Near miss from space junk.

EridanMan writes:

I did not say it was a consequence of following instruments
exclusively, I said it was a consequence of attempting to follow
instruments at all before you master simple aircraft control, and a
downside of being an experienced simmer before start your training.

In order to follow instruments successfully, you must master control of the
aircraft.

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

In order to follow instruments successfully, you must master control of the
aircraft.

My point exactly (almost verbatim).

Mastering control of the aircraft involves developing the 'conditioned
responses' you mentioned earlier. Learning to fly IFR involves
learning to adapt those conditioned responses to the IFR environment.

Simply knowing what to look for on the gauges is _NOT_ enough, and I
think we would all appreciate if you would stop asserting such. It is
not only incorrect, is is a deadly rationalization that has killed
many pilots.

If you want to fly IMC, you need to learn how to adapt your piloting
skills to flying the panel, that requires regular practice. period.

EridanMan writes:

Mastering control of the aircraft involves developing the 'conditioned
responses' you mentioned earlier. Learning to fly IFR involves
learning to adapt those conditioned responses to the IFR environment.

No, learning to fly IFR means _ignoring_ those conditioned responses, and
flying exclusively based on what the instruments say.

Furthermore, the conditioned responses vary by aircraft; learning one is not
terribly useful for another. And even the more general motion cues are
unreliable.

Ultimately, sensation is almost useless for flying. The real information
comes from visual cues (under VFR) and/or instruments (under IFR). If you
have neither of this, you're headed towards an appointment with destiny, no
matter how much practice you have with physical sensations.

Conversely, you _can_ fly without the sensations, as long as you have visual
cues and/or instruments.

And, if you have sensations _and_ visual cues _and_ instruments, the ones to
trust first are the instruments, followed by visual cues. The sensations are
not trustworthy, except to help you make coordinated turns or in a few other
very isolated circumstances.

Simply knowing what to look for on the gauges is _NOT_ enough, and I
think we would all appreciate if you would stop asserting such.

People fly safely and successfully every day just by looking at those gauges.
Nobody flies for more than a few minutes just by depending on sensations.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
news
EridanMan writes:
No, learning to fly IFR means _ignoring_ those conditioned responses, and
flying exclusively based on what the instruments say.

Furthermore, the conditioned responses vary by aircraft; learning one is
not
terribly useful for another. And even the more general motion cues are
unreliable.

Ultimately, sensation is almost useless for flying. The real information
comes from visual cues (under VFR) and/or instruments (under IFR). If you
have neither of this, you're headed towards an appointment with destiny,
no
matter how much practice you have with physical sensations.

Conversely, you _can_ fly without the sensations, as long as you have
visual
cues and/or instruments.

And, if you have sensations _and_ visual cues _and_ instruments, the ones
to
trust first are the instruments, followed by visual cues. The sensations
are
not trustworthy, except to help you make coordinated turns or in a few
other
very isolated circumstances.


People fly safely and successfully every day just by looking at those
gauges.
Nobody flies for more than a few minutes just by depending on sensations.



What a clueless troll!!!!!!

*sigh*

I had yet again fooled myself into believing that you were something
other than a simulator Fanboy irrationally raving about his chosen
hobby... That somehow, if I managed to express myself in a way you
could relate to, you would be interested in actually learning
something, instead of just carrying on about how anything your
simulators don't portray well is irrelevant.

I used to see this kind of behavior constantly back when I spent time
on photography boards... "X is irrelevant/not useful, so its not a big
deal that Y doesn't have it!"

For your information, flying an aircraft is about synthesizing ALL
available sensory input in an attempt to keep in constant
understanding of the aircraft's state at that moment, that includes
motion, visual cues, and instrument readings- its all tremendously
important.

To Fly IFR, you must be able to already fly VFR, to fly VFR, you must
master an understanding of how the aircraft moves, and how those
movements feel.

The sensations are not trustworthy, except to help you make
coordinated turns or in a few other very isolated circumstances.

Yes, such as takeoff rotation, climbs, descents, turns, landing
flares, and practically any other situation where you change the
aircraft's attitude and energy state. When an IFR pilot begins a 500
FPM descent, he does so by pulling back the power until he feels the
aircraft enter the correct descent, only using the gauge to confirm
that the aircraft's attitude is what he expects it to be. (Just as in
a car, a driver chooses the amount of braking pressure required to
stop the car based on his sensory memory of how much braking force is
necessary to stop in time for the light).

Nobody flies for more than a few minutes just by depending on
sensations.

