Stability augmentation promises to give you even less control

On Aug 4, 10:22*am, Mxsmanic wrote:
a writes:
There was something in the literature recently about using a/p in IMC
is safer, but from my point of view I am much more aware of what's
going on hand flying (and have done so over the Rockies) than sitting
back and 'managing' the airplane while it's on auto pilot..

The workload for single-pilot IFR is substantial, particularly in actual IMC.
This is an important argument favoring the suggestion that autopilot be
heavily used for IFR. With two pilots, things are easier, although an
autopilot might still be preferable.

At least the autopilot only does what it is told. At the same time, it does
encourage a certain amount of complacency, which has even bit airline pilots
on more than one occasion.

A sad confession is the a/p does do a better job of keeping the
needles crossed on an ILS than I do, but the correct interpretation of
that is, I need more practice at it than the a/p does.

There's no shame in an automated system doing better than a human being at
something it is designed to do.

A huge 'and
moreover' is, I want hands on near minima, don't want to mess with the
a/p if I have to fly a miss, and don't want to transition from a/p to
manual when I decide conditions are not right for a landing.

Aviators understand this stuff.

It depends on the aircraft and the type of flying.

I hate responding to a troll, but his statement is nonsensical when
he claims a substantially higher workload for SEL under IFR/IMC. What
increase in workload? Control by reference to instruments? Navigating?
Communicating? Changing Frequencies? Flying a predetermined route?
Most of us rated for instrument flight would assert the workload is
NOT substantial and I, among many, prefer IFR than VFR because it is
in fact easier and certainly safer. It's a matter of training,
something a non-aviator would not understand. It would take a
completely abnormal set of circumstances before I would consider a
long night CAVU XC flight under VFR Abnormal would be, for example,
during the controller's slowdown/strike during the Reagan
presidency.

This is an aviator's forum, aviators understand this stuff.

a writes:

I hate responding to a troll, but his statement is nonsensical when
he claims a substantially higher workload for SEL under IFR/IMC. What
increase in workload? Control by reference to instruments? Navigating?
Communicating? Changing Frequencies? Flying a predetermined route?

Yes, all of these and more.

Most of us rated for instrument flight would assert the workload is
NOT substantial ...

I'm not sure who "us" might be, but every source I've read on the topic
asserts that single-pilot IFR represents a substantial workload. And IFR in
general is a higher workload than VFR, if it's done right.

... and I, among many, prefer IFR than VFR because it is
in fact easier and certainly safer.

It's easier when you've been doing it for a long time, and it's certainly
safer when it's done right, but that doesn't mean that the workload is
trivial. This is especially true when you are flying in IMC and you actually
need IFR, as opposed to flying in clear weather and choosing IFR for logistic
reasons.

It's a matter of training, something a non-aviator would not understand.

A lot of non-aviators teach it, so they obviously understand it.

On Aug 4, 5:52*pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

It's a matter of training, something a non-aviator would not understand..

A lot of non-aviators teach it, so they obviously understand it.

WRONG

A couple of you guys seem to have a real obsession with Mx and will go to
any length to try to discredit anything and everything he posts here. I
have to admit that it sometimes makes you look a little ridiculous,
especially when he's more right than wrong, and you're response is more
wrong than right.

Just because the guy isn't a pilot doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't
understand anything about aviation. I know quite a few pilots that know a
lot less than he appears to know.


wrote in message
...
On Aug 4, 5:52 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

It's a matter of training, something a non-aviator would not understand.

A lot of non-aviators teach it, so they obviously understand it.

WRONG

On Aug 5, 8:50*am, "bds" wrote:
A couple of you guys seem to have a real obsession with Mx and will go to
any length to try to discredit anything and everything he posts here. *I
have to admit that it sometimes makes you look a little ridiculous,
especially when he's more right than wrong, and you're response is more
wrong than right.

Where am I even remotely wrong in this thread????????

