I give up, after many, many years!

On May 17, 9:12*pm, " wrote:
On May 17, 9:43*pm, "Jay Honeck" wrote:
Again, by flying by the seat of my pants and knowing how my plane
feels at given stages of flight, that really saved my skin especially
in the identify the problem stage!

Al, you crack me up ! You gotta tell us how you developed this 6th
sence that allows you to fly approaches by the seat of your pants. Jay
is right on this one. Granted, if this MX person would go for a plane
ride once in a while most of what he argues here would be self
evident. You on the other hand , claiming that superior sense and
skill got you through an instrument failure, is just macho bravado.
Got a good chuckle by what you consider a low approach, 1000ft ceiling
is VFR man . Furthermore, a sim is a very usefull tool. Why do you
think the airlines use them. All of the sims that I have flown have
been harder to fly than the real A/C. Dont get me wrong, I am glad
that you made it through OK but lighten up G

Allen

Frank

writes:

If you "trust but verify your instruments" you will be here to share
your experiences. Part of that verification BEGINS with the seat of
your pants feeling.

Since the instruments are the most reliable source of information, "verifying"
them against any other source serves no purpose.

Out of 825+ flight hours I have flown, 59.4 were in IMC, so I would
believe I am reasonably qualified to stress the importance of the
above based on personal experience even though I am not an instructor.

Perhaps when you have 500 hours in IMC, you'll place more trust in your
instruments and be less inclined to think that you can fly IFR by feel.

On May 18, 11:14*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

Perhaps when you have 500 hours in IMC, you'll place more trust in your
instruments and be less inclined to think that you can fly IFR by feel.

You do that, and you will be a statistic. Amount of hours in IMC
have nothing to do with it.

Complacency has no room in a cockpit of a real airplane.

MSFS, yes you can be complacent, no big deal. In a real airplane that
leaves the real ground, it doesn't work that way, VFR or IFR.

TRUST BUT VERIFY..............

I talk from experience from using MSFS and flying a real airplane. Can
you?

On May 18, 6:26*am, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

Again, you're arguing about a different topic -- flight in IMC without a
vacuum system. *This is often classified as an "emergency", and you must use
everything you can to get out of it -- including your "seat of the pants".

Jay, good observation here but Al is still wrong. As you probably
remember from training you have primary and secondary instruments for
climbs, turns, decents, etc. To claim to be able to replace any of
these with your superior senses is not correct and a bad habit.

In normal instrument flight, pilots are trained to ignore what their body is
telling them.

Exactly. As you move up in the approach categories this becomes more
important because you have much less time between being on course and
a full scale deflection. On a A3 Hud you even initiate the flare by a
prompt on the combiner. Other than a little bit of control feedback
seat of the pants is pretty much out the window.

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article lMVXj.169277$yE1.70867@attbi_s21,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Third, and most likely alternative: he's just stupid.

MX is many things. ....

But stupid? I don't think so.

If it is not a troll, then it doesn't appear to be able to learn.

Is that not one definition of stupid?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

A Lieberman writes:

Complacency has no room in a cockpit of a real airplane.

In hard IMC, going by the book is the proper procedure. Flying by feel is
dangerous.

I talk from experience from using MSFS and flying a real airplane.

A lot of accident pilots have had either or both. I really cannot see any
reason to lend credence to your assertion.

On May 18, 11:02*am, "F. Baum" wrote:
You on the other hand , claiming that superior sense and
skill got you through an instrument failure, is just macho bravado.

Never said it got me through it, but I did say it was an additional
tool in my took kit. It was a combination of everything, not one
thing. To ignore senses or the seat of your pants in IMC is just in
my opinion not good flying. No different then landing a plane at
night when you are feeling your way down to the ground.

Got a good chuckle by what you consider a low approach, 1000ft ceiling
is VFR man .

Where did I say it was a low approach? I use 1000 foot ceilings as a
benchmark as many pilots don't or will not fly down to minimums in
actual conditions.

Thankfully, I had an instructor in my training, I did go down to ILS
minimums and have made several GPS and VOR Alpha's down to minimums on
my own without any problems.. It becomes a non event at the end, but
thrilling as you slide down the approach path. It's the end result we
all look for but it doesn't just come by tracking needles.

*Furthermore, a sim is a very usefull tool. Why do you
think the airlines use them. All of the sims that I have flown have
been harder to fly than the real A/C. Dont get me wrong, I am glad
that you made it through OK but lighten up G

Airliners us FULL MOTION sims, not a desktop MSFS. HUGE difference.
From what I gather, Jay's simulator is not a full motion sim.

To equate a desktop MSFS to any type of IMC flying is reckless IMHO.

To not depend on senses and totally rely on instruments without an
expectation that **they could fail** is reckless. If you fly a real
plane, you should know this. Nobody expects the unexpected to happen,
but if you fly your plane like **it could happen** then you are better
prepared. I call it an insurance policy that you hope you don't have
to cash in.

On May 18, 11:33*am, Mxsmanic wrote:

A lot of accident pilots have had either or both. *I really cannot see any
reason to lend credence to your assertion.

Don't care what you think, I care what other students see and want to
be sure they know what you say is WRONG.

On May 18, 11:47*am, " wrote:

*It's the end result we
all look for but it doesn't just come by tracking needles.

Missed one word in my original post....

It doesn't just come by ONLY tracking needles.

On May 18, 3:54 am, B A R R Y wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2008 20:46:40 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"

wrote:
What you say is true, for a good experienced pilot,
who have flown disorientation exersizes.
But I'll provide this challenge, block off the speedometer
in your car and I'll bet you'll have a problem driving.
What happens to me is I drift up to 80 MPH, then
go "holy poop".

I disagree totally. You must be numb.

Both of my vehicles sound, feel, and act significantly different at 80
than they do at 65 MPH. In top gear of my Toyota, the RPM's are about
400 higher. On the same token, It's not all that difficult to tell
25 from 35, if I try.

The wind noise is different, the tach shows a different RPM, and the
corresponding engine pitch is noticeably different.

Back to the pilot...

The _change_ in sounds is a great clue, not just that it's all
different and steady.

Yeah you've got it right.
This was wifes new Gran Caravan, almost dead quiet
inside and I was unfamiliar with it. Your thesis hinges
on a familiarity with craft.
Ken