Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

Buster Hymen submitted this idea :
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in news:e1a5b2c5-9592-4e83-
:

When I was a kid, I was spun to dizzy, and
then staggered when I tried to walk.

You still haven't recovered.

In the spirit of this thread, adios asshole.

PLONKIE :-@

Dudley Henriques wrote:
First of all, I've been reading a thread here where pilots are dealing
with Mxsmanic on the issue of physical sensation vs instruments in an
IFR environment, specifically when certain instrument failures are
either involved or suspected.

The following doesn't address the thrust of your post, but rather a
different point I believe I saw in the same thread and would like to
comment on:

I only spot-checked that thread so I don't know what all the claims were
(or whether what follows has already been raised.) One of the few spot-
checked posts I saw had Mxsmanic wondering why physical sensation should be
considered so important to successful flight in VMC when such sensations
are inapplicable to radio control aircraft flight and even dangerous in IFR
flight in IMC.

It seemed a reasonable point, but after a bit of thought it seemed
logically flawed and potentially dangerous when applied to VFR flight in
VMC because:

1) When flying under VFR or IFR in VMC, "see and avoid" is a regulatory
requirement - and a dang good idea. Since the PIC already must spend a fair
amount of time maintaining a visual lookout in VMC to satisfy that safety
requirement, the PIC is better off taking advantage of visual cues and
physical sensations than entirely head-down ops. Spending most of the time
viewing instruments in a standard pattern increases the probability of mid-
air collisions. Which would ruin your whole day.

2) Radio control is inherently "see and avoid" and mostly in VMC. Also, I
believe scale matters. I.e. landing an R/C plane hard doesn't always break
it, but the equivalent hard landing in a full size plane would break it.
And even with the strength/scale advantage the accident rate in R/C
aircraft operations is extremely high relative to full-size flight ops and
wouldn't be tolerated in full size aircraft. So at best, R/C ops do not
appear to be applicable. The difficulty of R/C flight may even be
considered evidence in favor of the advantage of the physical sensations
and visual cues of first-person piloting.

Jim Logajan wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:
First of all, I've been reading a thread here where pilots are dealing
with Mxsmanic on the issue of physical sensation vs instruments in an
IFR environment, specifically when certain instrument failures are
either involved or suspected.

The following doesn't address the thrust of your post, but rather a
different point I believe I saw in the same thread and would like to
comment on:

I only spot-checked that thread so I don't know what all the claims were
(or whether what follows has already been raised.) One of the few spot-
checked posts I saw had Mxsmanic wondering why physical sensation should be
considered so important to successful flight in VMC when such sensations
are inapplicable to radio control aircraft flight and even dangerous in IFR
flight in IMC.

It seemed a reasonable point, but after a bit of thought it seemed
logically flawed and potentially dangerous when applied to VFR flight in
VMC because:

1) When flying under VFR or IFR in VMC, "see and avoid" is a regulatory
requirement - and a dang good idea. Since the PIC already must spend a fair
amount of time maintaining a visual lookout in VMC to satisfy that safety
requirement, the PIC is better off taking advantage of visual cues and
physical sensations than entirely head-down ops. Spending most of the time
viewing instruments in a standard pattern increases the probability of mid-
air collisions. Which would ruin your whole day.

2) Radio control is inherently "see and avoid" and mostly in VMC. Also, I
believe scale matters. I.e. landing an R/C plane hard doesn't always break
it, but the equivalent hard landing in a full size plane would break it.
And even with the strength/scale advantage the accident rate in R/C
aircraft operations is extremely high relative to full-size flight ops and
wouldn't be tolerated in full size aircraft. So at best, R/C ops do not
appear to be applicable. The difficulty of R/C flight may even be
considered evidence in favor of the advantage of the physical sensations
and visual cues of first-person piloting.

I would agree totally that visual references (all cues including
physical actually) are applicable to VFR flight.
RC is not my specialty and I would tend to leave these things to those
more familiar with the venue. :-)
My main concern here lies only with any IFR reference that physical
sensation is to be used in conjunction with an instrument reading or
suspected instrument error as a cross check as opposed to expanding the
basic scan to include raw data instrument substantiation and verification.

--
Dudley Henriques

On May 18, 4:58*pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Like I said gang, it's everybody's personal decision to make. I'm simply
stating here what I'm going to do myself. I'll not be ragging on those
who don't think the way I do on these issues.
I am hopeful however, that Mxsmanic and those who have been his
adversaries will simply read what I've said here and say nothing to each
other about it but rather simply and silently take a few steps backward
and consider re-engaging with each other, each giving a little without
saying or admitting they are giving a little.
Who knows; I'll be giving it a shot anyway.

It is pretty cool to see that 90% of this thread is useable info
coming from experts sharing their opinions. This non-combative type
of exchange helps newbies like myself learn.

I am particularly interested to see what final word is on the trust-
your-instruments argument.

Also, I read somewhere that JFK Junior's plane crashed probably
because he did not trust his intstruments. What's the likelihood of
that?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

On May 18, 9:23*pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

It is pretty cool to see that 90% of this thread is useable info
coming from experts sharing their opinions. *This non-combative type
of exchange helps newbies like myself learn.

Unfortunately, I'd suspect it's about to change..... Mx stepped in.
I am not replying to his post so I dont' contribute to any additional
noise and he doesn't understand the real world environment of flying
an airplane.. Hopefully others will respect Dudley's request.....

