I give up, after many, many years!

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

gatt writes:

The ones that are ignored are different sensations and typically have
to do with equilibrium and the inner ear. Examples are somatogravic
and coriolis and inversion illusions. If your ass leaves the seat or
compresses into it, however, it's not something you ignore.

Yes, it is, because it is no more reliable than any other sensation.

If you enter a coordinated turn at constant altitude, your buttocks
will tell you that you are climbing ... but you aren't. Your inner
ear will tell you the same thing, and it will be just as wrong.

There aren't many/any RC pilots who haven't catastrophically augured
an RC plane.

Of those who have, how did they manage, without sensation? Indeed,
how do they ever manage on any flight, without sensation?

UAV systems are much more sophisticated than those in the
average single-engine piston airplane, and--I've not flown a UAV so
I'm guessing here--they're not doing things like steep-bank turns or
short-field approaches.

But aviation is more than single-engine piston airplanes ... much
more.

Those are different sensations and you have to know the difference
and also what to reject or ignore. VFR pilots are subject to similar
but different sensations such as visual autokinesis, reversal of
motion and black hole approaches.

Can you fly safely with your eyes closed, relying only on sensations,
and selectively ignoring or accepting the sensations you feel?

You can have those sensations while remaining perfectly still in
normal flight. When your ass is sliding toward the inside or outside
of a turn, or getting compressed into the seat or lifted into the lap
belt, those are not illusions.

But they may not be what you think they are, either.

What people are asserting here is 180 degrees different from what I
read in all the literature. You cannot fly by the seat of your pants.
You can't fly based on sensations. They are too unreliable.
Conversely, you can fly without sensations, as long as you have visual
and/or instrument information.


You're a moron. You're not competent to read with comprehension.
Anthony, you don't know **** from shinola.

What people are asserting here is 180 degrees different from what I
read in all the literature. You cannot fly by the seat of your pants.
You can't fly based on sensations. They are too unreliable.
Conversely, you can fly without sensations, as long as you have visual
and/or instrument information.


You're a moron. You're not competent to read with comprehension.
Anthony, you don't know **** from shinola.

Presuming we're talking about IFR flight, what, precisely, do you find
incorrect in MX's paragraph, above?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in news:erBXj.113694
$TT4.102500@attbi_s22:

What people are asserting here is 180 degrees different from what I
read in all the literature. You cannot fly by the seat of your pants.
You can't fly based on sensations. They are too unreliable.
Conversely, you can fly without sensations, as long as you have visual
and/or instrument information.


You're a moron. You're not competent to read with comprehension.
Anthony, you don't know **** from shinola.

Presuming we're talking about IFR flight, what, precisely, do you find
incorrect in MX's paragraph, above?

Snort! I love it when k00ks start to slurp each other for a bit of comfort.


Bertie

On May 17, 8:53*am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

Presuming we're talking about IFR flight, what, precisely, do you find
incorrect in MX's paragraph, above?

Flying by sensation Jay. To make a blank statement you cannot fly in
IMC by sensations is flat out wrong.

While you have to ignore SOME sensations while flying inside a cloud,
some sensations give you warning of impending danger.

Somebody already pointed out stall buffering. That is a sensation you
DON'T want to feel inside a cloud that will not show up on an
instrument until it's too late.

You would also be surprised, flying by the seat of your pants does
work wonders on an ILS approach, especially when you slip slightly
below glideslope and adding power to recapture the glide slope can be
felt in the seat of your pants, which is a confirmation of what the
instruments are reading. If you don't feel that firmness in the seat
of your pants, then something is drastically wrong.

There are times inside the clag, where you feel more in the seat of
your pants better then in VMC because your senses are more heightened.
When you add throttle, you should expect to feel some firmness in the
seat of your pants, when you reduce, you should feel less. If you
don't feel it, something is wrong.

Hearing is a sense, something that cannot be ignored. Not sure if you
saw my last post on a video about a vacuum problem in IMC, so I am
talking from first hand experience.

Listening to your engine is a secondary airspeed ***TREND***
indicator. Ignore that, and you will be in more of a boatload of
trouble when your vacuum system goes belly up. Hearing my engine
while under partial panel procedures probably was the sense that made
my life exponentially easier, and the last I know of, hearing is a
sense or a sensation..

When used correctly, your senses CONFIRM what you see on the gauges,
but when it comes to hearing and feeling, some of those signals cannot
be ignored especially when gauges give conflicting information (I.E
vacuum failure). When gauges give conflicting information, the
emphasis become a little more on senses to bring your skin back home
in one piece.

Sims are great for IFR procedures, but they do not simulate the real
deal. The hood doesn't do it for the real deal.

I have taken instrument students and VFR pilots in IMC and afterwards,
their reactions have been priceless.

