Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

A Lieberman writes:

ANSWER HIS QUESTION ABOVE. WHICH ENGINE INDICATORS

For a piston airplane, tachometer, manifold pressure, CHT and EGT, engine
monitor if I have one (I do in the Bonanza).

That's not answering the question. Which one do you look at first
fjukkwit? And why would you look anyway? On my airplane, for instance, the
vast majority of the instruments are concealed after engine start..
Only three left.



Bertie

On May 20, 4:51 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote :

A Lieberman writes:

ANSWER HIS QUESTION ABOVE. WHICH ENGINE INDICATORS

For a piston airplane, tachometer, manifold pressure, CHT and EGT, engine
monitor if I have one (I do in the Bonanza).

That's not answering the question. Which one do you look at first
fjukkwit? And why would you look anyway? On my airplane, for instance, the
vast majority of the instruments are concealed after engine start..
Only three left.

Bertie

Is it a series 35 or 50?

I'd look at the Commit Charge on Task Manager to see if I had enough
RAM.

wrote in
:

On May 20, 4:51 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote
:

A Lieberman writes:

ANSWER HIS QUESTION ABOVE. WHICH ENGINE INDICATORS

For a piston airplane, tachometer, manifold pressure, CHT and EGT,
engine monitor if I have one (I do in the Bonanza).

That's not answering the question. Which one do you look at first
fjukkwit? And why would you look anyway? On my airplane, for
instance, the vast majority of the instruments are concealed after
engine start.. Only three left.

Bertie

Is it a series 35 or 50?



B757. there are two center screens, the upper one dispays EPR N1 and EGT
and the lower screen displays the rest of the stuff. After engine start
we shut of the lower screen and if the EICAS system has something to
tell us that's of any interest on that screen, like your oil has all
disappeared, for instance, then the screen re-appears. We leave it off
for the duration of the flight, though. Keeps the clutter in your head
to a minimum.
In the event of an engine failure, though, that screen is the least of
your worries. Keeping the airplane straight is the main prioirity and of
course you're going to feel the yaw in your ass before you notice
anything else. You'd be onto the instruments straight away to determine
th ecorrection required, though you'd already have a very good idea, and
a big bootful of rudder and/ or aileron to keep you from rolling on your
back. After this has settled down, you ensure your flight path is
correct, and then you'd check out your engine instruments to determine
what the problem is. And you have to do this carefully and judiciously,
because they can lie to you too, particularly if some damage has
occured. Of course, in a piston there's an additional problem that
mxtard has no idea of either, and that is that the MP is next to useless
in determining the side that's failed because the MP you might have been
pulling could be the same as ambient anyway. Anyhow, the point is, the
first clue you're going to get is your head bouncing off either a window
or your copilot. If you've been staring at your engine gauges
anticipating a failure as you fly along, you're probably going to fly
into something sooner rather than later....
But of course MX would ignore that feeling in his ass as one of the
donkeys retired and quickly analize his clocks. Then, and only then,
would he take the appropriate action, which , by this time, would be to
make a brief utterance of regret as his aircraft entered the earth
inverted.



Bertie

You might have noticed it takes a LONG time in a sim to arrive at a
real destination. It's not often we climb aboard our airplane without
wanting to actually, after a flight, be in a different place.

There are a few real life issues your simming may not correctly
represent. For example, one can fly in IMC and have excellent
visibility and outside reference. IMC does NOT mean being in the
clouds.

Also, IFR flight in marginal IMC or in VMC requires that we be fully
alert to outside cues and traffic-- ATC has the job of keeping IFR
airplanes apart, and they try -- but cannot always -- keep separation
from VFR traffic. That is our job, and even if it was not our job we'd
be on the lookout for such airplanes, since the price of an encounter
with one is very high.



On May 19, 10:23 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m writes:

You had no physical sensations to distract and disorient you.

Yes, but I had none to depend on, either.

You had no physical sensations that would have caused vertigo. You had no sensations
that would result in motion sickness. You have no idea how difficult it
really is with those sensations present. Most of the rest of us here do.

Most, perhaps, but not all.

I would _hope_ that you made it to your "destination" fer crying out loud -
flying in IMC while sitting in a lazyboy is stupid easy compared to real
life.

It has the advantage of being much safer and more comfortable.

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
to actually heed what you were taught and stop embellishing the
information with your own interpretations.
you have a flawed appreciation of what was taught.
in fact you have a dangerously flawed viewpoint.
let us hope you dont find the world about you turning to tinsel when
reality bites.
Stealth Pilot

On Sun, 18 May 2008 23:46:31 -0400, Gezellig
wrote:



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.


so totally incompetent a viewpoint that you are stunning.

one of the considerable factors in the progress of aviation has been
the use of objective instrumentation that overcomes the many failings
of our biology.

Stealth Pilot

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

Stealth Pilot wrote in
:

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



Difference is, he doesn;t arrive at the answer, he starts there. Then he
works his way back the Anthony land until he begins with a premise that
is straight out of alice in wonderland.



Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote:
gatt writes:

The action is different in IMC because if you feel a sensory perception,
you have to check the instruments rather than look outside.

No. In IMC, you are ALWAYS checking the instruments, perception or not.


Don't preach to me about what pilots do in IMC. I've flown IMC and
proven myself. The kids at the daycare in my neighborhood have exactly
as much IMC experience as you do.

-c

Viperdoc wrote:
Anthony, were all of your pronouncements based upon your instrument
training? Who was your instructor? What did you get on the written exam?
How much time do you have in IMC (real, not simulated?)

He claims he read some books and stuff, but when you press him on it and
offer your references, he's got nothing.


-c