I give up, after many, many years!

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:jgVXj.115081$TT4.973@attbi_s22:

Your point that seat of the pants pressure sensations are used during
instrument flight does not disprove MX's point about the necessity of
relying primarily on your instruments for accurate information in
IMC.

Actually my point does!

The fly by the seat of my pants did not feel like I had a 20 to 30
degree pitch up which my horizon indicator showed (which was
waaaaaaaaay more then Vx pitch).

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".

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

No, they aren't, they re trained to ignore their inner ear., period.




Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

Airliners us FULL MOTION sims, not a desktop MSFS. HUGE difference.

One of the reasons why full-motion sims work is that it's very easy to
fool human senses. Remember, full-motion sims don't actually go
anywhere, but to the people inside, they certainly feel as though they
do.

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

One advantage to MSFS is that it forces you to use instruments in IMC.
Depending heavily on instruments isn't necessarily an advantage for
VFR, but it's very important for IFR.

To not depend on senses and totally rely on instruments without an
expectation that **they could fail** is reckless.

Not at all. If you're unwilling to put complete trust in your
instruments, you shouldn't be flying IFR. If they fail, well, you
might never get back home.

Wrong again, fukkwit. And i fly instruments almost every day.


Bertie

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:lMVXj.169277$yE1.70867@attbi_s21:

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

MX is many things. Persistent, stubborn, blunt, thick-skinned, willing
to argue that black-eyed-peas are really black-eyed-beans, yes.
Occasionally annoying, often entertaining (mostly because of the
responses he obtains), always willing to come back for more. He's
like a Weebil that won't fall down.

But stupid? I don't think so.


Well, relative to you, of course not.


Bertie

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:mIVXj.169271$yE1.120501@attbi_s21:

Fortunately, MSFS handles engine
sounds in a fairly consistent and predictable way.

Yep, consistently unrealistic, with no prop noise at all.

The sound quality in MSFS is remarkably good -- in SOME of the
aircraft, and with the proper equipment.

For example, our sim set-up at the hotel has a full surround-sound
system with sub-woofer. When you wind up the Merlin in the P-51, it
sings. When you pull it back to idle, you can hear wind noise. When
you kill the engine, you can hear the prop windmilling.

And the rumble of the big radial engines in the Grumman Goose is
wonderfully done.

An indication of the importance of sound in the sim -- it's MUCH
harder to fly the sim with the sound turned off. You don't realize
how often you use aural cues in flight until they're not there.
(Which, BTW, makes me really admire the deaf pilots of the world.
Back before the troll wars reduced this group, there used to be a
regular poster here named Henry Kisor who belonged to the deaf pilot's
association, and I was always impressed that he was able to fly so
well without aural cues. But I digress...)

Of course, if you're relying on your desktop computer's speaker,
you're absolutely correct -- the sounds are not there. But the sim
software *is* creating the proper sounds, mostly, but it does require
a good quality system to hear it.



Bull****.

Bertie

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in news:ce3a7db9-d346-
:

On May 18, 2:07 pm, B A R R Y wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2008 14:00:48 -0700 (PDT), "Ken S. Tucker"

wrote:
With ASI out, use the back-up stall buzzer on final,
then 4 knot accuracy is easy...duh.

On final?
Have you ever really landed an airplane?

Yeah, I use the manuals IAS and InDescent
indicator recommendations, with an eye on
attitude and adjust to the runway numbers,
with the expanding keystone, (the airstrip is
an expanding quadrangle, even in sims).
I'll float down to 37 KIAS alone in a 150 using
the stall horn frequency and amplitude, for fun.

Landing is my fav especially with serious X-wind.
Coming in with 30 deg crab, and waltz the machine
gently over the numbers is like dancing with a
beautiful woman, and then the flare, either way,
it's a rush when it all harmonizes.


Good grief.



Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

And i fly instruments almost every day.

How do you fly instruments that don't work?

In article ,
says...
writes:

Airliners us FULL MOTION sims, not a desktop MSFS. HUGE difference.

One of the reasons why full-motion sims work is that it's very easy to fool
human senses. Remember, full-motion sims don't actually go anywhere, but to
the people inside, they certainly feel as though they do.

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

One advantage to MSFS is that it forces you to use instruments in IMC.
Depending heavily on instruments isn't necessarily an advantage for VFR, but
it's very important for IFR.

To not depend on senses and totally rely on instruments without an
expectation that **they could fail** is reckless.

Not at all. If you're unwilling to put complete trust in your instruments,
you shouldn't be flying IFR. If they fail, well, you might never get back
home.

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.

Given the fact that losing instruments in IMC is extraordinarily dangerous, it
would be better advised to take care to minimize the chances that they will
fail than to fantasize that it will be possible to fly and land safely without
them if they do fail.

Who remembers the crash in the States where an aircraft engineer had
left the pitot and or static air vents taped up.

Crashed into the sea I think - all dead.

Basically - pilots failed to correctly interpret the instruments. Had
they determined what insruments were reading correctly, they could've
put the thing down (they were attempting to return to the field).

IIRC, they could have used the GPS for airspeed (IIRC, the airspeed
indicator partly worked (they got an airspeed active out of it!) - and
probably thought it was correct - during flight it was all over the
place IIRC. And the radar altimeter would have been working just fine.
Several navs would have been good, VOR, DME, ILS etc. Shaker of course
too!

Anyone remember some more details?

--
Duncan

In article ,
says...
Steve Foley writes:

This is much less inaccurate than your other statement.

No, it is simply more detailed, which makes it harder for you to use incorrect
assumptions in an attempt to discredit it. Everyone pilot knows (or should
know) that if you increase power, you climb, all else being equal. (I know
what someone will say about this, too, but I won't deprive him of the
satisfaction of playing the game.)

You can't make such a basic statement like that. You *need* to say yer
straight and level.

--
Duncan

Dave Doe writes:

IIRC, they could have used the GPS for airspeed (IIRC, the airspeed
indicator partly worked (they got an airspeed active out of it!) - and
probably thought it was correct - during flight it was all over the
place IIRC. And the radar altimeter would have been working just fine.
Several navs would have been good, VOR, DME, ILS etc. Shaker of course
too!

The GPS would only give ground speed, not airspeed, but that would be better
than nothing. The RA would only be useful below 2500 feet AGL. But the other
stuff would be working.

Anyone remember some more details?

Aeroperu had a problem with this.

Dave Doe writes:

You can't make such a basic statement like that. You *need* to say yer
straight and level.

Satisfied?