I tried to walk. IIRC it
took a concentrated focus on some point to
sustain balance, which is me in VFR, but that
doesn't work in a fog.
Another thing I noticed is flying VFR with a lot
of turbulence, (especially with towering cumulus)
screwed my inner ear.
(That is my weakness).
I was very lucky that after just a couple of hours,
my flight instructor got me going on IFR.
He knew I had a basic handle on geometry and
algebra so he was the type to promote the advance
early on in instruction.
Ken
I tend to keep things on the basic level with students. It helps to hide
my shortcomings :-)

After a few hours, my instructor had me doing shallow
(30's), medium (45's) and steep (60's) turns and would
critcize me because I focused on the VFR horizon and
he'd smirk and point to the Indescent Indicator showing
a 50'/per minute loss, and the IAS loss of energy and
my off-center-ball, so my turn performance was gauged
by instruments.
Obviously, I should have pulled a bit more elevator,
put on some RPM, and applied more rudder, so that's
what I did via instruments, and that's in a well done
bank at 60 degs even when VFR is available.
Ken

I'm the reverse ytpe of instructor. Initially I like students to get
their heads outside the airplane and discover nose attitudes (LF;Climb;
glides) THEN after they have a good understanding of these nose
attitudes I get them to cross check these attitudes with the panel.
Different strokes for different folks
Dudley Henriques

I was a Professional teacher for awhile, and so
understand the attitude. I was very lucky to get
an Flight Instructor that was A+, never made a
mistake. He had me doing what you say, using
horizon, but then gauged the accuracy of turns
based on instruments, I thought that was fair,
then pointed out my weaknesses when I was
using pure VFR, such as uncentered ball as I
entered the bank going from level wings to 30,
45,60 bank.
It was the change in bank that I had to work on.

We did about 5 hours of night flying together,
he didn't say much by that time, except the odd
ancedote. It was very pleasant.
Ken

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
:

On May 18, 5:09 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On May 18, 4:09 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On May 18, 3:34 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
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.
When I was a kid, I was spun to dizzy, and
then staggered when I tried to walk. IIRC it
took a concentrated focus on some point to
sustain balance, which is me in VFR, but that
doesn't work in a fog.
Another thing I noticed is flying VFR with a lot
of turbulence, (especially with towering cumulus)
screwed my inner ear.
(That is my weakness).
I was very lucky that after just a couple of hours,
my flight instructor got me going on IFR.
He knew I had a basic handle on geometry and
algebra so he was the type to promote the advance
early on in instruction.
Ken
I tend to keep things on the basic level with students. It helps
to hide my shortcomings :-)

After a few hours, my instructor had me doing shallow
(30's), medium (45's) and steep (60's) turns and would
critcize me because I focused on the VFR horizon and
he'd smirk and point to the Indescent Indicator showing
a 50'/per minute loss, and the IAS loss of energy and
my off-center-ball, so my turn performance was gauged
by instruments.
Obviously, I should have pulled a bit more elevator,
put on some RPM, and applied more rudder, so that's
what I did via instruments, and that's in a well done
bank at 60 degs even when VFR is available.
Ken

I'm the reverse ytpe of instructor. Initially I like students to get
their heads outside the airplane and discover nose attitudes
(LF;Climb; glides) THEN after they have a good understanding of these
nose attitudes I get them to cross check these attitudes with the
panel. Different strokes for different folks
Dudley Henriques

I was a Professional teacher for awhile, and so
understand the attitude.



Bwawhawhhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwha!


We did about 5 hours of night flying together,
he didn't say much by that time, except the odd
ancedote.


"oh ****, watch what you are doing!" is not an anectdote, fjukkwit.
Oh wait, maybe it;s a "ancedote"



It was very pleasant.
Ken

On Sun, 18 May 2008 23:02:24 -0400, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

I've always believed that Kennedy fell victim to a false horizon by
somehow starting a turn on a false visual reference then allowing his
nose to get away from him in the haze due to his inexperience causing
him not to realize he needed to transition immediately to instruments.
In this condition and with the nose lowering and the airspeed rising,
Kennedy desperately needed to realize he needed to level the wings and
kill the bank as the lead in to recovering the nose in pitch.
This is the classic graveyard spiral. Not solving for bank and trying to
solve for pitch simply deepened the issue. I'm fairly convinced that by
this time the nose was so low and the spiral tightening so fast he
became fixated on the grayness in front of him that he thought was gray
sky but was in fact gray water.
The rest is history.
Just my read on one potential cause for that accident.

It may be plausible to assume that if John's aircraft had been
equipped with a G1000, he and his passengers might still be with us.
It's only speculation but seems feasible.