Also, I read somewhere that JFK Junior's plane crashed probably
because he did not trust his intstruments. *What's the likelihood of
that?

Hopefully for an instrument pilot, NEVER, but when you have an
instrument go out, it does up the anti in IDENTIFYING the problem and
then tossing that instrument out of your scan.

In my case, the change was pretty dramatic as it happened after
departing and in my climb in my departure as I was entering IMC.
Everything was absolutely normal on my first 1000 feet of climb and
nothing had changed on what I felt in the seat of my pants when I saw
the AI start showing a pitch up just about 100 feet inside IMC. Had I
really pitched up that much, I would have felt it. The lack of
feeling it immediately made me look at my VSI and it was rock solid
700 fpm climb, no change from below the cloud deck. Next instrument I
looked at was my airspeed and that was 90 knots, so secondary
instruments confirmed a normal climb and further confirmed my lack of
feeling in my butt indicated the AI was ghosting up on me.

I believe it's not normal to get such a dramatic change like I did,
but then again, as I am still finding out, it may not be the vacuum
pump, but the vacuum pump regulator that went out on me in my plane.
Will find out tomorrow morning when I talk with the A&P.

writes:

Hopefully for an instrument pilot, NEVER, but when you have an
instrument go out, it does up the anti in IDENTIFYING the problem and
then tossing that instrument out of your scan.

You identify a failing instrument by correlating it with other instruments.
If you are continuously scanning the instruments, you should notice something
wrong very quickly, if it's a sudden failure, and still in plenty of time, if
it's a gradual failure.

In my case, the change was pretty dramatic as it happened after
departing and in my climb in my departure as I was entering IMC.
Everything was absolutely normal on my first 1000 feet of climb and
nothing had changed on what I felt in the seat of my pants when I saw
the AI start showing a pitch up just about 100 feet inside IMC. Had I
really pitched up that much, I would have felt it. The lack of
feeling it immediately made me look at my VSI and it was rock solid
700 fpm climb, no change from below the cloud deck. Next instrument I
looked at was my airspeed and that was 90 knots, so secondary
instruments confirmed a normal climb and further confirmed my lack of
feeling in my butt indicated the AI was ghosting up on me.

Why weren't you looking at these other instruments already?

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

Hopefully for an instrument pilot, NEVER, but when you have an
instrument go out, it does up the anti in IDENTIFYING the problem and
then tossing that instrument out of your scan.

You identify a failing instrument by correlating it with other
instruments. If you are continuously scanning the instruments, you
should notice something wrong very quickly, if it's a sudden failure,
and still in plenty of time, if it's a gradual failure.

So, which one failed, fjukwit?

Which one do you follow?


You have no idea, none at all.


Bertie

On Sun, 18 May 2008 19:45:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Also, I read somewhere that JFK Junior's plane crashed probably
because he did not trust his intstruments. *What's the likelihood of
that?

Hopefully for an instrument pilot, NEVER, but when you have an
instrument go out, it does up the anti in IDENTIFYING the problem and
then tossing that instrument out of your scan.

In my case, the change was pretty dramatic as it happened after
departing and in my climb in my departure as I was entering IMC.
Everything was absolutely normal on my first 1000 feet of climb and
nothing had changed on what I felt in the seat of my pants when I saw
the AI start showing a pitch up just about 100 feet inside IMC. Had I
really pitched up that much, I would have felt it. The lack of
feeling it immediately made me look at my VSI and it was rock solid
700 fpm climb, no change from below the cloud deck. Next instrument I
looked at was my airspeed and that was 90 knots, so secondary
instruments confirmed a normal climb and further confirmed my lack of
feeling in my butt indicated the AI was ghosting up on me.

I believe it's not normal to get such a dramatic change like I did,
but then again, as I am still finding out, it may not be the vacuum
pump, but the vacuum pump regulator that went out on me in my plane.
Will find out tomorrow morning when I talk with the A&P.

Ask him/her what instruments show the greatest failure levels.
Pitot-based?

Gezellig wrote in :

On Sun, 18 May 2008 19:45:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Also, I read somewhere that JFK Junior's plane crashed probably
because he did not trust his intstruments. *What's the likelihood of
that?

Hopefully for an instrument pilot, NEVER, but when you have an
instrument go out, it does up the anti in IDENTIFYING the problem and
then tossing that instrument out of your scan.

In my case, the change was pretty dramatic as it happened after
departing and in my climb in my departure as I was entering IMC.
Everything was absolutely normal on my first 1000 feet of climb and
nothing had changed on what I felt in the seat of my pants when I saw
the AI start showing a pitch up just about 100 feet inside IMC. Had I
really pitched up that much, I would have felt it. The lack of
feeling it immediately made me look at my VSI and it was rock solid
700 fpm climb, no change from below the cloud deck. Next instrument I
looked at was my airspeed and that was 90 knots, so secondary
instruments confirmed a normal climb and further confirmed my lack of
feeling in my butt indicated the AI was ghosting up on me.

I believe it's not normal to get such a dramatic change like I did,
but then again, as I am still finding out, it may not be the vacuum
pump, but the vacuum pump regulator that went out on me in my plane.
Will find out tomorrow morning when I talk with the A&P.

Ask him/her what instruments show the greatest failure levels.
Pitot-based?


You're a moron.

On Mon, 19 May 2008 19:53:44 GMT, Benjamin Dover wrote:

You're

PLONK