Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
...
Without getting into a whole magilla concerning right and wrong, simply
let me say that in my opinion physical sensation should never, and I
repeat it again so that there's NO mistake....NEVER be used to verify or
augment an instrument reading. In my opinion, this is what proper scan
technique is all about. You verify instruments CONSTANTLY using other
instruments, right on down to primary panel if necessary, but in my
opinion, the basic concept of ignoring physical cues and sensations while
on instruments is a sound principle ans should be followed to the letter.
...
I won't argue with a single word of that.

But...

That doesn't make physical sensations irrelevent or unimportant. In fact, it
is the MISLEADING sensations that are very important in the sense that, if
you don't have significant experience "playing over" them, one typically
ends up dead (in real life). Sitting on your lazy boy, those sensations
don't happen - you always feel "coordinated" - you don't get disoriented,
you don't experience vertigo - which makes flying in simulated IMC stupid
easy compared to real life.

And, I would argue that _no_ _ammount_ of desktop simulation will _ever_
prepare you for the assult on your senses that can happen when things aren't
going well in real life soup.

One may think that one can handle real IMC based on desktop experience - but
without realizing just how difficult it is to ignore your inner ear
screaming lies at you, one doesn't really have any idea what flying real IMC
is like - I would bet that an experienced "sim only" pilot would pull the
wings off in less than 3 minutes in real life.


--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
...
Without getting into a whole magilla concerning right and wrong,
simply let me say that in my opinion physical sensation should never,
and I repeat it again so that there's NO mistake....NEVER be used to
verify or augment an instrument reading. In my opinion, this is what
proper scan technique is all about. You verify instruments CONSTANTLY
using other instruments, right on down to primary panel if necessary,
but in my opinion, the basic concept of ignoring physical cues and
sensations while on instruments is a sound principle ans should be
followed to the letter.
...
I won't argue with a single word of that.

But...

That doesn't make physical sensations irrelevent or unimportant. In
fact, it is the MISLEADING sensations that are very important in the
sense that, if you don't have significant experience "playing over"
them, one typically ends up dead (in real life). Sitting on your lazy
boy, those sensations don't happen - you always feel "coordinated" - you
don't get disoriented, you don't experience vertigo - which makes flying
in simulated IMC stupid easy compared to real life.

And, I would argue that _no_ _ammount_ of desktop simulation will _ever_
prepare you for the assult on your senses that can happen when things
aren't going well in real life soup.

One may think that one can handle real IMC based on desktop experience -
but without realizing just how difficult it is to ignore your inner ear
screaming lies at you, one doesn't really have any idea what flying real
IMC is like - I would bet that an experienced "sim only" pilot would
pull the wings off in less than 3 minutes in real life.


I believe you and I are in complete agreement. Perhaps something being
misread.
The understanding of sensations and how they interact with the IFR
experience is of paramount importance. In fact, a lack of this
understanding can get you killed quicker than anything else I can think
of at the moment.
Where I was referring to the sensations issue was directly concerned
with one pilot who commented that verifying an instrument reading with a
physical sensation was important. My point was that instrument
verification should be done against other instruments with the EXCLUSION
of physical sensation from that equation.

--
Dudley Henriques

On May 18, 5:34*pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Where I was referring to the sensations issue was directly concerned
with one pilot who commented that verifying an instrument reading with a
physical sensation was important. My point was that instrument
verification should be done against other instruments with the EXCLUSION
of physical sensation from that equation.

I think my point was when there is an action, there should be a
reaction, and if I don't feel the reaction (which is faster then
registering on the instrument), then I need to explore further.

I am talking the very subtle changes, not changes requiring large
power changes.

For example, I come down the ILS at 90 knots with 1900 rpm. If
headwinds cause my groundspeed to drop below 90 knots and I add lets
say 25 RPM to recapture the glideslope and I DON"T feel it in my seat
of the pants, first place I will look is the temperature probe.
Again, talking subtle 25 RPM just finger tip touch to the controls.

If I feel the extra oomph / firmness in my seat of the pants with the
extra 25 RPM and the glideslope starts to recapture, that is a
verification of my action and reaction.

Again, very subtle changes I am look and feeling for. I am not saying
make turns by the seat of my pants, primarily verifying actions of
power settings.

In my Friday incident, I could tell my attitude indicator of 20 to 30
degree pitch up AND not feeling the extra G's in my rear end, that
something was discrepant having flown this plane for over 600 hours..
That had me going to my backup instruments IMMEDIATELY (VSI and
airspeed) for my analysis and quickly identifying the vacuum as
suspect..

It's not that I even remotely navigated by the seat of my pants, but
something was amiss was felt.