Nobody flies successfully for a few minutes just by depending on ANY
one source of information available to them, whether it by
instruments, seat of the pants, visual cues, or audio. A safe and
prudent pilot uses all information available to him, and knows how and
when to crosscheck and account for conflicting information. Gauges
Fail, Vertigo confuses, Haze obscures- only a fool would make a rash
generalization that "Only Use X, then only Use Y". It's retarded.

I am a former Simulator Jockey (FS8/Xplane 7). I know first hand the
confidence you feel because of your simulator experience. I know
first hand how that confidence screwed up the first few hours of my
flight training, as I constantly chased needles instead of bothering
to learn to positively control the aircraft. I have first hand
experience flying VFR. I have first hand experience flying IMC.

You have none of this. You know nothing but your pride in your
simulator experience, and your stubborn refusal to consider that sed.
experience is anything but the pinnacle of aviation knowledge, and
you'll argue until your blue in the face about it.

Just like some other fools will argue themselves blue in the face
about Canon Vs. Nikon, SLR vs Rangefinder, whatever...

Its a shame to see such intelligence wasted on such inane
fundamentalist fanboy nonsense. But I've had enough of it.

EridanMan writes:

For your information, flying an aircraft is about synthesizing ALL
available sensory input in an attempt to keep in constant
understanding of the aircraft's state at that moment, that includes
motion, visual cues, and instrument readings- its all tremendously
important.

Motion is so unreliable that I wonder why anyone would try to integrate it
except under very specific circumstances.

To Fly IFR, you must be able to already fly VFR, to fly VFR, you must
master an understanding of how the aircraft moves, and how those
movements feel.

Why? Autopilots fly IFR without any sensation of how the aircraft is moving,
and without visual cues.

Yes, such as takeoff rotation, climbs, descents, turns, landing
flares, and practically any other situation where you change the
aircraft's attitude and energy state.

All of these can be done successfully with instruments alone.

When an IFR pilot begins a 500
FPM descent, he does so by pulling back the power until he feels the
aircraft enter the correct descent, only using the gauge to confirm
that the aircraft's attitude is what he expects it to be.

Are you sure?

Does this mean that if he is disoriented and cannot feel the "correct
descent," he cannot descend?

Nobody flies successfully for a few minutes just by depending on ANY
one source of information available to them, whether it by
instruments, seat of the pants, visual cues, or audio.

Not so. In good weather, one can fly for a considerable time using visual
cues alone. Under any circumstances, one can fly indefinitely using
instruments alone. But one cannot fly for more than a minute or two using
physical sensations alone.

I am a former Simulator Jockey (FS8/Xplane 7). I know first hand the
confidence you feel because of your simulator experience. I know
first hand how that confidence screwed up the first few hours of my
flight training, as I constantly chased needles instead of bothering
to learn to positively control the aircraft. I have first hand
experience flying VFR. I have first hand experience flying IMC.

You are not me.

Its a shame to see such intelligence wasted on such inane
fundamentalist fanboy nonsense. But I've had enough of it.

Then perhaps you can skip the comments about me and either discuss the topic
or abstain.

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

Motion is so unreliable that I wonder why anyone would try to integrate it
except under very specific circumstances.

Except it's not. The simple act of braking a car for a light depends
highly on the sense of motion, and humans manage that feat hundreds of
millions of times a day with a relatively low failure rate. Flaring
an aircraft on landing on the other hand is almost entirely dependent
on sense of motion. Sense of motion can be tremendously powerful, as
long as you understand how it can also be fallible.

To Fly IFR, you must be able to already fly VFR, to fly VFR, you must
master an understanding of how the aircraft moves, and how those
movements feel.

Why? Autopilots fly IFR without any sensation of how the aircraft is moving,
and without visual cues.

We are not autopilots, we are human beings. Human beings do not have
the mathematical capacity to make the quick, precise calculations that
are trivial to a computer, what we can do is synthesize a large number
of sensory inputs and make conclusions based on them far in excess of
a computers capacity for wrote logical calculation.

The human sense of balance/motion is a tremendously powerful, and
tremendously fast, and very quick to adapt... thousands of generations
of bipedal travel are to thank for that. It would by stupid for us
not to take advantage of it.

Again as long as we, as pilots, understand when it can be tricked, and
how to overcome it.

Yes, such as takeoff rotation, climbs, descents, turns, landing
flares, and practically any other situation where you change the
aircraft's attitude and energy state.

All of these can be done successfully with instruments alone.

