GA is priceless

Mxsmanic wrote:
How do you know? Plenty of people thought they knew it well enough in
the simulator.

And?

And maybe you are wrong as well. Until you actually do "instrument
flight" in a real airplane with real clouds, you wouldn't know.

On 4 Jan 2007 14:51:28 -0800
"bdl" wrote:


Mxsmanic wrote:
How do you know? Plenty of people thought they knew it well enough in
the simulator.

And?

And maybe you are wrong as well. Until you actually do "instrument
flight" in a real airplane with real clouds, you wouldn't know.


When I was doing my initial training for my private, I was lucky enough
to have the opportunity to do a flight to 10,000 ft with a CFII during
minimum VFR (just over 3 miles visibility, unlimited ceiling)
conditions due to mist. With the slant to see the ground at nearly 2
miles up, we couldn't see anything around us and were effectively on an
IFR flight in contact with Center, though technically in VFR
conditions.

Even though we had completely smooth conditions at the time, there was
a world of difference in realizing your only way out of the white bubble
you are floating in is your instruments versus flying in similar
conditions in the simulator. Things like the vibration of the engine,
the forces the plane exerts in level and banking flight, and the
actuality of it cannot be fully replicated in a PC simulator. It was a
very eerie experience that would be good for VFR pilots to see for
themselves. The hood and the simulator don't replicate the experience
well at all.

After flying in near actual instrument conditions, it is easy to see
where a VFR pilot, even one with simulator experience but without real
world experience, could lose control of the plane in short order.
Continued VFR flight into instrument conditions is a top cause of
accidents according to the Nall report. Throw in some turbulence and
some distractions and you have a completely different experience from
the safety of a simulator.

Doug

--
For UNIX, Linux and security articles
visit http://SecurityBulletins.com/

Doug Spencer wrote:
After flying in near actual instrument conditions, it is easy to see
where a VFR pilot, even one with simulator experience but without real
world experience, could lose control of the plane in short order.
Continued VFR flight into instrument conditions is a top cause of
accidents according to the Nall report. Throw in some turbulence and
some distractions and you have a completely different experience from
the safety of a simulator.

Exactly my point Dough.

I had a similar flight for my night cross-country when doing my PPL
(moderate turbulence below 12000, strong winds, snow(!) and of course
night).

I could see lights below but because of the extreme sideways ground
track due to the winds It was all i could do to keep the plane level.
I kept wanting to turn it so that the pretty lights below me were
traveling in the "right" direction.

bdl writes:

And maybe you are wrong as well. Until you actually do "instrument
flight" in a real airplane with real clouds, you wouldn't know.

Maybe. But I've always been quite good at evaluating myself.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
bdl writes:

And maybe you are wrong as well. Until you actually do "instrument
flight" in a real airplane with real clouds, you wouldn't know.

Maybe. But I've always been quite good at evaluating myself.

Not having any instrument flight experience you are not qualified to
evaluate your instrument flying ability.

Just like I'm not qualified to judge my aerobatic ability by being able
to loop the 747 in MSFS.

bdl writes:

Not having any instrument flight experience you are not qualified to
evaluate your instrument flying ability.

I am qualified to evaluate my ability to handle activities of this
type without prior experience, however.

The tacit assumption in your post seems to be that everyone is bad at
instrument flight by default, and can only become good by doing it in
an actual aircraft. I'm not convinced that this is true. Some people
are able to fly an aircraft competently under VFR with no prior
instruction; they simply happen to be good at that sort of thing. The
same may also apply for IFR.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
bdl writes:

Not having any instrument flight experience you are not qualified to
evaluate your instrument flying ability.

I am qualified to evaluate my ability to handle activities of this
type without prior experience, however.

Which activities would these be?

The tacit assumption in your post seems to be that everyone is bad at
instrument flight by default, and can only become good by doing it in
an actual aircraft. I'm not convinced that this is true. Some people
are able to fly an aircraft competently under VFR with no prior
instruction; they simply happen to be good at that sort of thing. The
same may also apply for IFR.

You don't sound to sure.

So your position is that there are people that are naturally good at
flying, and also naturally good at flying IFR, and that you are one of
these enlightened souls because you've got so many hours in a simulator
in IFR conditions (albeit at a constant 1-g) and that ability would
naturally translate to a real aircraft in real IMC.

Oh wait, you did crack up one of your simulated aircraft didn't you.
That CFIT you mentioned.

bdl writes:

Which activities would these be?

Activities that involve primarily mental tasks, such as reading
instruments, assessing the information gained therefrom, and deciding
upon an appropriate course of action.

You don't sound to sure.

I'm not sure.

So your position is that there are people that are naturally good at
flying, and also naturally good at flying IFR ...

Yes.

... and that you are one of these enlightened souls because you've
got so many hours in a simulator in IFR conditions ...

I don't know if I'd be good at flying from a physical standpoint. I
tend to be uncoordinated at first compared to others, but I learn and
improve until I'm often better than average, although it's a long
process. I'm good at being precise rather than quick.

As for instrument flight, I'm pretty sure I'd be good at that. It's
the type of task that I generally do well.

... (albeit at a constant 1-g) and that ability would
naturally translate to a real aircraft in real IMC.

For instrument flight, yes. For visual flight, less so, although it
still would be significant.

Oh wait, you did crack up one of your simulated aircraft didn't you.
That CFIT you mentioned.

I haven't had a crash in quite a while. In general, though, if I
crash, it is from an overambitious attempt to land--what pilots call
getthereitis. In real life, I am vastly more prudent.

My most recent crashes have been due to extremely bad weather--weather
I'd never attempt to fly in in real life. On some occasions, I've
been lifted 20 feet while 10 feet above the runway, and then slammed
back down. I don't see how any pilot could land in conditions like
that.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
I don't know if I'd be good at flying from a physical standpoint. I
tend to be uncoordinated at first compared to others, but I learn and
improve until I'm often better than average, although it's a long
process. I'm good at being precise rather than quick.

IFR flying is a very physical process. It requires you to disregard
your senses. Something that is not able to be simulated in your chair
at your computer. This has been my point all along.