Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

A Lieberman wrote:
On May 20, 9:55 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:

BOTH might be telling you something so
they should not be ignored.

Exactly my point. Especially the absense of an expected sensation
(see further down).

But BOTH are physical sensations and as such
are NEVER used as a source to make a control change while IFR.

Agree, and I never said to make a control change. I use it to VERIFY
an existing condition. If I am climbing, AI shows normal pitch up and
I feel positive G's life is good. If I add power to capture the glide
slope to to drive it level to capture it, needles move in the
directioin expected and I feel it in the seat of my pants, life is
good. The feeling is CONFIRMING the instrument trends, life is good.

If you feel a physical sensation while on instruments, it is indeed a
cue, but NOT an actionable cue. ALL sensations are simply there. You
NEVER act in ANY way on what ANY sensation is giving you in the way of a
cue.

And this is where I may digress a little, operative word is a little.
It's actionable in the sense of expanding your scan in determining why
something is not right. I am not saying make a control change based
on a sensation, but I am saying start looking elsewhere on your panel
to resolve the discrepancy between what you feel and what you see.

Using my example, pitch up AI, and not feeling G's made me look
elsewhere for discrepancies. If I would have followed the AI, first
instinct would have been push the nose over and rectify the AI WITHOUT
considering other instruments. It was the discrepancy of not feeling
the G's and showing a pitch up that made me ACT to further my scan to
the VSI and airspeed QUICKER then my normal scan process would have
taken. I made NO changes in my airplane configuration until I
furthered my scan to my secondary gauges

If the sensation is expected by something you have done control
wise that's fine.

THIS IS EXACTLY what I am saying. Based on control INPUTS, I should
have a corresponding feeling in the seat of my pants.

If it isn't, don't act on it. Your scan is in progress
at all times.

THIS IS EXACTLY what I am saying. If there is a discrepancy, need to
search further for what is going on, not act on sense.

You control the aircraft based on instrument cues ONLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Agree, and what you feel should be what the instrument reads. If
climbing, feel some G's. The feeling CONFIRMS what the instruments
read, not the other way around. This is what I am trying to drive
home.

God.I hope this clears this up!

Hopefully what I say above clears it up. I really think we are on the
same page, just a matter of how I am wording it :-)

Mentally "looking for confirmation" or "expecting confirmation" from a
physical sensation and referencing physical sensation in any shape or
form to what the instruments are telling you in any way at all is an
extremely dangerous practice while IFR.

I can't honestly tell you from reading your posts that you and I are on
the same page at all. I can tell you that if you are relying on physical
sensation in any way whatsoever while on instruments, you and I are on
VERY different pages with this issue.
We all know physical sensation exists when on instruments. It is NOT
there to be used, for verification, or confirmation! It is there to be
understood and blocked out from any part of the instrument scan.
If you agree with this comment, we are in agreement. If you feel that
physical sensation can be used as a confirmation tool while in
instrument conditions, I'm afraid you and I simply have to part company
on this issue. In that case, I wish you the very best believe me, but
I'll bug you no more on this as I've been repeating the same mantra now
for about a dozen exchanges.
No hard feelings I hope, but I just don't seem to be sharing your
opinions on this issue.


--
Dudley Henriques

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
:

On May 20, 9:16 am, romeomike wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:

I'm afraid we're still not on the same page.
If you are USING a seat of the pants sensation as a cue to ACT
rather than as a cue that expansion of the cross check is
warranted, you are going to die in instrument
conditions.....period! You NEVER include a seat of the pants
feeling into your reactive action path when on instruments.
Look; let me make this perfectly clear. There is NO actionable
difference between the "leans" and a "seat of the pants" sensation.
BOTH are present and of course felt. BOTH might be telling you
something so they should not be ignored. But BOTH are physical
sensations and as such are NEVER used as a source to make a control
change while IFR. If you feel a physical sensation while on
instruments, it is indeed a cue, but NOT an actionable cue. ALL
sensations are simply there. You NEVER act in ANY way on what ANY
sensation is giving you in the way of a cue. If the sensation is
expected by something you have done control wise that's fine. If it
isn't, don't act on it. Your scan is in progress at all times. If
something looks out of line, EXPAND THE SCAN! You control the
aircraft based on instrument cues ONLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You exist in
a world of physical cues. Simply know they are there and go to the
panel!! God.I hope this clears this up!

Clear and concise. Excellent!!

Yeah I really love that word "ACTIONABLE".
I'm going to use it actionably.


I'm sure you will.


Bertie

On May 20, 12:56*pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:

No hard feelings I hope, but I just don't seem to be sharing your
opinions on this issue.

Absolutely no hard feelings :-))

I think we all have the same goal, and that's the safe outcome of any
flight.

One thing for sure, we are not robots, and don't do the same thing,
but that's the human side of us.

A Lieberman writes:

Hopefully what I say above clears it up. I really think we are on the
same page, just a matter of how I am wording it :-)

You'll be on the same page when you admit that you are wrong.

A Lieberman writes:

One thing for sure, we are not robots, and don't do the same thing,
but that's the human side of us.

Some human sides lead to safety; others lead to danger.

gatt writes:

Liar.

"You're demonstrating a poor attitude." -you

I was attempting to deal with extreme intransigence on a matter of extreme
importance. It's vital that people not get the idea that you don't have to
fly on instruments in instrument flight. That's just not the way it works.

Tina writes:

You might have noticed it takes a LONG time in a sim to arrive at a
real destination.

It takes the same amount of time in the sim that it takes in real life.

It's not often we climb aboard our airplane without
wanting to actually, after a flight, be in a different place.

Do you fly for travel, or do you fly for the sake of flying?

There are a few real life issues your simming may not correctly
represent. For example, one can fly in IMC and have excellent
visibility and outside reference. IMC does NOT mean being in the
clouds.

IMC that does not include impaired visibility is a legal construct and not
relevant to this discussion.

terry writes:

Next time you go there Mx do you reckon you could get me a souvenir
cloth badge, Ive been collecting them for years, and I havent got
KLAX. I'll pay of course and add $5 for your trouble. Was that the
2 or 4 seat sim?

It was the Baron, with club-style seating.

Steve Foley writes:

You also tried to 'fly' from KTEX to KASE, slammed into a mountain , and
lived.

That was VFR.

gatt writes:

Don't preach to me about what pilots do in IMC.

If you disagree with what I say, cite the parts with which you don't agree,
and explain why.