Rudder for final runway alignment (?)

On 09/23/06 11:46, Jay B wrote:
I've just learned that (based on this thread) Monty Python's Flying
Circus is considering re-writing "The Argument."

Jay B


Damn it! I paid for an Argument!

.... no you didn't.

;-)


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

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.

Mark Hansen writes:

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

Unfortunately, when it happens to pilots in real life, they can't just
jump out of the cockpit and in front of a PC.

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

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

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

I don't.

Of course you don't. You don't have a window.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Mark Hansen writes:

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

Unfortunately, when it happens to pilots in real life, they can't just
jump out of the cockpit and in front of a PC.

We know the difference between flat ground and a mountain. We don't need to
sit in front of a PC and play a game.

Dave Stadt writes:

We know the difference between flat ground and a mountain.

Sometimes a mountain in level flight looks just like flat ground in a
bank.

We don't need to sit in front of a PC and play a game.

Good luck.

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

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

No, that would be "abuse". "Argument" is three doors down.

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.

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

No, that would be "abuse". "Argument" is three doors down.

Jose

:O)

Jay B

Peter, without intending insult to anyone, do you feel the the futility of
continuing this thread? I read your posts as attempting to debate the
subtlety of music with a deaf person who has never the less studied music
books for years.

This thread reminds me of a CFI friend who raved about his new student
following a first lesson. The student ace'd the written and his years of MS
sim flying made him really smooth. There was no doubt he'd solo fast. After
the second flight my friend complained that the student wasn't looking
outside enough and had no feel for the controls. Following the third flight,
during a portion of which he covered the panel with the sectional, my friend
came back wondering if the student would even make it to solo. In the end
the student did ok and made his PPL in about average time. The lesson I
walked away with is that books and simulation can make you Talk the Talk,
but seldom Walk the Walk.

The best I think Mxsmanic can do at this time is to pony up the money for
three flight lessons, and the sim will "feel" very different from then on.
Depending on the age, money can come from birthday cash, early holiday
(christmas?) gift, or a credit card (30 euro dollar per month min payoff).
Little risk, lots of gain. Good flight.

"Mike Isaksen" wrote in message
news:3wmRg.236$Dq3.95@trndny06...
Peter, without intending insult to anyone, do you feel the the futility of
continuing this thread? [...]

No insult taken. If anything, I deserve a bit of harassment for being
willing to continue the "dialogue" as far as I have. You'll note a previous
message (particularly, my comments toward the end):
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...8?dmode=source

[...]
The best I think Mxsmanic can do at this time is to pony up the money for
three flight lessons, and the sim will "feel" very different from then on.

If he were so-inclined, you're right that it would. However, he's made it
abundantly clear that he doesn't have what it takes to even go for an
introductory flight, never mind any serious flight training.

Why I didn't take that as a clue earlier regarding his intransigence with
respect to other knowledge-expanding activities, I can't say. Honest, I'm
not usually this optimistic.

Pete