Near miss from space junk.

*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.

On Apr 3, 9:10 am, "chris" wrote:
On Apr 3, 12:37 am, "Maxwell" wrote:



"Dylan Smith" wrote in message

...

On 2007-04-02, chris wrote:
As I tried to point out, the stuff that is placarded is the stuff
that's optional. I am not trained to use a VOR, for instance, so
having it placarded inop doesn't make any difference to me. All the
things I actually need definitely work.

You can train yourself to use the VOR quite easily, it's very simple to
use, and is a useful navigational cross check even if you're strictly
VFR (or flying VFR direct, you can use cross radials as navigational
cross checks).

The pilot's license is after all a license to learn, and avionics should
not be left out of that learning!

You are right of coarse, but I don't think that was really his point.
Depending on the weather and your flight plan, a VOR is quite often totally
useless.

I dunno about other countries, but especially over the nastier parts
of NZ there aren't a whole lot of navaids, period. VOR's are nice for
making sure you are on track for one of the main centres airports, but
there's a lot of airfields around the place with no navaids, and even
going to one with a VOR, quite often high terrain and low weather
makes them useless for a VFR pilot


Back in the days of hand tunable multiband recievers I used to tune
in on the radio station 2ZB and fly to the strongest signal which
would put me near enough to Petone.

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.

On Apr 5, 9:31 am, "Jay Beckman" wrote:
"chris" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Apr 5, 6:04 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
I haven't tried it.

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

Now you're just being a cock..

Only now?

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

True..

I am getting real sick of this ****.. He once again is becoming
insistant that he's right, even though once again everyone else is
telling him he's wrong. The old mx refrain of "qualifications don't
mean anything and I don't respect anyone by default" is just another
way of saying "I won't listen to you even if you're qualified to give
an opinion, and I won't believe you unless you agree with me"

I was going to say that this guy is turning into a right f**kknuckle,
but then a quick google search shows that in various newsgroups they
were real sick of him way back on '01

I have tried, as have others, to explain rationally to mx what all of
us licensed pilots know, but no matter what we tell him, he won't
believe us, and seems to think somehow he is better than ordinary
mortals. I remember him saying a while back how he was sure he would
find learning to fly a real a/c 'trivial' since he was so good at
flying a sim. Now he is saying he would be able to fly indefinitely
on instruments with only him training on MSFS!!

I think this guy needs to be a character on Heroes if he's as good as
he thinks he is! What the hell, why doesn't he just walk into his
local FBO and pick up a license? He thinks his sim time is all he
needs, the actual flying is 'trivial'

What a dick.

On Apr 5, 10:32 am, Dave Doe wrote:
In article ,
says...

Dave Doe writes:

We didn't say much to each other until Omarama - me; I was thinking long
and hard about my mistakes (Marty's flown with me on many occasions and
he's a smart guy, he knows we don't venture into clouds). At the end of
the day I concluded it was a big mistake of mine to put as much faith in
Marty as I had done - I'm a trained pilot - but Marty isn't.

Was he keeping the aircraft straight and level in IMC? Why didn't you spin
helplessly out of control in 90 seconds, the way you're supposed to whenever
you enter a cloud without an instrument rating?

Did you not read my other post (about having fun under the helmet)?
Regardless, it was nowhere near 90 seconds, more like ten. We were
reasonably level (less than 30 degrees, probably 15) when I got control.

--
Duncan

He read it, but he'd rather argue with you

Mxsmanic wrote:
Dave Doe writes:

We didn't say much to each other until Omarama - me; I was thinking long
and hard about my mistakes (Marty's flown with me on many occasions and
he's a smart guy, he knows we don't venture into clouds). At the end of
the day I concluded it was a big mistake of mine to put as much faith in
Marty as I had done - I'm a trained pilot - but Marty isn't.

Was he keeping the aircraft straight and level in IMC? Why didn't you spin
helplessly out of control in 90 seconds, the way you're supposed to whenever
you enter a cloud without an instrument rating?

How would you know? You've not been anywhere near IMC in an aircraft.
Your room is always straight and level. The top of your computer makes
a wonderful horizon.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Ron Natalie writes:

No, it means that YOU can't fly IFR with any precision.

There's nothing special about me.

Except that you talk about things you know nothing about.
You seem to think everything that exists on your computer
exists everywhere. You haven't a clue. Aircraft controls
are a much more complex system than Microsoft models. The
physiological aspects of flying in IFR. Inside an aircraft
that is moving, inside a environment that has either no
external reference or CONFUSING externasl references.

I give you about 3 minutes in actual IMC before you lose it.


You seem to be constantly unable to come to the realization
that your masturbatory fantasies do not even begin to express
the complex man-in-loop control system that is an aircraft
in real flight.

You need to get away from highly emotional personal quarrels and back to the
topics at hand. You don't want to fail that next medical.

I am at the topic at hand. You haven't a clue. My psycological
state is fine. I have a life unlike you who are a reclusive
wannabe-pilot, wannabe-photographer, wannabe-teacher, wannabe-tour guide.

Why don't you get off your ass and live real life?

On Apr 4, 8:45 am, Ron Natalie wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:

If that were really just a consequence of following the instruments
exclusively, then nobody would be able to fly IFR with any precision.

No, it means that YOU can't fly IFR with any precision.

You seem to be constantly unable to come to the realization
that your masturbatory fantasies do not even begin to express
the complex man-in-loop control system that is an aircraft
in real flight.

Nice!