Near miss from space junk.

In article ,
says...
chris writes:

Whenever I fly on instruments on a sim it seems different to when I
did it for my license - the aircraft just continually seems to be
moving left or right or whatever, which meant a moment looking away
from my scan and when you look back the damn thing seems to be leaning
over... I had so much trouble just keeping it upright without getting
the leans that I imagine several years and no practise later I would
have even more trouble.

I had the same thing happen in the sim today; you just have to keep your eye
on the instruments. If there's nothing to see outside the window, there's no
reason _not_ to keep your eye on the instruments.

If you lose visual reference it's damn easy to get the leans, as I
found out when I did my PPL IF training

Leans or not, your instruments will tell you if you are in level flight.
Perhaps animals cannot ignore their intincts, but people can.

If I were to spin you round and round in your seat for a minute (I'm
sure there'd be no shortage of volunteers - and then get you to stand
up and walk twenty feet in a straight line. Can you do it?

If not, wny not? - you can *see* what you're meant to do!

Anyway, point is (given you try that) you now know what a real pilot
experiences (this false inner ear vertigo thing).

You've *never* experienced it in yer simulator.

And PS: how's your flying on a limited panel (no A/H in particular)?

--
Duncan

Sylvain wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:

I had the same thing happen in the sim today; you just have to keep your
eye
on the instruments. If there's nothing to see outside the window, there's
no reason _not_ to keep your eye on the instruments.

there are a number of things in an aircraft under IFR that might take
your attention away from the instruments and which are not confined within
a screen right in front of your eyes; in no particular order: checking
the outside temp and looking whether you are getting ice;

Don't forget, Checking to see if you have entered VMC and their might
be traffic to spot.

Mxsmanic wrote:


If that were really just a consequence of following the instruments
exclusively, then nobody would be able to fly IFR with any precision.


No, it means that YOU can't fly IFR with any precision.

You seem to be constantly unable to come to the realization
that your masturbatory fantasies do not even begin to express
the complex man-in-loop control system that is an aircraft
in real flight.

"chris" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 4, 2:10 pm, "EridanMan" wrote:
On Apr 3, 2:42 am, Mxsmanic wrote:

Sylvain writes:
if you are entering IMC while VFR, knowing where you are will be
the least of your problem: you'll be dead before it matters one
way or the other.

Not if you know how to fly with instruments.

Knowing how to fly with instruments is not enough. The
rationalization that you are currently pushing is among _THE_ most
deadly in aviation.

Frankly, knowing how to fly with instruments is kinda a given to even
get in a cockpit. Its really trivially easy (how hard is it to keep
an artificial horizon level?)

Knowing how to fly with instruments and assuming that means you'll be
safe in IMC is one of the few near-guarantees of ending up an aviation
statistic. The term Sophomore applies more here than probably in any
other aspect of aviation.

Flying on instruments, for a few seconds at least, is trivial.
Operating an aircraft on instruments for anything more than a half
minute or so, is a different animal. What's worse, it doesn't lend
itself to a mistake. Fixate for just 30 seconds on any one thing and
there's a decent chance you'll be beyond recovery.

The other compounding factor is the fact that flying an aircraft is
like walking (or any other physical activity) in that many of the
actions and behaviors you do to respond to the aircraft very quickly
"program" themselves into your muscle memory... (this is actually
important and the mark of a good 'stick and rudder' pilot). Things
like adding the proper rudder in a turn, or correcting for a
turbulence-induced upset (or, as you get better, preventing sed upset
from occurring by feeling it in the yoke and countering it)... These
are all mechanical skills that get programmed by experience.

This is all well, good, and beneficial for good stick and rudder
flying, but the same adaptations that make for a pilot who can shrug
off a gusty crosswind on landing can become VERY dangerous if
incorrectly triggered in an IMC environment.

For example: oddly enough in my piper flying IMC, the act of bending
forward to switch my fuel tanks induces vertigo that feels precisely
like a left-bank turbulence upset. If I bend forward to switch tanks
in IMC while my left hand is on the yoke, my arm will INSTINCTUALLY
move to counter-act the upset. I have no more control over the action
than a baseball player does to close his mitt when he catches a
baseball. Hence, experience in IMC (with a safety pilot) has taught
me to hold the yoke with my right hand during a tank switch (which has
no such muscle memory), so that my brain does automatically attempt to
right the aircraft.

