Rudder for final runway alignment (?)

Marty Shapiro writes:

There was one study which gave the
non-instrument rated pilot 180 seconds to live if they didn't get back to
VMC conditions.

Why won't all his "sensations" help him?

The Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS) moves in 6 axis. In addition to the 3
rotational axis (roll, pitch, yaw) it also moves 40 feet forward/back, 8
feet left/right, and 60 feet vertically. It also has precise OTW (Out The
Window) displays and has been used to simulate everything from blimps to
helicopters to jet fighters to space shuttles.

Yes. But a real aircraft moves the length of a football field forward
every second, and it can drop 100 feet per second. So all full-motion
simulators depend a lot on the weaknesses of human perception.

No. The sensation of acceleration is very reliable. Without the necessary
visual cues, the body can easily misinterpret the sensed acceleration.

These two statements conflict with each other.

If the body did not sense acceleration, there would be no conflict between
what you are seeing on the instrument panel and what the body is feeling.

If the body sensed accelerations correctly, there would be no
conflict, either.

Repeat this same experiment, but this time open your eyes before your
friend stops the chair. This time you will not think you are now turning
in the opposite direction. Even though the fluid in your inner ear is
still moving in the original direction, the visual cues provided by your
eyes combined with the differential in speed with the fluid in your inner
ear causes the correct interpetation that this is a negative acceleration,
ie you're slowing down or stopped.

Simulators use the same methods to convince pilots that they are
really moving.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

There was one study which gave the
non-instrument rated pilot 180 seconds to live if they didn't get back to
VMC conditions.

IIRC that study used pilots who had not been trained at all under the
hood - not even the three hours presently required. It may have even
led to the present requirement. It showed that just a little bit of
training was able to reverse the outcomes of a significant number of
such simulated flights.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Peter Duniho writes:

If that happens, you trust what you see out the window.

I don't.

Statistically speaking, it's likely that about half of the people
participating in this newsgroup do not have instrument ratings.

I believe it.

However, it's also likely that about half of the people DO have instrument
ratings. Your "impression" (such as it is, based on your own highly flawed
"understanding" of aviation and piloting) is unlikely to be anywhere close
to correct.

You just speculated that half the people here are not instrument
rated, therefore I'm pretty close to correct.

And what "mindset" is that?

The mindset that is willing to believe optical illusions and
misleading sensations over instruments. Why bother with instruments
at all, if one is magically endowed with the ability to perceive
reality perfectly with eyes and semicircular canals?

I am instrument rated. You seem to think that my mindset is inappropriate
for instrument flight.

Yes, but as long as I'm not your passenger, and not anywhere near you
in the sky (or beneath you on the ground), it's not my problem.

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.

If they have no clue about the use of their instruments, then they are
going to be helpless if the weather deteriorates. If they are
convinced that instruments are less reliable than their perceptions,
then they'll be in even deeper trouble.

A pilot not trained for
instrument flight is unlikely to do well is instrument conditions, just as
you are unlikely to do well flying an actual airplane. So what?

Well, apparently the non-IFR pilots don't hesitate to talk about IFR,
but they don't like it when non-pilots talk about piloting. Hmm.

Some minimal training is required, yes. But so what? The training is
intended for when the pilot encounters INSTRUMENT conditions. When in
VISUAL conditions, there is no need to use any instruments in the airplane
at all.

You see it as a need; I see it as a convenience.

No, they are not. In visual conditions, the likelihood of the external view
becoming compromised in a way that affects the safety of the flight is
practically nil.

And what is the probability that the instruments will fail?

Yes, they are. There's no magic switch in a full-motion simulator that
disables your sensation of acceleration.

Simulators trick your sensations, and your imagination fills in the
rest.

I'm starting to think that not only have you never sat at the controls of an
actual aircraft, you have not even ever set foot inside a real full-motion
simulator. You have absolutely no understanding of how full-motion
simulators work.

I do indeed know how they work, and the tricks they play to make
pilots think they are actually moving.

As I have already pointed out, full-motion simulators take advantage of the
acceleration of gravity, combined with misleading visual information, to
fool the body into thinking they are under a state of constant acceleration.

It's much more complicated than that.

If visual cues were sufficient, you'd get the same sensation of acceleration
at your PC.

Sometimes you do, especially with multiple screens. That's why many
people get motion sickness playing Doom. They aren't moving, but the
effect of the visual input they see is strong enough to convince their
brains that they are.

The visual cues are only part of the picture in the full-motion
simulator. They work in conjunction with real acceleration (momentary
movement of the simulator, combined with a change in attitude resulting in
redirection of the perceived acceleration of gravity) to produce that
impression of continuous acceleration, and it works only because of the
body's accurate and sensitive sensation of acceleration.

If the body were so accurate, it would notice the simulator returning
to a neutral position, and it would notice the rotation of the
simulator when the net acceleration vector shifts. But that doesn't
happen.

