![]() |
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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Peter Duniho writes:
What in the world does that mean? It means that I do not take for granted that what I see out the window is what I think I'm seeing, especially with respect to the aircraft's attitude, speed, altitude, and so on. No one is suggesting that one believe optical illusions and misleading sensations over instruments. Those things simply aren't present during good daytime visual conditions. How do you know? The nature of illusion is that you don't know it's an illusion until it's too late. Again, please read what I wrote. The words I wrote are "NO NEED". I don't see instruments as a need. For that matter, you do NOT see them as a convenience...you have specifically written that you see them as a need. I've written that they are more trustworthy than vision and sensations. If there is a disagreement, the instruments are right. If the instruments agree, no problem. Relatively high. Relative to what? Give me a number. As in, any pilot with any reasonable amount of experience has likely had at least one flight instrument fail during a flight. Which instruments have failed for you, and over the course of how many flights? That's true. But they don't trick your sensation of acceleration. But they do. They make you think you are strongly accelerating when in fact you are not. For example, tilting the simulator so that the net acceleration vector points a bit backwards gives you the impression that the aircraft is accelerating "forward"; but in reality, the total acceleration is still only 1 G, whereas it would be more than 1 G in reality. Then why don't you write about that, instead of making stuff up that has no basis in facts? See above. Wrong. They get motion sickness for the very reason that their sensation of acceleration is NOT being fooled. No, they get motion sickness from visual input alone. The exact mechanism is not fully understood. The reason a person gets motion sickness is that their vision sends signals of acceleration and other motion, while the sensory organs that provide direct data of acceleration do not. The conflict results in the motion sickness. If the simulator were effectively fooling all sensation of acceleration, there would be no motion sickness. Not true. Even when acceleration and visual input are perfectly synchronized, motion sickness often results. Again, how would you know whether that happens or not? Because that's how simulators work. With respect to returning to neutral position, if it happens quickly enough (the one way to fool one's sensation of acceleration is to sneak up on it), it does happen. This is not uncommon if the simulator gets frozen mid-flight and reset, for example. The simulator is always returning to a neutral position, because it needs freedom of movement for the next acceleration. The only exceptions would be where no acceleration in certain directions is possible (e.g., downward acceleration on the ground). The key is to accelerate quickly and then smoothly back off to more than a stop, so that the simulator cabin returns to a neutral position, ready for the next acceleration cue. There is very little real acceleration, but the pilot's imagination will fill everything in after that first little push. As far as noticing the rotation, this is accounted for in the motion of the simulator, and the rotation is combined with the forward motion that obscures it from one's sensation. It can't be accounted for; it's a limitation of full-motion simulators. In real life, the acceleration vector moves, not the pilot. In a simulator, the acceleration vector remains stationary, and the pilot rotates. Unless the center of rotation is a great distance away from the pilot, his equilibrium will note rotation, not just acceleration. But usually the other cues will hide this minor effect. Why weren't you paying attention then? Why did you not notice that the simulator pitches up even before the airplane itself has been pitched up? I did notice that. That was self-evident, anyway, since that's the only way to simulate the movement in question. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
SWRFI - next weekend! | Richard Lamb | Home Built | 13 | May 10th 06 03:45 AM |
DG Rudder AD - DONE! - Notes from my work | ContestID67 | Soaring | 0 | March 30th 06 07:36 PM |
Southern California airports have worst runway safety records | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 0 | November 26th 05 04:48 PM |
Information on A310 that lost it's rudder enroute to Canada from Cuba | Corky Scott | Piloting | 3 | March 27th 05 03:49 PM |
Rwy incursions | Hankal | Piloting | 10 | November 16th 03 02:33 AM |