He is dead wrong in what he says in this thread. He needs lessons on
English if he thinks a NON aviator can understand what it takes to fly
an airplane.

I can't imagine you even agreeing with what he says. If you fly a
REAL airplane, you wouldn't have said what you did above.

On Aug 5, 2:55*pm, "Stephen!" wrote:

* In other words, without ground school I was able to not only take (and
pass) the written but also the practical.[1] *Before I even had my
introductory flight I already had an understanding of "what it takes to
fly".

[1] *My primary CFI quizzed me and determined that I was ready for the
written. *I'd spent the previous 30+ years doing 'self-study' and he
realized that trying to do ground school would be a waste of time for
both of us.

Book knowledge won't get you out of inadvertant IMC. Book knowledge
won't help you if you need to divert. If you fly far enough on a
regular basis, it's not if but when these situations will happen.
Book knowledge tells you wat to do to avoid it and how to get out of
it but doesn't allow you to experience it first hand.

Would you want to be taught by a CFI WITH ONLY MSFS experience and no
real airplane flying experience??????

I'd think and hope not! I know I would not!

Ever try to reach for something in heavy turbulence in a real plane
such as a throttle? Compare that to MSFS and then come back and lets
talk. The two doesn't compare. Ever experience leans and have to be
forced to ignore your bodily sensations. Compare that to MSFS and
then come back and lets talk.

Mx has absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE of what it takes to fly a real plane
with his ZERO PIC time and only MSFS time. ZERO, NADA. MSFS and real
world flying don't compare as he wants his readership to believe.

You can talk all the theories about what it take to fly a plane but
when the rubber meets the road, it's you that is flying the plane, not
the books. I have yet had to have a hard time reaching for my keyboard
in MSFS severe turbulence LOL yet conversly try reaching for the
throttle or tune a radio in light to moderate chop.

He talks like he flies XC's in a citation. HE SIMULATES, he doesnt'
fly. He presents himself as a pilot. He is not a pilot, he is
simulating being a pilot on a desktop computer.

He outright lies by misleading people.

'nuf said.....

writes:

Book knowledge won't get you out of inadvertant IMC. Book knowledge
won't help you if you need to divert.

Which parts of doing these things are not documented in books?

Book knowledge tells you wat to do to avoid it and how to get out of
it but doesn't allow you to experience it first hand.

So?

Mx has absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE of what it takes to fly a real plane
with his ZERO PIC time and only MSFS time. ZERO, NADA. MSFS and real
world flying don't compare as he wants his readership to believe.

What are your total hours flying, just out of curiosity?

On Aug 6, 7:55*am, "Stephen!" wrote:
" wrote in news:ccab996d-ac27-41ee-
:

He is dead wrong in what he says in this thread. *He needs lessons on
English if he thinks a NON aviator can understand what it takes to fly
an airplane.

* I'm pretty sure you are stretching it a little here... *Care to guess
how many hours of Ground School I had when I got my PPL?

* Here's a hint: *Zero.

How many hours flying did you have ?

We didn't have (or need) 'ground schools'.
You picked up the theory as you trained and flew.

On Aug 6, 10:45*am, "Stephen!" wrote:

* Somewhere between 50 and 60. *During my training I had a bit of diffculty
with tropical weather, aircraft having proper insurance, and terrorist
attacks shutting down the airspace system that extended my time several
hours longer than it should have been.

I fooled round and didn't do my PPL until I had over 70 hours.
At the time 40 hours was the lowest time permitted

On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 08:50:16 -0500, bds wrote:

A couple of you guys seem to have a real obsession with Mx and will go to
any length to try to discredit anything and everything he posts here. I
have to admit that it sometimes makes you look a little ridiculous,
especially when he's more right than wrong, and you're response is more
wrong than right.

Just because the guy isn't a pilot doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't
understand anything about aviation. I know quite a few pilots that know a
lot less than he appears to know.

Goodie, now take you and the other troll and go shove one up your ass.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!