If you have not done so yourself, you may want to hitch a ride with a
IA pilot and see what it's like to fly an approach even down to 1000
feet AGL which in most cases is not even close to minimums. 1000
feet AGL on a standard descent is only two minutes from being in a
milk bottle to touchdown.

ILS minimums, it's only 20 seconds. The more you use your senses WITH
instruments in IMC, the better chance your outcome will be.

A Lieberman writes:

Flying by sensation Jay. To make a blank statement you cannot fly in
IMC by sensations is flat out wrong.

It's entirely right. You cannot trust sensations in IMC. You must trust your
instruments.

While you have to ignore SOME sensations while flying inside a cloud,
some sensations give you warning of impending danger.

The instruments do a better job of that, and they are consistent and reliable.

Somebody already pointed out stall buffering. That is a sensation you
DON'T want to feel inside a cloud that will not show up on an
instrument until it's too late.

If you are watching your instruments and you know your aircraft, why are you
experiencing stall buffet?

You would also be surprised, flying by the seat of your pants does
work wonders on an ILS approach ...

I'm not sure that I'd want ILS needles in the seat of my pants.

... especially when you slip slightly
below glideslope and adding power to recapture the glide slope can be
felt in the seat of your pants, which is a confirmation of what the
instruments are reading.

You have it backwards: The instruments confirm, not the sensations. You don't
need a confirmation of instruments. If there is a disagreement between
sensations and instruments, the instruments take priority.

If you don't feel that firmness in the seat of your pants, then
something is drastically wrong.

If you're instruments tell you that you're in trouble, you're in trouble. If
they tell you that you're not in trouble, you're safe. The seat of your pants
may tell you all sorts of things, but relying on it will result in an
accident.

There are times inside the clag, where you feel more in the seat of
your pants better then in VMC because your senses are more heightened.

Completely false. In IMC, you must trust your instruments if you want to stay
alive. Ignore what you feel.

When you add throttle, you should expect to feel some firmness in the
seat of your pants, when you reduce, you should feel less. If you
don't feel it, something is wrong.

Look at your instruments; they'll tell you if something is wrong.

ILS minimums, it's only 20 seconds. The more you use your senses WITH
instruments in IMC, the better chance your outcome will be.

You aren't in IMC below minimums.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

A Lieberman writes:

Flying by sensation Jay. To make a blank statement you cannot fly in
IMC by sensations is flat out wrong.

It's entirely right.

No it isn't.


You cannot trust sensations in IMC.


Only one.


You must
trust your instruments.

While you have to ignore SOME sensations while flying inside a cloud,
some sensations give you warning of impending danger.

The instruments do a better job of that, and they are consistent and
reliable.

Nope.



Somebody already pointed out stall buffering. That is a sensation
you DON'T want to feel inside a cloud that will not show up on an
instrument until it's too late.

If you are watching your instruments and you know your aircraft, why
are you experiencing stall buffet?

You would also be surprised, flying by the seat of your pants does
work wonders on an ILS approach ...

I'm not sure that I'd want ILS needles in the seat of my pants.

... especially when you slip slightly
below glideslope and adding power to recapture the glide slope can be
felt in the seat of your pants, which is a confirmation of what the
instruments are reading.

You have it backwards: The instruments confirm, not the sensations.
You don't need a confirmation of instruments. If there is a
disagreement between sensations and instruments, the instruments take
priority.

If you don't feel that firmness in the seat of your pants, then
something is drastically wrong.

If you're instruments tell you that you're in trouble, you're in
trouble. If they tell you that you're not in trouble, you're safe.

You're a moron.

Bertie

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
A Lieberman writes:

Flying by sensation Jay. To make a blank statement you cannot fly in
IMC by sensations is flat out wrong.

It's entirely right. You cannot trust sensations in IMC. You must trust your
instruments.

It is obvious you've done a little reading, with emphasis on the little.

You also have zero practical application of that reading.

As has happened so many times in the past, your tunnel vision along
with your black and white viewpoint lead you to make pronouncements
that are not only wrong but laughable.

The bottom line is you flat out don't know what you are talking about.

That could be cured with a couple of hours in a real airplane, but we
all know that's never going to happen.

So you will keep on posting your nonsense.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

schrieb:

So you will keep on posting your nonsense.

and you keep on replying to him and thus keep up the noise.

#m

writes:

As has happened so many times in the past, your tunnel vision along
with your black and white viewpoint lead you to make pronouncements
that are not only wrong but laughable.

Show the errors.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

As has happened so many times in the past, your tunnel vision along
with your black and white viewpoint lead you to make pronouncements
that are not only wrong but laughable.

Show the errors.


The character string "mxsmanic" in the "From" field for a post indicates
that what follows is a gross error.

Show that it doesn't. If you can't, you're a moron.