This is not ignorance on the part of the pilot, its simply trained
reflexes manifesting themselves in incorrect ways. The _ONLY_ thing
that can prepare a pilot to be able to control these reflexes and
understand how their personal body and training will respond in the
sensory-limited world of IMC is experience. Period.

Knowing what pictures to look for in the various gauges is laughably
trivial. Knowing what sort of sensations to expect, and what sort of
behavior they will invoke because of your training - THAT is what
keeps you alive IMC.

And thinking that knowing the procedures and gauges is all you need is
a terribly foolish and quite possibly fatal rationalization,
especially if you use to to justify pushing your personal weather/
visibility minimums to a situation where you stand the risk of being
caught inadvertently in clag.

I have come to the conclusion that although mx is wrong about a lot of
stuff, the danger is not to himself, as he has already told us he has
no intention of flying, but instead to those who actually do fly (I am
thinking of student pilots here) and read his posts and get dangerous
ideas from him.


Indeed. This is one of the most difficult concepts for a student pilot to
fully realize, and in reduced visibility situations at night can be just as
confusing, although seldom as deadly. Until you actually try to fly an real
aircraft in IMC, you will never fully realize the danger. A lot of new and
student pilots make the same mistake MC. But the reality is, it's very
difficult, has to be learned, and can't possibly be simulated.

If that were really just a consequence of following the instruments
exclusively, then nobody would be able to fly IFR with any precision.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

I did not say it was a consequence of following instruments
exclusively, I said it was a consequence of attempting to follow
instruments at all before you master simple aircraft control, and a
downside of being an experienced simmer before start your training.

Dave Doe writes:

We didn't say much to each other until Omarama - me; I was thinking long
and hard about my mistakes (Marty's flown with me on many occasions and
he's a smart guy, he knows we don't venture into clouds). At the end of
the day I concluded it was a big mistake of mine to put as much faith in
Marty as I had done - I'm a trained pilot - but Marty isn't.

Was he keeping the aircraft straight and level in IMC? Why didn't you spin
helplessly out of control in 90 seconds, the way you're supposed to whenever
you enter a cloud without an instrument rating?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Ron Natalie writes:

No, it means that YOU can't fly IFR with any precision.

There's nothing special about me.

You seem to be constantly unable to come to the realization
that your masturbatory fantasies do not even begin to express
the complex man-in-loop control system that is an aircraft
in real flight.

You need to get away from highly emotional personal quarrels and back to the
topics at hand. You don't want to fail that next medical.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

EridanMan writes:

I did not say it was a consequence of following instruments
exclusively, I said it was a consequence of attempting to follow
instruments at all before you master simple aircraft control, and a
downside of being an experienced simmer before start your training.

In order to follow instruments successfully, you must master control of the
aircraft.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Dave Doe writes:

If I were to spin you round and round in your seat for a minute (I'm
sure there'd be no shortage of volunteers - and then get you to stand
up and walk twenty feet in a straight line. Can you do it?

If I have an instrument that shows me how to walk straight, yes.

But in reality, aircraft do not spin round and round for minutes at a time
just because they are in clouds.

If not, wny not? - you can *see* what you're meant to do!

A better experiment would be to see if I could _steer_ straight after a spin.
When you fly an aircraft, you move controls--you don't actually walk (which is
a much more complex activity). It's almost impossible to walk with disturbed
equilibrium, because the primary source of information--even with extensive
visual cues--is the inner ear. This is not true of instrument flight, where
the primary source of information is instruments, and a disturbance in
equilibrium, which disorienting, is not an absolute obstacle to maintaining
control.

It's a bit like the difference between being dizzy in a chair and being dizzy
while standing.

And PS: how's your flying on a limited panel (no A/H in particular)?

I haven't tried it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

In order to follow instruments successfully, you must master control of the
aircraft.

My point exactly (almost verbatim).

Mastering control of the aircraft involves developing the 'conditioned
responses' you mentioned earlier. Learning to fly IFR involves
learning to adapt those conditioned responses to the IFR environment.

Simply knowing what to look for on the gauges is _NOT_ enough, and I
think we would all appreciate if you would stop asserting such. It is
not only incorrect, is is a deadly rationalization that has killed
many pilots.

If you want to fly IMC, you need to learn how to adapt your piloting
skills to flying the panel, that requires regular practice. period.