I absolutely agree based on time and time again history, that any
feelings in the head absolutely has to be ignored, instruments are
there for that, but for verification of power adjustments, I see no
reason why AS A TOOL, the feeling in your rear end cannot be used as a
verification of the reaction of your actioin (adding or reducing
power).

The feeling of the seat of your pants is NOT to be used in determining
upright status in IMC, that I will say, and don't want to mislead
anybody that I condone that, just using it to verify my action of
power is working and the reaction of instrumentation TRENDS are
following what my seat of the pants feel is.

A Lieberman wrote:
On May 18, 5:34 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Where I was referring to the sensations issue was directly concerned
with one pilot who commented that verifying an instrument reading with a
physical sensation was important. My point was that instrument
verification should be done against other instruments with the EXCLUSION
of physical sensation from that equation.

I think my point was when there is an action, there should be a
reaction, and if I don't feel the reaction (which is faster then
registering on the instrument), then I need to explore further.

I am talking the very subtle changes, not changes requiring large
power changes.

For example, I come down the ILS at 90 knots with 1900 rpm. If
headwinds cause my groundspeed to drop below 90 knots and I add lets
say 25 RPM to recapture the glideslope and I DON"T feel it in my seat
of the pants, first place I will look is the temperature probe.
Again, talking subtle 25 RPM just finger tip touch to the controls.

If I feel the extra oomph / firmness in my seat of the pants with the
extra 25 RPM and the glideslope starts to recapture, that is a
verification of my action and reaction.

Again, very subtle changes I am look and feeling for. I am not saying
make turns by the seat of my pants, primarily verifying actions of
power settings.

In my Friday incident, I could tell my attitude indicator of 20 to 30
degree pitch up AND not feeling the extra G's in my rear end, that
something was discrepant having flown this plane for over 600 hours..
That had me going to my backup instruments IMMEDIATELY (VSI and
airspeed) for my analysis and quickly identifying the vacuum as
suspect..

It's not that I even remotely navigated by the seat of my pants, but
something was amiss was felt.

I absolutely agree based on time and time again history, that any
feelings in the head absolutely has to be ignored, instruments are
there for that, but for verification of power adjustments, I see no
reason why AS A TOOL, the feeling in your rear end cannot be used as a
verification of the reaction of your actioin (adding or reducing
power).

The feeling of the seat of your pants is NOT to be used in determining
upright status in IMC, that I will say, and don't want to mislead
anybody that I condone that, just using it to verify my action of
power is working and the reaction of instrumentation TRENDS are
following what my seat of the pants feel is.

Not faulting anyone. I just want to make it absolutely clear that in my
opinion, the ONLY relationship between physical sensation and IFR is in
understanding how physical sensations can harm you and how to deal with
them by instrument referencing all the way through the scan down to
primary panel.
I would NEVER attempt to verify an instrument reading by referencing a
physical sensation. In ANY situation where an instrument reading was
suspect, I would immediately extend my primary scan to include
peripheral instruments to verify the quality of the data that was
suspect. Under NO circumstance, would I EVER allow the time line
necessary to include a physical sensation in this equation. To do so in
my opinion is dangerous not only in a possible erroneous attitude input,
but as well extends the time line to a recovery input.
Physical sensation as relates to IFR is to be understood for it's
hazzards, but avoided when in the soup.

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques brought next idea :
I just want to make it absolutely clear that in my opinion, the ONLY
relationship between physical sensation and IFR is in understanding how
physical sensations can harm you and how to deal with them by instrument
referencing all the way through the scan down to primary panel.
I would NEVER attempt to verify an instrument reading by referencing a
physical sensation. In ANY situation where an instrument reading was suspect,
I would immediately extend my primary scan to include peripheral instruments
to verify the quality of the data that was suspect. Under NO circumstance,
would I EVER allow the time line necessary to include a physical sensation in
this equation. To do so in my opinion is dangerous not only in a possible
erroneous attitude input, but as well extends the time line to a recovery
input.

Being primarily creatures earthbound (land underfoot), where feelings
are our primary sources of instrument accuracy (speed in a car, wind in
our hair), its kewl to trust those sensory inputs. A lot of
day-in/day-out experiences too.

On Sun, 18 May 2008 23:46:31 -0400, Gezellig
wrote:



Being primarily creatures earthbound (land underfoot), where feelings
are our primary sources of instrument accuracy (speed in a car, wind in
our hair), its kewl to trust those sensory inputs. A lot of
day-in/day-out experiences too.


so totally incompetent a viewpoint that you are stunning.

one of the considerable factors in the progress of aviation has been
the use of objective instrumentation that overcomes the many failings
of our biology.

