Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

Tina writes:

It seems to me the better pilots use all the clues they have
available, the physiological ones as well as those presented by the
panel, to maintain a sense of the airplane's attitude.

Not under IFR. Under IFR, only the instruments count.

It worries me that so many pilots here are trying so desperately to justify an
extremely dangerous practice. Dudley is being very diplomatic. Under IFR,
sensations don't count at all, ever. Only instruments count. Countless
pilots have died because they refused to accept this. All training and
literature ceaselessly emphasize the importance of this. And yet some people
still argue against it, because they want to believe that they can fly by the
seat of their pants in all conditions. These pilots should take care to
always remain VFR in VMC, because it is clear that they would endanger
themselves under IFR in IMC.

We react to 'bumps' and the like long before the instruments indicate their
effect.

Not if you are doing things right. First, you've been scanning the
instruments constantly, so any change they indicate is immediately noticed.
Second, the bumps must be ignored, so there is nothing to react to when they
occur.

No instrument in our airplane will tell us we are picking up ice, but a
flashlight out along the leading edge will.

That is not a sensation in the context of this discussion. Sensations here
clearly mean physical movements, and people here are trying to justify using
physical movement sensations in the aircraft to fly it, while giving the
instruments only secondary priority. That's not the right way to fly IFR.

At night no instrument will tell us we are in a cloud, but the anti-collision
lights will.

Under IFR, you don't need to know. Your instruments tell you where you are
and where you're going. If you're in IMC, you obviously have visible
moisture, and you can check the temperature to see if you're at risk for
icing.

When getting close to MDA, and including the windscreen in your
instrument scan so you can transition to visual is not an
instrumentation issue.

You are not at MDA during most of the flight. If you can see outside, you're
not in IMC. If you are in IMC, you use only your instruments.

If it were not for the physical effects, the
wind noise, the way the control feel changes with airspeed, and the
like, we might just as well be flying sims.

If you don't like flying by instruments, then fly only VFR in VMC. If you
cannot get away from the desire to depend on physical sensations to fly, don't
go anywhere near IMC. Yes, it's a lot like a sim, the only difference being
that in a sim you feel nothing (unless it's a motion sim), and in real life
you feel something. However, whether you feel nothing or something, you still
fly by instruments, period.

Except of course sims
don't take us to other destinations, and it's the going to some other
place that really drives our particular use of general aviation.

If you don't rely on your instruments in IMC, you'll never reach those other
destinations.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Tina writes:

It seems to me the better pilots use all the clues they have
available, the physiological ones as well as those presented by the
panel, to maintain a sense of the airplane's attitude.

Not under IFR. Under IFR, only the instruments count.


Nope.

Bertie

On May 20, 1:02 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote :

Tina writes:

It seems to me the better pilots use all the clues they have
available, the physiological ones as well as those presented by the
panel, to maintain a sense of the airplane's attitude.

Not under IFR. Under IFR, only the instruments count.

Nope.

My version of IFR is
I Follow Rivers
I Follow Roads
I Follow Railways
:-)

Well, let's remember it takes one example to refute an absolutist
argument.

There is not a rated pilot here who will argue with this: In IMC or
VMC, he or she, relies very much on the sensation of the reduction of
yoke pressure for trimming the airplane. We of course depend on all
available inputs to determine the attitude of the airplane, but we
trim entirely by feel.

One could also invoke a Clintonism technique: it depends on what you
mean by physical sensations -- eyes are a sensory input, too.

On May 19, 9:04 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Tina writes:
It seems to me the better pilots use all the clues they have
available, the physiological ones as well as those presented by the
panel, to maintain a sense of the airplane's attitude.

Not under IFR. Under IFR, only the instruments count.

It worries me that so many pilots here are trying so desperately to justify an
extremely dangerous practice. Dudley is being very diplomatic. Under IFR,
sensations don't count at all, ever. Only instruments count. Countless
pilots have died because they refused to accept this. All training and
literature ceaselessly emphasize the importance of this. And yet some people
still argue against it, because they want to believe that they can fly by the
seat of their pants in all conditions. These pilots should take care to
always remain VFR in VMC, because it is clear that they would endanger
themselves under IFR in IMC.

We react to 'bumps' and the like long before the instruments indicate their
effect.

