Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

On May 20, 7:56*am, Stealth Pilot
wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2008 15:47:19 -0700 (PDT), A Lieberman





wrote:
On May 18, 5:34*pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:

Where I was referring to the sensations issue was directly concerned
with one pilot who commented that verifying an instrument reading with a
physical sensation was important. My point was that instrument
verification should be done against other instruments with the EXCLUSION
of physical sensation from that equation.

I think my point was when there is an action, there should be a
reaction, and if I don't feel the reaction (which is faster then
registering on the instrument), then I need to explore further.

I am talking the very subtle changes, not changes requiring large
power changes.

For example, I come down the ILS at 90 knots with 1900 rpm. *If
headwinds cause my groundspeed to drop below 90 knots and I add lets
say 25 RPM to recapture the glideslope and I DON"T feel it in my seat
of the pants, first place I will look is the temperature probe.
Again, talking subtle 25 RPM just finger tip touch to the controls.

If I feel the extra oomph / firmness in my seat of the pants with the
extra 25 RPM and the glideslope starts to recapture, that is a
verification of my action and reaction.

Again, very subtle changes I am look and feeling for. *I am not saying
make turns by the seat of my pants, primarily verifying actions of
power settings.

In my Friday incident, I could tell my attitude indicator of 20 to 30
degree pitch up AND not feeling the extra G's in my rear end, that
something was discrepant having flown this plane for over 600 hours..
That had me going to my backup instruments IMMEDIATELY *(VSI and
airspeed) for my analysis and quickly identifying the vacuum as
suspect..

It's not that I even remotely navigated by the seat of my pants, but
something was amiss was felt.

I absolutely agree based on time and time again history, that any
feelings in the head absolutely has to be ignored, instruments are
there for that, but for verification of power adjustments, I see no
reason why AS A TOOL, the feeling in your rear end cannot be used as a
verification of the reaction of your actioin (adding or reducing
power).

The feeling of the seat of your pants is NOT to be used in determining
upright status in IMC, that I will say, and don't want to mislead
anybody that I condone that, just using it to verify my action of
power is working and the reaction of instrumentation TRENDS are
following what my seat of the pants feel is.

you are setting your self up for a fatal accident.
you need to learn about somatogravic thresholds, the effect of alcohol
on the viscosity of the fluids of the inner ear and above all you need

Did you read my entire post???? I am not talking about inner ear or
leans. I have already addressed this with Dudley.

I am talking about a feeling a response to an input of power. If I
add power, I should feel it in the seat of my pants. This has nothing
to do with head sensations.

I think the rest of my posts explain very clearly what I am looking
for (or absense of).

NOTHING in my posts says to ignore the instruments. All of my posts
do say to ignore what you feel in your head and trust the instruments.

The feeling of thrust in the seat of your pants confirms and verify
the instruments motions especially when you slip below the glideslope,
or in a climb.

Everything you talk about above I agree with but what I am doing is
adding a tool in my tool kit by expecting a certain feeling in the
seat of my pants.

If I don't get it, then I am going to cross check my primary
instrumentation with my secondary to sort out the discrepancy.

In my case that I have repeated so many times, an AI showing a 20
degree pitch up should have placed some G's in the seat of my pants.
THIS WAS A DRAMATIC CHANGE. This has nothing to do with leans. The G
feeling in the seat of my pants was absent, so I went to secondary
instruments and within 20 seconds of time, found I had a bad AI.

I'd hardly think that troubleshooting a vacuum system and resolving
the descrepancy within 20 seconds is setting me up for a statistic.

The seat of your pants is a tool that can be used in an IA
environment. This does not replace the instruments in no manner shape
or form nor is it to be confused with leans. Two different
sensations, one is to be ignored COMPLETELY (leans), one not to be
ignored, but a supplement to verify what you see on your panel (seat
of your pants).

Mxsmanic wrote:
Viperdoc writes:

Anthony, were all of your pronouncements based upon your instrument
training? Who was your instructor? What did you get on the written exam?
How much time do you have in IMC (real, not simulated?)

All of my statements are based on study.

Bull****. What did you study? The usenet?

-c

Mxsmanic wrote:
Tina writes:

It seems to me the better pilots use all the clues they have
available, the physiological ones as well as those presented by the
panel, to maintain a sense of the airplane's attitude.

Not under IFR. Under IFR, only the instruments count.


Wrong. Next...


-c

Tina wrote:
Well, let's remember it takes one example to refute an absolutist
argument.

There is not a rated pilot here who will argue with this: In IMC or
VMC, he or she, relies very much on the sensation of the reduction of
yoke pressure for trimming the airplane.


Correct.

Of course that doesn't mean you don't monitor the instruments in the
meantime. Nobody has suggested that, but Anthony keeps trying to argue
that strawman.

The physical sensations allow a pilot to be proactive rather than
reactive. Anthony doesn't understand this, of course, because he hasn't
done it.

-c

Mxsmanic wrote:
A Lieberman writes:

Everything I read on Mx threads, he's traveled the world, from the
Grand Canyon tour to the most complex Bravo airspace we probably
haven't encountered in our lives.

I flew from KSAN to KLAX yesterday in my sim, in zero visibility, and I lived.
Obviously I had no physical sensations to count upon, and yet somehow I
managed to get to my destination and land.

That's because you were playing a video game. Next...

-c

Mxsmanic wrote:

You had no physical sensations that would have caused vertigo. You had no sensations
that would result in motion sickness. You have no idea how difficult it
really is with those sensations present. Most of the rest of us here do.

Most, perhaps, but not all.

Irrelevant. I do, you don't. Next....

It has the advantage of being much safer and more comfortable.

It has the advantage of being nothing.

A kid can play with toy boats in the bathtub but that doesn't make him a
sailor.

-c

Mxsmanic wrote:

That funny buffeting feeling and mushiness of controls on a long apprach
might tell you to that it's time to get your eyes off the glide slope
needle and scan the instrument panel.

If you are flying IFR competently, you're already doing this. If you wait for
a sensation to tell you do to do it, you'll die.

The sensations are immediate.

I haven't died yet. You haven't flown yet.

Mxsmanic wrote:
A Lieberman writes:

WRONG

Putting it in uppercase letters won't make it so.

Everybody here that is telling you you're wrong is a pilot. You're not.

Suck it up, little camper. You're just wrong, again.


-c

Mxsmanic wrote:

Besides, I'll offer my opinion without prompting.

That doesn't make it worth two turds on my lawn. Anybody can do that.
You're the only one offering opinions out here that's a fake pilot


Nobody said anything about "rules," but I did in fact quote the
authoritative FAA Airplane Flying Handbook repeatedly, and you chose to
ignore all of that. Funny how that works out. Anytime anybody cites
something authoritative, you ignore it.

Misinterpretations of the book will not help you in the air.

I logged 1.1 hours in the actual sky last night. You?

Bye, now. I'm going flying.

Avoid IMC.

Not necessary. I completed an Instrument Proficiency Check three weeks
ago. I wasn't even due for it, just did it anyway. Six different
approaches, radar vectoring, unusual attitude recovery, etc.

You should try it sometime.

-c

Mxsmanic wrote:
A Lieberman writes:

If you plan to challenge any pilot ESPECIALLY ME, at least read the
post.

I discuss aviation, not personalities.

Liar.

"You're demonstrating a poor attitude." -you