Stealth Pilot

On Tue, 20 May 2008 21:00:11 +0800, Stealth Pilot wrote:

On Sun, 18 May 2008 23:46:31 -0400, Gezellig
wrote:


Being primarily creatures earthbound (land underfoot), where feelings
are our primary sources of instrument accuracy (speed in a car, wind in
our hair), its kewl to trust those sensory inputs. A lot of
day-in/day-out experiences too.


so totally incompetent a viewpoint that you are stunning.

I see. Because I interact in a thread, and am newer at piloting than
you, you get to act like an asshole and treat me with high disdain. This
embellishes your ego, strikes you in a positive way, makes your life
happy as a clam.

I, because of my age and newness, am incompetent. I must wait until I am
as bright as you, hunt Usenet like a jaguar and pounce on newbies,
again, emulating you and acting like an asshole.

I wasn't aware of the privileges of experience. I can hardly wait. to
become the next BunnyIP, Bendover or StealthSockPuppet pilot.

In the meantime, let me practice.

Outside of piloting data, is there anything except rocks and pebbles in
your cranium? To elaborate, my suggestion is that before posting you
should give your head a shake to determine if there is anything inside
and to consider whether you really wished to make the fact public.

Gee, I feel like IFRed already.

I would NEVER attempt to verify an instrument reading by referencing a
physical sensation.

Thank you, Dudley, for weighing in on this all-important topic.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

A Lieberman writes:

I think my point was when there is an action, there should be a
reaction, and if I don't feel the reaction (which is faster then
registering on the instrument), then I need to explore further.

If you are on top of your instruments, no "exploration" is needed. The
reaction you feel may be leading you astray. It may seem uncorrelated to what
the instruments say. If it is possible for you to feel a sensation that does
not represent any change in the instruments (and it is), then logically it is
also possible for the instruments to change without you feeling anything. If
the instruments say that you've entered a turn, you've entered a turn, whether
you felt anything or not.

I am talking the very subtle changes, not changes requiring large
power changes.

Subtle changes are even more misleading.

For example, I come down the ILS at 90 knots with 1900 rpm. If
headwinds cause my groundspeed to drop below 90 knots and I add lets
say 25 RPM to recapture the glideslope and I DON"T feel it in my seat
of the pants, first place I will look is the temperature probe.
Again, talking subtle 25 RPM just finger tip touch to the controls.

Watch the instruments to begin with, not when you fail to feel something you
expect.

If I feel the extra oomph / firmness in my seat of the pants with the
extra 25 RPM and the glideslope starts to recapture, that is a
verification of my action and reaction.

If the tachometer rises by 25 RPM, that's a much more reliable indicator.

Again, very subtle changes I am look and feeling for. I am not saying
make turns by the seat of my pants, primarily verifying actions of
power settings.

You have way too much trust in your sensations.

In my Friday incident, I could tell my attitude indicator of 20 to 30
degree pitch up AND not feeling the extra G's in my rear end, that
something was discrepant having flown this plane for over 600 hours..
That had me going to my backup instruments IMMEDIATELY (VSI and
airspeed) for my analysis and quickly identifying the vacuum as
suspect..

Why weren't you checking the backup instruments to begin with? If they do not
disagree, chances are that all the instruments are working, no matter what
sensations you experience. If they disagree, at least one instrument probably
has a problem--again, no matter what sensations you experience.

If an instrument does not have a backup, you correlate it with other
instruments. They will behave in predictable ways in relation to each other.
If one of them does not seem to correlate with the others, perhaps it has a
problem.

It's not that I even remotely navigated by the seat of my pants, but
something was amiss was felt.

The danger in instrument flight is that all sorts of things are felt, but none
of them is reliable. It is called instrument flight because the pilot ignores
things felt and flies exclusively by the instruments.

I absolutely agree based on time and time again history, that any
feelings in the head absolutely has to be ignored, instruments are
there for that, but for verification of power adjustments, I see no
reason why AS A TOOL, the feeling in your rear end cannot be used as a
verification of the reaction of your actioin (adding or reducing
power).

The feeling in your rear end is no more reliable than the feeling from your
inner ear.

It sounds like your Friday incident has given you a false sense of security.

On Mon, 19 May 2008 04:29:11 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

A Lieberman writes:



The danger in instrument flight is that all sorts of things are felt, but none
of them is reliable. It is called instrument flight because the pilot ignores
things felt and flies exclusively by the instruments.



The feeling in your rear end is no more reliable than the feeling from your
inner ear.

It sounds like your Friday incident has given you a false sense of security.

during the history of scientific endeavour there have been many
individuals who have arrived at the correct answers for the wrong
reasons.

anthony you are perpetually one of those people.

while you may occasionally say the correct things a careful read of
your posts has always revealed the fact that you have inherently an
incompetent understanding of what you write about.

Stealth Pilot