I give up, after many, many years!

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

And i fly instruments almost every day.

How do you fly instruments that don't work?

In article ,
says...
writes:

Airliners us FULL MOTION sims, not a desktop MSFS. HUGE difference.

One of the reasons why full-motion sims work is that it's very easy to fool
human senses. Remember, full-motion sims don't actually go anywhere, but to
the people inside, they certainly feel as though they do.

To equate a desktop MSFS to any type of IMC flying is reckless IMHO.

One advantage to MSFS is that it forces you to use instruments in IMC.
Depending heavily on instruments isn't necessarily an advantage for VFR, but
it's very important for IFR.

To not depend on senses and totally rely on instruments without an
expectation that **they could fail** is reckless.

Not at all. If you're unwilling to put complete trust in your instruments,
you shouldn't be flying IFR. If they fail, well, you might never get back
home.

If you fly a real
plane, you should know this. Nobody expects the unexpected to happen,
but if you fly your plane like **it could happen** then you are better
prepared. I call it an insurance policy that you hope you don't have
to cash in.

Given the fact that losing instruments in IMC is extraordinarily dangerous, it
would be better advised to take care to minimize the chances that they will
fail than to fantasize that it will be possible to fly and land safely without
them if they do fail.

Who remembers the crash in the States where an aircraft engineer had
left the pitot and or static air vents taped up.

Crashed into the sea I think - all dead.

Basically - pilots failed to correctly interpret the instruments. Had
they determined what insruments were reading correctly, they could've
put the thing down (they were attempting to return to the field).

IIRC, they could have used the GPS for airspeed (IIRC, the airspeed
indicator partly worked (they got an airspeed active out of it!) - and
probably thought it was correct - during flight it was all over the
place IIRC. And the radar altimeter would have been working just fine.
Several navs would have been good, VOR, DME, ILS etc. Shaker of course
too!

Anyone remember some more details?

--
Duncan

Dave Doe writes:

IIRC, they could have used the GPS for airspeed (IIRC, the airspeed
indicator partly worked (they got an airspeed active out of it!) - and
probably thought it was correct - during flight it was all over the
place IIRC. And the radar altimeter would have been working just fine.
Several navs would have been good, VOR, DME, ILS etc. Shaker of course
too!

The GPS would only give ground speed, not airspeed, but that would be better
than nothing. The RA would only be useful below 2500 feet AGL. But the other
stuff would be working.

Anyone remember some more details?

Aeroperu had a problem with this.

In article ,
says...
Dave Doe writes:

IIRC, they could have used the GPS for airspeed (IIRC, the airspeed
indicator partly worked (they got an airspeed active out of it!) - and
probably thought it was correct - during flight it was all over the
place IIRC. And the radar altimeter would have been working just fine.
Several navs would have been good, VOR, DME, ILS etc. Shaker of course
too!

The GPS would only give ground speed, not airspeed, but that would be better
than nothing. The RA would only be useful below 2500 feet AGL. But the other
stuff would be working.

The other poster got it right methinks, pretty sure it was a 757.

re your reply...
* ground speed would be just fine, even in a 30kt wind aloft - compared
to an airspeed indicator going all over the place.
* they'd just taken off, so the radar altimeter's going to provide some
very useful info.


Anyone remember some more details?

Aeroperu had a problem with this.

As the other poster mentioned, he thought it was 'down south' too -
should be a database entry for it somewhere.

--
Duncan

Dave Doe wrote in
. nz:

In article ,
says...
Dave Doe writes:

IIRC, they could have used the GPS for airspeed (IIRC, the airspeed
indicator partly worked (they got an airspeed active out of it!) -
and probably thought it was correct - during flight it was all over
the place IIRC. And the radar altimeter would have been working
just fine. Several navs would have been good, VOR, DME, ILS etc.
Shaker of course too!

The GPS would only give ground speed, not airspeed, but that would be
better than nothing. The RA would only be useful below 2500 feet
AGL. But the other stuff would be working.

The other poster got it right methinks, pretty sure it was a 757.

re your reply...
* ground speed would be just fine, even in a 30kt wind aloft -
compared to an airspeed indicator going all over the place.
* they'd just taken off, so the radar altimeter's going to provide
some very useful info.


Anyone remember some more details?

Aeroperu had a problem with this.

As the other poster mentioned, he thought it was 'down south' too -
should be a database entry for it somewhere.


There is an entry in the NTSB data base, but all it does is refer to the
DGTA in Peru and gives a telephone number and fax number. The entry can be
found at http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...08X06864&key=1


--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

"Dave Doe" wrote
Who remembers the crash in the States where an aircraft
engineer had left the pitot and or static air vents taped up.

Crashed into the sea I think - all dead.

Duncan

I believe this was South or Latin America, and the plane came back from
getting washed??? Ports still covered to prevent water infiltration. Was it
a B757 maybe???