Rudder for final runway alignment (?)

Viperdoc writes:

Unless you're in a full cockpit
multi screen model, it's still just a game.

Following that reasoning, unless you have full motion, it's just a
game. In fact, unless the air pressure in the simulator with
altitude, it's just a game. And so on.

I did initial Baron training at Flight Safety, and even though
there's no motion, I found myself leaning, clutching the yoke,
and sweating during a VMC rollover.

What did you train with?

In MS Flight Simulator something relatively slow and stable like a Baron
(which I fly) is not too bad, but the Extra model is terrible (the real one
is a lot quicker than the PC version in roll and pitch).

I've tried the Extra and it seemed extremely fast to me, but I have no
idea how the real one might be. I'm not very interested in acrobatics
so it's not a big deal.

Regardless, the visceral feedback and visual cues from flying a real plane
are a lot different than sitting in a chair in front of a screen. For the
cost of a good computer, screen, and peripherals you could be more than half
way to having a real pilot's license.

Hardly. A pilot's license here would cost me at least ten times more
than the best computer around.

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

T o d d P a t t i s t writes:

Yes, that's common in simulator flight - you want to salvage
at all costs since it costs nothing if you fail and going
around takes time, which is less fun than "saving" a
horrible approach to make a successful landing.

Exactly.

Not only are they using different aircraft, bush pilots tend
to be good pilots, which means they make good approaches.
While it may not be obvious in the simulator setting, most
of the landing is in the approach.

In the videos I've seen, the "airport" (such as an expanse of sand in
a river) seems to pop up out of nowhere as they come out of a turn.
But I suppose that if the aircraft and pilot are up to it, just about
anything is possible.

I think simulator landings are harder in the sense that they
don't give you most of the clues that you get in a real
landing. Being a good pilot means that the pilot is really
sensitive to those subtle clues. He hears the change in
airspeed as a gust hits him. He feels the subtle G-change
as wing lift varies entering lift or sink, he feels the
slight pressure change required on the stick to hold the
wing level as he descends with one wing passing through the
air rolling over the treeline. All of those clues tell him
what the aircraft is going to do before it actually does it.
You don't have any of that in a sim.

But other people tell me that depending on physical clues is
dangerous, particularly if flying conditions are other than ideal.

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

T o d d P a t t i s t writes:

It does not pop out of nowhere to the pilot. What you see
from a camera perspective is limited to the field of view of
the camera. The pilot is tracking altitude, position and
speed to be right where he wants to be for the terrain and
wind.

True. I only have one "window" through which I can see things (or at
least only one window at a time--the PC cannot change them as quickly
as I'd be able to turn my head in real life).

No pilot can fly in IMC without instruments. All pilots can
do it in VMC. Except for in aircraft I'll never fly, all
landings are finished in visual conditions.

Which implies that sensations are actually useless, since anything
that doesn't provide reliable visual input is IMC. If sensations were
reliable, you could fly in a featureless fog and still be able to rely
on what you feel to avoid hitting the ground.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
No pilot can fly in IMC without instruments. All pilots can
do it in VMC. Except for in aircraft I'll never fly, all
landings are finished in visual conditions.

Which implies that sensations are actually useless

In IMC, sensations ARE useless. Worse, not only are they useless, humans
are so in the habit of trusting their sensations, sensations become a
liability in IMC. That's the point of the comments in this thread.

Peter Duniho writes:

In IMC, sensations ARE useless. Worse, not only are they useless, humans
are so in the habit of trusting their sensations, sensations become a
liability in IMC. That's the point of the comments in this thread.

The people I'm reading here seem to be saying exactly the opposite:
that you have to depend on these magic physical sensations in order to
fly properly; that you must "feel" the aircraft or you aren't really
flying it.

It's impossible for both of these assertions to be simultaneously
true.

All the literature I've encountered says that you trust your
instruments first, and so that's what I do (of course, in a sim, I
don't have much choice, anyway, although I can simulate the presence
or absence of visual cues, at least).

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

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:
Peter Duniho writes:

In IMC, sensations ARE useless. Worse, not only are they useless, humans
are so in the habit of trusting their sensations, sensations become a
liability in IMC. That's the point of the comments in this thread.