No, it's not. If you'd ever seen a full-motion simulator in operation,
you'd never even think of saying such a silly thing.

I have seen them in operation.

Heck, you don't have to be a pilot to ride in one ... just take a ride
like Star Tours at Disneyland, which uses full-motion simulators.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Stefan writes:

The point is to realize when you can trust what you see outside an when
you cannot. This is not only a VMC vs IMC question.

If instruments and the view out the window disagree, in all
probability the instruments are right, and you're misinterpreting what
you see out the window. You can even fall prey to that in
simulations.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On 09/23/06 01:17, Mxsmanic wrote:
Mark Hansen writes:

So if you look out the window and see that your diving into the
ground, but the instruments show that you're flying straight and
level, you would just fly into the ground?

Sometimes what looks like the ground isn't. The ground on your right
could just be the slope of a mountain, and you might indeed be flying
straight and level.


If you can't tell the difference between the flat ground and the side
of a mountain, you should definitely stay with MSFS.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

"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

I've just learned that (based on this thread) Monty Python's Flying
Circus is considering re-writing "The Argument."

Jay B

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Only a pile of accident reports a mile high. And they were all
certain that what they saw out the window was more reliable than any
instrument.

Where are these accident reports? Show us ten from the last year. I doubt
you can come up with even one, but this supposed "mile high" pile ought to
provide you plenty of documented evidence with which to support your claim.
Show us.

Remember, we are talking about in-flight situations during good daytime
visibility here.

They are far less prone to failure than human perception. That's why
they are there.

They are NOT less prone to failure than human perception when one can see
outside the aircraft.

[...]
Instruments communicate their own perception of reality, viewed through
the
pilot's own perception of reality.

Which is much more trustworthy than the pilot's perception alone. In
IFR, 90% of the crucial interpretation is done by the instruments,
which do not get tired, confused, or overconfident; the other 10% is
done by the pilot, and since much less of the overall interpretation
is done by him, the overall system is more reliable.

Again, you have no clue with respect to what IFR flight entails. Most of
the interpretation is done by the pilot. The flight instruments provide raw
data, and the pilot is required to integrate that mentally into an overall
situational picture.

Moving map GPS has alleviated this somewhat, but a) most non-transport
airplanes still don't have moving map displays, and b) they introduce a
whole slew of new ways to become confused by the flight instruments.

Until such time as you have actually flown a REAL aircraft in REAL
instrument conditions BY YOURSELF, do not presume to lecture this newsgroup
about what happens in IFR conditions.

They are an indirect and highly suspect
means of determining reality when compared to using one's own eyes to
directly observe reality.

Highly suspect? How frequently do instruments fail in flight?

Well, according to a recent informal survey in this newsgroup, about one
instrument failure per 500 hours is about average. My personal average is a
little higher than that, but in all but one case the instruments were
non-critical engine instruments. That one exception was a vacuum pump
failure, resulting in the failure of both my attitude indicator and my
directional gyro.

During the entire timespan of those failures, I have not once had my sensory
perceptions fail me during good daytime visual conditions.

[...]
All of the history of aviation demonstrates that instruments are more
reliable.

There is nothing about the history of aviation that demonstrates any such
thing.

That's why instruments are the reference when things are
confusing, and even when they are not.

Instruments are not the reference when things are not confusing. Any
certificated pilot is perfectly capable of flying an airplane without any
instruments whatsoever.

The sky is very unforgiving of
those who think they know better than their instruments.

It is even more unforgiving of those who arrogantly insist that they know
more than people with actual first-hand experience.

I'll say one thing, perhaps the only thing, you have exactly right: you
definitely do NOT belong in the pilot seat of any aircraft.

Pete

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 17:07:17 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Peter Duniho writes:

What you SEE on the instruments is just as subjective as what you SEE out
the window. Furthermore, the instruments are mechanical devices subject to
failure. They are not infalliable, and they are significantly less
infalliable than the view out the window.

They are far less prone to failure than human perception. That's why
they are there.

Instruments are 100% affected by human perception, unless you're
talking about coupled autopilot operations.

Instruments are as much a part of the perceptual environment as the
whoosh of the wind, the sound of the engine, the smells, the view out
the windows, the pressure of the seat against ones butt, the pull of
the seatbelt, the force of the hand against the controls, the
vibrations, the loose objects flying around the cabin. The pilot
integrates all of these indications to get a more accurate picture of
the state of the airplane. In instrument training, a common admonition
from the instructor is, "Look at everything, stare at nothing." The
advice doesn't apply only to the instrument panel.

They are an indirect and highly suspect
means of determining reality when compared to using one's own eyes to
directly observe reality.

Highly suspect? How frequently do instruments fail in flight?