Landing flares simply cannot. I have a friend who is an Ex military
pilot, his last assignment was flying drones for the navy- he was
mentioning how the landing gear on the drones needs to be many orders
of magnitude stronger than for piloted aircraft simply because without
the sense of motion, landings flares are nearly impossible to judge
correctly. For the rest of the flight, he managed without any sense
of motion, but he mentioned it was one of the hardest assignments of
his career, far harder than, say, landing a sea-king on a pitching
destroyer's deck. And even then, the only way he managed to fly
precisely remotely was by visualizing and imagining the missing
sensations as he went.

When an IFR pilot begins a 500
FPM descent, he does so by pulling back the power until he feels the
aircraft enter the correct descent, only using the gauge to confirm
that the aircraft's attitude is what he expects it to be.

Are you sure?

Yes.

Does this mean that if he is disoriented and cannot feel the "correct
descent," he cannot descend?

Disorientation is generally along very specific attitudes and, with
practice, can be very easily ignored. That said, talk to any
instrument student about their first attempted instrument approach in
IMC in heavy turbulence... until the proper filters are in place, in
fact, doing the most simple of piloting tasks can seem damn near
impossible.

Nobody flies successfully for a few minutes just by depending on ANY
one source of information available to them, whether it by
instruments, seat of the pants, visual cues, or audio.

Not so. In good weather, one can fly for a considerable time using visual
cues alone.

Tell me please how any pilot in the aircraft is supposed to fly with
'visual cues alone'... The motion is there, and whether or not
they're consciously aware of it, they're responding to it.

Under any circumstances, one can fly indefinitely using
instruments alone.

I understand why you believe this, but it is arrogant, sophomoric and
incorrect. Period. Computers can, yes... but we are not computers.

But one cannot fly for more than a minute or two using
physical sensations alone.

No argument there... but I would never begin to say that using
physical sensations alone was a wise course of action. Physical
sensations, while very powerful and precise, "fall out of trim" _very_
easily, unless 'reset' by some other sensory outside reference.

This does not make them unreliable, it is just a constraint on their
use that a pilot must understand.

You are not me.

No, I'm not. However, I am someone with a shared experience. And
seeing as you are either unable or unwilling to take your experience
to the level that I have, you might find that if you listen to what I
have to say, I might just be able to express that further experience
in a way that helps you understand what you're missing.

When I first started flying, I too was utterly baffled at how any
pilot with even a modicum of intelligence could allow a graveyard
spiral to develop. Attitude Gyro's are trivial to read, the
situation is both unique and obvious, both by instrument readings and
other sensory inputs (sound and motion forces). I was just as cocky
as you are - come on, how hard is it to read your instruments?

Only now, after first had experience, have I begun to realize that the
graveyard spiral isn't the mark of an ignoramus of a pilot, it is a
particular situation brought about by a myriad of circumstances that
pits a pilot's own training in operating an aircraft against his
survival. I've even seen myself falling into the trap.

This is a tremendously powerful realization, and one that I think all
pilots should have. Sitting here, spouting off to pilots about how
'easy it is if you only follow your instruments' is not only
incorrect, its downright irresponsible and dangerous. You do _NOT_
understand the mechanisms and manner of training that pilots receive,
you have no concept of the full complexity of factors that can lead a
pilot, in the moment, to abandon something they 'know' is true in vain
attempt to bring their senses into order. Simply put, the experiences
involved are beyond verbal portrayal.

Sitting here spouting that 'its so easy' only serves to make those who
live in the fantasy rationalization that 'it could never happen to me,
I'm smart enough to know better' more likely to put themselves in a
situation where they get killed.

This is especially irritating coming from someone who I'm absolutely
certain (through my own personal experience) would not be able to
maintain a constant altitude or heading, VFR or IFR, in a real
airplane. Not because you're not intelligent, not because you don't
know how, but simply because "knowing" how intellectually is not
sufficient.

Then perhaps you can skip the comments about me and either discuss the topic
or abstain.

I wish it was that easy.

You frustrate me because I (perhaps incorrectly) recognize shadows of
my own personal demons in you. You are the modern manifestation of a
long-ago miserable period in my life where I walled myself off with
arrogant notions of intellectual superiority, oblivious to the value
and necessity of others' experience.

EridanMan writes:

Except it's not. The simple act of braking a car for a light depends
highly on the sense of motion, and humans manage that feat hundreds of
millions of times a day with a relatively low failure rate.

That's because the sensations associated with driving a car are reliable;
those associated with flying are not (for the most part).

Flaring an aircraft on landing on the other hand is almost entirely
dependent on sense of motion.

