![]() |
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Feb 12, 6:41 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
chris writes: Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, but the common theory here is that for an average private pilot to keep current with his IFR rating he or she would have to do every flight IFR, and maybe that would be good, I just dunno.. I don't know if anyone is advocating that, but it does seem that there's a strong tendency to get rusty if one doesn't practice IFR regularly, and there are even some statutory requirements to this effect. Apparently in this country, to stay current, in the previous 3 months you need to have completed 3 hours of instrument time and carried out at least 3 instrument approaches. That's not as bad as I thought, but you still need to fly IFR often to keep current.. It surprised me to read in another post that it's possible to get an instrument rating without ever actually flying in IMC. If this is true, then what separates me, in a simulator, flying by instruments, from an instrument-rated pilot? It sounds like neither of us has necessarily flown in IMC. And IMC is the only part I haven't experienced. Maybe I should ask for a free instrument rating. I would think there's more to it than that.. Just curious, what exactly do you consider instrument flying?? I wonder if there may be a whole lot of stuff you maybe aren't aware of because you are self- taught.. If so, you would need to learn that stuff first... The sensation of moment sucks when you're on instruments. So I've heard. An open question is whether previous experience with aircraft motion is preferable to no experience with aircraft motion when learning to fly on instruments. In instrument flight, you have to ignore motion, because your sensations are not at all reliable if you cannot correlate them with visual information. So, is it harder to unlearn the dependence on physical sensations that you've acquired while flying VFR in a moving aircraft, or is it harder to ignore unreliable sensations when you simply have never depended on them at all for flying (as in simulation). My guess is that they are about equal, and if anything, the simulator pilot is slightly favored, as he has no bad habits to unlearn. You still need to get off the ground, and to get the basic license to let you do that you need to learn how to fly VFR... I have done 5.4 hours of simulated instrument flying, nothing more than enough to keep me upright while I get my ass out of the crap I just flew into.. And the leans have to be experienced to be believed! I was told to put the hood on immediately after takeoff, and by the time I got to 1000 ft I had my head just about in my instructor's lap, the leans were so severe! It is when your brain decides you're going one way but the instruments say you're going another way... You don't feel a gentle right turn, say, but when you look at the AH, you see it's turning to the right. You correct, and the AH says you're straight and level but the brain says you're leaning to the left!! It's a real funny feeling!!! And did you find it hard to ignore? Was it a struggle to trust the instruments? Or was it merely a nuisance? As I remember, as I was doing my scan, I'd come back to the AH for instance, and it would be different to how it was a few seconds ago, and I sure didn't feel the plane move. Then you roll level and you'd start to lean to one side, and so on... In an elevator, if you go from a low floor to a high floor, you'll experience a distinct feeling of dropping as the elevator stops at the destination floor. Do most people jab desperately at the elevator buttons trying to stop it from falling, or do they ignore the sensation and look at the display in the elevator to verify that they are indeed stopping at the right floor and not descending again? I thus wonder whether the trouble some pilots have with misleading sensations in instrument flight is not a direct result of learning to depend excessively on sensations in visual flight (without realizing that the sensations are useless until visual information constantly corroborates them). If so, then never having learned to depend on sensation would be a great advantage in instrument flight. Pilots who begin real flight training after using a sim are often at a disadvantage because they learn to look inside the cockpit excessively. A vfr pilot can tell what the plane is doing without looking at instruments, by seeing, feeling and hearing. We sometimes fly with all instruments covered up.. Much easier than you would think, once you get used to looking outside and listening.. Sounds fine to me.. Nothing wrong with wanting to give passengers a gentle, smooth ride with rate 1 turns... For me, that's good piloting. The less passengers feel, the better I'm doing. Me too.. Smooth takeoffs, rate 1 turns and nice landings with great scenery.. Which this country is famous for! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Southern California airports have worst runway safety records | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 0 | November 26th 05 04:48 PM |
Washington DC airspace closing for good? | tony roberts | Piloting | 153 | August 11th 05 12:56 AM |
Airports Rated Critical Unsatisfactory: Given Black Star Rating | Michael Ravnitzky | Piloting | 0 | February 3rd 05 03:34 AM |
IFR hold short line at uncontrolled airports? | Peter R. | Instrument Flight Rules | 30 | June 9th 04 04:47 AM |
fatal bird strike | StellaStar | Piloting | 9 | July 13th 03 09:41 PM |