Far too often, unfortunately. I've had vacuum pumps fail, all in VFR
conditions fortunately. I've had an electric turn coordinator fail.
I've had an altimeter fail. In that case I ended up rejecting the
altimeter reading and relying on my eyes or I'd have made a mark on
the landscape. Everything on the airplane is subject to Murphy's law,
it can fail, and that includes instruments.

There's a good reason why every time you fly with a CFII he/she will
bring along some suction cups or Post-it notes to stick over
instruments.

And of course when a gyro fails, you may need to disable the autopilot
so it won't be misled by erroneous indications.

RK Henry

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Peter Duniho writes:

If that happens, you trust what you see out the window.

I don't.

What in the world does that mean? You have never, and will never, be in
that situation. Any personal claim on your part regarding what you would or
would not do is meaningless.

[...]
However, it's also likely that about half of the people DO have
instrument
ratings. Your "impression" (such as it is, based on your own highly
flawed
"understanding" of aviation and piloting) is unlikely to be anywhere
close
to correct.

You just speculated that half the people here are not instrument
rated, therefore I'm pretty close to correct.

Maybe it's some whacked out French thing (or wherever you're from), but
around here the word "mainly" is not at all a synonym for "only half".

The mindset that is willing to believe optical illusions and
misleading sensations over instruments.

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.

Why bother with instruments
at all, if one is magically endowed with the ability to perceive
reality perfectly with eyes and semicircular canals?

It's not magic. It's biology. And the answer to your question is, you
don't. That's the point. If you have information available via your eyes
and other sensations, you have no need for instruments. The instruments are
for when you are deprived of those biologically-granted abilities (in
particular, the visual aspect, as that's the sense that keeps everything
else working correctly).

[...]
I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.

If they have no clue about the use of their instruments, then they are
going to be helpless if the weather deteriorates. If they are
convinced that instruments are less reliable than their perceptions,
then they'll be in even deeper trouble.

What does "if the weather deteriorates" have to do with this discussion?
We're not talking about instrument conditions, we're talking about visual
conditions.

No one is claiming that instruments don't have their use. They do, in
instrument conditions. That's why they call those conditions INSTRUMENT
CONDITIONS. But we're not talking about that.

A pilot not trained for
instrument flight is unlikely to do well is instrument conditions, just
as
you are unlikely to do well flying an actual airplane. So what?

Well, apparently the non-IFR pilots don't hesitate to talk about IFR,
but they don't like it when non-pilots talk about piloting. Hmm.

What non-IFR pilots have been talking about IFR? And even if they have, how
does that make your own insistence on writing about things on which you have
no actual knowledge any better?

Some minimal training is required, yes. But so what? The training is
intended for when the pilot encounters INSTRUMENT conditions. When in
VISUAL conditions, there is no need to use any instruments in the
airplane
at all.

You see it as a need; I see it as a convenience.

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.

No, they are not. In visual conditions, the likelihood of the external
view
becoming compromised in a way that affects the safety of the flight is
practically nil.

And what is the probability that the instruments will fail?

Relatively high. As in, any pilot with any reasonable amount of experience
has likely had at least one flight instrument fail during a flight.

Yes, they are. There's no magic switch in a full-motion simulator that
disables your sensation of acceleration.

Simulators trick your sensations, and your imagination fills in the
rest.

That's true. But they don't trick your sensation of acceleration.

I do indeed know how they work, and the tricks they play to make
pilots think they are actually moving.

Then why don't you write about that, instead of making stuff up that has no
basis in facts?

As I have already pointed out, full-motion simulators take advantage of
the
acceleration of gravity, combined with misleading visual information, to
fool the body into thinking they are under a state of constant
acceleration.

It's much more complicated than that.

MORE complicated? IMHO, the description I gave is plenty complicated. The
point isn't whether it's complicated, it's whether your sensation of
acceleration is being fooled (or rather, whether someone's sensation
is...obviously, since you've never been in a full-motion simulator, none of
your sensations have ever been fooled, sensation of acceleration or not).

If visual cues were sufficient, you'd get the same sensation of
acceleration
at your PC.

Sometimes you do, especially with multiple screens. That's why many
people get motion sickness playing Doom. They aren't moving, but the
effect of the visual input they see is strong enough to convince their
brains that they are.

Wrong. They get motion sickness for the very reason that their sensation of
acceleration is NOT being fooled.

You seem to be confusing the sensation of acceleration (that is, the body's
direct acquisition of data indicating acceleration, a biomechanical process)
and the mind's impression of acceleration (which is a mental process that
integrates a number of biomechanical processes into a single perception of
reality).

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.

[...]
If the body were so accurate, it would notice the simulator returning
to a neutral position, and it would notice the rotation of the
simulator when the net acceleration vector shifts. But that doesn't
happen.

Again, how would you know whether that happens or not?

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. 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.

No, it's not. If you'd ever seen a full-motion simulator in operation,
you'd never even think of saying such a silly thing.

I have seen them in operation.

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?

Pete