Not if you are doing things right. First, you've been scanning the
instruments constantly, so any change they indicate is immediately noticed.
Second, the bumps must be ignored, so there is nothing to react to when they
occur.

No instrument in our airplane will tell us we are picking up ice, but a
flashlight out along the leading edge will.

That is not a sensation in the context of this discussion. Sensations here
clearly mean physical movements, and people here are trying to justify using
physical movement sensations in the aircraft to fly it, while giving the
instruments only secondary priority. That's not the right way to fly IFR.

At night no instrument will tell us we are in a cloud, but the anti-collision
lights will.

Under IFR, you don't need to know. Your instruments tell you where you are
and where you're going. If you're in IMC, you obviously have visible
moisture, and you can check the temperature to see if you're at risk for
icing.

When getting close to MDA, and including the windscreen in your
instrument scan so you can transition to visual is not an
instrumentation issue.

You are not at MDA during most of the flight. If you can see outside, you're
not in IMC. If you are in IMC, you use only your instruments.

If it were not for the physical effects, the
wind noise, the way the control feel changes with airspeed, and the
like, we might just as well be flying sims.

If you don't like flying by instruments, then fly only VFR in VMC. If you
cannot get away from the desire to depend on physical sensations to fly, don't
go anywhere near IMC. Yes, it's a lot like a sim, the only difference being
that in a sim you feel nothing (unless it's a motion sim), and in real life
you feel something. However, whether you feel nothing or something, you still
fly by instruments, period.

Except of course sims
don't take us to other destinations, and it's the going to some other
place that really drives our particular use of general aviation.

If you don't rely on your instruments in IMC, you'll never reach those other
destinations.

"Tina" wrote in message
...
Well, let's remember it takes one example to refute an absolutist
argument.

There is not a rated pilot here who will argue with this: In IMC or
VMC, he or she, relies very much on the sensation of the reduction of
yoke pressure for trimming the airplane. We of course depend on all
available inputs to determine the attitude of the airplane, but we
trim entirely by feel.

One could also invoke a Clintonism technique: it depends on what you
mean by physical sensations -- eyes are a sensory input, too.


Very well put.

This whole thread sounds like nothing more than a word game, fueled by nit
pickers.

Who flies anything, especially IMC, without making use of all input.

If the sound of the engine is laboring, the wind noise is low and the
controls are mush - a ASI reading 150 knots should be ignored.

Much to do about nothing. Just a bunch of folks feeding MX.

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:


"Tina" wrote in message
news:eaef0ada-6038-4a16-9f1c-d9dfeecf6bb5
@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com..
.
Well, let's remember it takes one example to refute an absolutist
argument.

There is not a rated pilot here who will argue with this: In IMC or
VMC, he or she, relies very much on the sensation of the reduction of
yoke pressure for trimming the airplane. We of course depend on all
available inputs to determine the attitude of the airplane, but we
trim entirely by feel.

One could also invoke a Clintonism technique: it depends on what you
mean by physical sensations -- eyes are a sensory input, too.


Very well put.

This whole thread sounds like nothing more than a word game, fueled by
nit pickers.

Who flies anything, especially IMC, without making use of all input.

How would you know, wannabe boi?



Bertie

Tina wrote:
Well, let's remember it takes one example to refute an absolutist
argument.

There is not a rated pilot here who will argue with this: In IMC or
VMC, he or she, relies very much on the sensation of the reduction of
yoke pressure for trimming the airplane.


Correct.

Of course that doesn't mean you don't monitor the instruments in the
meantime. Nobody has suggested that, but Anthony keeps trying to argue
that strawman.

The physical sensations allow a pilot to be proactive rather than
reactive. Anthony doesn't understand this, of course, because he hasn't
done it.

-c

gatt writes:

The physical sensations allow a pilot to be proactive rather than
reactive.

Not under IFR.

On May 20, 2:33*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
gatt writes:
The physical sensations allow a pilot to be proactive rather than
reactive.

Not under IFR.

How do you know since MSFS does not give you physical feedback?

Besides the above is WRONG. IFR means Instrument Flight Rules which
is different then IMC.

A Lieberman writes:

How do you know since MSFS does not give you physical feedback?

The law requires it.

Besides the above is WRONG. IFR means Instrument Flight Rules which
is different then IMC.

I wrote IFR because I meant IFR, not IMC.