Rudder for final runway alignment (?)

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
[...] Given that sentence, how could you possibly infer from my
post that I am saying the other sensations are required?

Because you said "Balance [and other sensations] ... contribute ...
more accurate and instantaneous information than vision alone can
provide."

Where in that sentence to you see the word "required" or "necessary"?

Either other sensations are necessary, or they aren't.

A trivially true statement. Just as any statement of the form "either X or
not X" is trivially true.

Why don't you read what is written before making silly conclusions?

I did; the inconsistency in what you wrote is what puzzled me.

There is no inconsistency in what I wrote. If you see one, you have misread
what I wrote.

No, the best autopilot cannot fly the aircraft better than the best human
pilot.

Then why do commercial airlines prefer that their pilots stay on
autopilot? And why does flight with RVSM _require_ autopilot?

Commercial flying is a VERY restricted form of flight, well-suited to
autopilots. The use of autopilots for commercial flying has very little to
do with the general question of whether an autopilot is the equal to a pilot
or not. Once again (I think this is about the 50th time?), you are making
false extrapolations from your tiny bit of actual knowledge.

Me and the FAA. Apparently they don't realize that pilots fly much
better than autopilots, so when tolerances are tight, they foolishly
require autopilots.

Really? Show me the FAA regulation that requires the use of an autopilot
for short field landings. Show me the FAA regulation that requires the use
of an autopilot for off-airport landings. Show me the FAA regulation that
requires the use of an autopilot for narrow runways.

Guess what. You can't. There is no truth whatsoever to the statement that
"when tolerances are tight, they [the FAA] require autopilots". The FAA
requirements that do provide for the use of autopilots are not targeted at
situations "when tolerances are tight", and there a numerous situations when
tolerances are tight in which autopilots are NOT required (and in fact, in
which they would not even work).

And when visibility is low, they foolishly
require instruments.

Again with the limited visibility. There is no question that when you
cannot see outside the airplane, one need instruments to fly the airplane.
That's not at debate here, and no matter how many times you prop that straw
man up, knocking it down proves nothing.

Don't they realize that pilots fly best by the
seat of their pants? It does seem that certain pilots think that way.

If a *good* pilot can see outside the airplane, a *good* pilot DOES fly best
by the "seat of their pants".

Besides, autopilots most certainly DO depend on sensations. They use
their
own form of sensory input. It's not biological in nature, but it's still
sensory input (ie "sensations").

They use data from instruments, just like a competent human pilot
flying IFR.

So what? My point is that the autopilots have their own sensations. Many,
in fact, use sensory input BEYOND what is available to a pilot via the
flight instruments.

No one has said sensations are *sufficient*.

But some seem to be saying that they are necessary, and that's clearly
not true. Others also seem to be saying that they are reliable, and
that's not true, either.

Not a single person has written that non-visual sensations are necessary.
What has been said is that proper use of non-visual sensations greatly
enhances a pilot's control of the aircraft.

As far as "reliable" goes, when coupled with visual feedback in the form of
a view outside the aircraft, non-visual sensations ARE extremely reliable.
To say otherwise is to exercise the same arrogant ignorance you've exhibited
over and over.

Frankly, I'm getting a little sick and tired of your inability to accept
just how little you know. Amazingly, in each and every post you not only
manage to avoid admitting your errors, you somehow come up with entirely new
incorrect things to write. You are a fount of anti-knowledge. I'm
beginning to believe that you are beyond redemption.

I notice I'm one of the few people left even bothering to reply to your
posts. You obviously know nothing about flying, but I'm left wondering if I
have a clue with respect to who is worth conversing with.

Pete