The people I'm reading here seem to be saying exactly the opposite:
that you have to depend on these magic physical sensations in order to
fly properly; that you must "feel" the aircraft or you aren't really
flying it.

It's impossible for both of these assertions to be simultaneously
true.

Sure it is. In VFR conditions your eyes give the frame of reference for
all your other senses to operate correctly. In IFR conditions your eyes
aren't available to keep your inner ear calibrated and the physical
sensations become unreliable.

I'm a low time pilot, but in VMC I can fly an approach with no instruments
whatsoever in any of the 3 aircraft I've flown. An airpseed indicator
is nice, but not necessary once you get a feel for the physical clues.

--
Scott Post

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
The people I'm reading here seem to be saying exactly the opposite:
that you have to depend on these magic physical sensations in order to
fly properly; that you must "feel" the aircraft or you aren't really
flying it.

No, that's not what they saying. Not for IMC. You are misreading the
posts.

In VMC, "feel" is very important. A pilot's "feel" for the airplane is what
(in large part) distinguishes an average pilot from one who is a master of
his craft.

It's impossible for both of these assertions to be simultaneously
true.

The two assertions you are comparing are not mutually exclusive at all.
They are for two entirely different kinds of flight.

All the literature I've encountered says that you trust your
instruments first, and so that's what I do (of course, in a sim, I
don't have much choice, anyway, although I can simulate the presence
or absence of visual cues, at least).

You obviously have not read any quality literature that pertains to flying
in visual conditions then. Focusing on the instruments is one of the worst,
least efficient ways to fly in visual conditions.

You are right, in a simulator you really don't have much choice. The
non-instrument feedback is so minimal, instruments become primary. It sure
would be nice if you could figure out that you're flying a simulator, not a
real airplane. No matter how many times you claim that the whole point of a
simulation is to match as closely as possible the real thing, the fact
remains that the simulation does NOT match the real thing. In the case of a
PC-based simulator like MSFS, it really doesn't even come that close.

And you need to find better literature to read.

Pete

Mxsmanic wrote:
Peter Duniho writes:

In IMC, sensations ARE useless. Worse, not only are they useless,
humans are so in the habit of trusting their sensations, sensations
become a liability in IMC. That's the point of the comments in this
thread.

The people I'm reading here seem to be saying exactly the opposite:
that you have to depend on these magic physical sensations in order to
fly properly; that you must "feel" the aircraft or you aren't really
flying it.

I'm not sure your summary is accurate - summarizing the viewpoints of
multiple posters has never been a terribly useful tool, IMHO. But if I were
forced to summarize what people were saying, I think a more accurate
summary would be this: in VMC one can and should rely firstly on outside
visual cues, balance (inner ear), tactile, and proprioception senses - and
use instrument readings to adjust the flight parameters more precisely. But
it would not be a fair summary, but I think closer to what "people" are
trying to say.

It's impossible for both of these assertions to be simultaneously
true.

Perhaps because Peter is talking about IMC and others are talking about
VMC. In VMC there are no outside visual reference cues that the brain can
use to recalibrate the signals the inner ear sends. And in VMC someone else
is taking care of the "see and avoid" aspect.

Try this for more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_disorientation

Jim Logajan wrote:
In VMC there are no outside visual reference cues that the
brain can use to recalibrate the signals the inner ear sends. And in
VMC someone else is taking care of the "see and avoid" aspect.

Oops! The above should say "IMC" where "VMC' is written.

Scott Post writes:

Sure it is. In VFR conditions your eyes give the frame of reference for
all your other senses to operate correctly. In IFR conditions your eyes
aren't available to keep your inner ear calibrated and the physical
sensations become unreliable.

In other words, all the important information is visual, and
sensations don't matter.

Remove the sensations, and you can still fly visually without
instruments (in VMC). Remove the visual input, and you cannot fly in
any conditions with sensations alone.

I'm a low time pilot, but in VMC I can fly an approach with no instruments
whatsoever in any of the 3 aircraft I've flown.

Try it blindfolded.

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