Autoland systems seem to manage it without a sense of motion.

We are not autopilots, we are human beings. Human beings do not have
the mathematical capacity to make the quick, precise calculations that
are trivial to a computer, what we can do is synthesize a large number
of sensory inputs and make conclusions based on them far in excess of
a computers capacity for wrote logical calculation.

Human beings manage to do it in simulation without motion, so it's hardly
beyond their capacity.

The human sense of balance/motion is a tremendously powerful, and
tremendously fast, and very quick to adapt ...

And phenomenally unreliable, for types of motiong for which it was not
designed (such as flight).

Again as long as we, as pilots, understand when it can be tricked, and
how to overcome it.

It can only be tricked when you're in the air. It's very reliable on the
ground.

Landing flares simply cannot.

Autoland systems do it. You can do it on a simulator as well.

I have a friend who is an Ex military
pilot, his last assignment was flying drones for the navy- he was
mentioning how the landing gear on the drones needs to be many orders
of magnitude stronger than for piloted aircraft simply because without
the sense of motion, landings flares are nearly impossible to judge
correctly. For the rest of the flight, he managed without any sense
of motion, but he mentioned it was one of the hardest assignments of
his career, far harder than, say, landing a sea-king on a pitching
destroyer's deck. And even then, the only way he managed to fly
precisely remotely was by visualizing and imagining the missing
sensations as he went.

He originally trained on something very different, and had difficulty
adapting.

Disorientation is generally along very specific attitudes and, with
practice, can be very easily ignored.

Just about any attitude can cause it. Human beings are extremely poor at
integrating accelerations to derive other components of movement. They can
tell that they are being accelerated in one direction or another, but they
judge the magnitude of the acceleration poorly, and they are even worse at
determining the final motion after the acceleration.

Tell me please how any pilot in the aircraft is supposed to fly with
'visual cues alone' ...

By looking out the window.

The motion is there, and whether or not
they're consciously aware of it, they're responding to it.

Not in a non-moving simulator, and yet pilots still manage to fly in that
case.

I understand why you believe this, but it is arrogant, sophomoric and
incorrect.

It's a day-to-day reality. It's possible to fly with instruments exclusively,
if you have the right instruments.

Computers can, yes... but we are not computers.

We are better than computers in some respects. Computers are fast, but
primitive.

Physical
sensations, while very powerful and precise, "fall out of trim" _very_
easily, unless 'reset' by some other sensory outside reference.

If they rapidly fall out of trim, how can they also be precise?

About the only thing you can depend on with sensations is that they will tell
you that something has changed. That's it. And even then, it has to change
beyond a certain speed, because slow change cannot be detected.

This is a tremendously powerful realization, and one that I think all
pilots should have. Sitting here, spouting off to pilots about how
'easy it is if you only follow your instruments' is not only
incorrect, its downright irresponsible and dangerous. You do _NOT_
understand the mechanisms and manner of training that pilots receive,
you have no concept of the full complexity of factors that can lead a
pilot, in the moment, to abandon something they 'know' is true in vain
attempt to bring their senses into order. Simply put, the experiences
involved are beyond verbal portrayal.

My impression is increasingly that pilots have a constrained subset of
experiences and training upon which they base a very broad set of conclusions.
While the conclusions may be valid as long as the original constraints are
respected, they can be wildly incorrect when applied to anything outside those
constraints.

Sitting here spouting that 'its so easy' only serves to make those who
live in the fantasy rationalization that 'it could never happen to me,
I'm smart enough to know better' more likely to put themselves in a
situation where they get killed.

Anyone who flies based on what he reads on USENET already has a cognitive
deficit great enough to endanger his safety.

This is especially irritating coming from someone who I'm absolutely
certain (through my own personal experience) would not be able to
maintain a constant altitude or heading, VFR or IFR, in a real
airplane. Not because you're not intelligent, not because you don't
know how, but simply because "knowing" how intellectually is not
sufficient.

Maybe. Perhaps some day I'll try it, and then we shall see.

You frustrate me because I (perhaps incorrectly) recognize shadows of
my own personal demons in you. You are the modern manifestation of a
long-ago miserable period in my life where I walled myself off with
arrogant notions of intellectual superiority, oblivious to the value
and necessity of others' experience.

What I am is the product of having been burned on countless occasions by
people who claimed to be competent and expert and knowledgeable and turned out
to be far more clueless than I am. Today, people must prove things to me in
the most basic and irrefutable ways. I trust no one, and I believe no one,
without proof. Credentials mean nothing, and nobody gets respect by default.

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