Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

Mike Isaksen has brought this to us :
"Gezellig" wrote ...
Why do I feel like singing out loud with Barbra Streisand?


That could be considered Medically disqualifying !!!
;-)

I recant to David Bowie. Which may continue my disqualification. :'(

on 5/19/2008, A Lieberman supposed :
On May 18, 10:42*pm, Gezellig wrote:
A Lieberman brought next idea :

The problem with feelings is that no two sets of feelers feel with the
same feeling. lol Then there are the sets of feelings that are felt
that are not consciously felt in terms of being able to explain them.

ABSOLUTELY AGREE. And when that happens, instruments MUST be
trusted.

It's the absence of an EXPECTED feeling that should question the
validity of instrumentation.

In my case, and SUDDEN extreme pitch up displayed on my AI, I should
have expected positive G's in the seat of my pants. I did not get
that, therefore me flagging the AI and starting my cross check to my
secondary instruments for troubleshooting.

Sensory inputs are checkpoints.

I see
I feel
I see
I see more
I resolve to what I see.

Basic piloting, best constrained and confirmed to the sciences of
engineering and physics. This is what I struggle the most, I am neither
physicist, mathmetician or engineering inclined. :-? I flunked Legos.
:')

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
:

On May 18, 4:09 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On May 18, 3:34 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
.. .
...
Without getting into a whole magilla concerning right and wrong,
simply let me say that in my opinion physical sensation should
never, and I repeat it again so that there's NO mistake....NEVER
be used to verify or augment an instrument reading. In my
opinion, this is what proper scan technique is all about. You
verify instruments CONSTANTLY using other instruments, right on
down to primary panel if necessary, but in my opinion, the basic
concept of ignoring physical cues and sensations while on
instruments is a sound principle ans should be followed to the
letter.
...
I won't argue with a single word of that.
But...
That doesn't make physical sensations irrelevent or unimportant.
In fact, it is the MISLEADING sensations that are very important
in the sense that, if you don't have significant experience
"playing over" them, one typically ends up dead (in real life).
Sitting on your lazy boy, those sensations don't happen - you
always feel "coordinated" - you don't get disoriented, you don't
experience vertigo - which makes flying in simulated IMC stupid
easy compared to real life. And, I would argue that _no_
_ammount_ of desktop simulation will _ever_ prepare you for the
assult on your senses that can happen when things aren't going
well in real life soup. One may think that one can handle real
IMC based on desktop experience - but without realizing just how
difficult it is to ignore your inner ear screaming lies at you,
one doesn't really have any idea what flying real IMC is like - I
would bet that an experienced "sim only" pilot would pull the
wings off in less than 3 minutes in real life.
I believe you and I are in complete agreement. Perhaps something
being misread.
The understanding of sensations and how they interact with the IFR
experience is of paramount importance. In fact, a lack of this
understanding can get you killed quicker than anything else I can
think of at the moment.
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.

When I was a kid, I was spun to dizzy, and
then staggered when I tried to walk. IIRC it
took a concentrated focus on some point to
sustain balance, which is me in VFR, but that
doesn't work in a fog.
Another thing I noticed is flying VFR with a lot
of turbulence, (especially with towering cumulus)
screwed my inner ear.
(That is my weakness).

I was very lucky that after just a couple of hours,
my flight instructor got me going on IFR.
He knew I had a basic handle on geometry and
algebra so he was the type to promote the advance
early on in instruction.
Ken

I tend to keep things on the basic level with students. It helps to
hide my shortcomings :-)

After a few hours, my instructor had me doing shallow
(30's), medium (45's) and steep (60's) turns and would
critcize me because I focused on the VFR horizon and
he'd smirk and point to the Indescent Indicator showing
a 50'/per minute loss, and the IAS loss of energy and
my off-center-ball, so my turn performance was gauged
by instruments.
Obviously, I should have pulled a bit more elevator,
put on some RPM, and applied more rudder, so that's
what I did via instruments, and that's in a well done
bank at 60 degs even when VFR is available.
Ken

You're an idiot. No instructor in his right mind would have told you
that unless it was in sheer desperation after your repeated failures to
do anything like a decent turn.

And "indescent indicator"?
Bwawhahwhahwahwhahhwhahwhahwhahwhhahwhahwha!




Bertie

Robert Moore wrote in
46.128:

Dudley Henriques wrote
Without getting into a whole magilla concerning right and wrong,
simply let me say that in my opinion physical sensation should never,
and I repeat it again so that there's NO mistake....NEVER be used to
verify or augment an instrument reading.

Absolutely Correct Dudley! I have been an Instrument Instructor in
the US Navy, in the Heavy Jet Airline Industry, and as a General
Aviation CFII, and I can't believe what some of these amateur, mostly
armchair pilots are posting as gospel.


Well, my rad ion what they are posting is that various sensory inputs,
especially sounds, are suplemental to the info being gleaned form the
insturment scan and help to flesh out the big picture. Even the errant
vestibular apparatus provides clues and these clues, as well as those
provided by the muscles in your body, sounds and periperal visual clues
( changes in light sources, etc) can, when taken with a large grain of
salt, help flesh out the big picture.It fills the gaps in the scan aside
form anything else.
The inner ear thing in particular is widely misunderstood to be
completely unreliable. It is certainly true that used on it's own it's
completely useless without the aid of some visual cues, but of course
its still working, just in a different way. Humans can get used to
almost anything and the innner ear can be wired into a pilot's loop and
used to help particulalry in rates. That is to say, it can be an aid in
flying the airplane more smoothly. The more smoothly you fly the
airplane, the less upset it receives.
Try flying instruments with an inner ear problem and see how rotten it
feels and you'll see that it is still making a contribution even in
instrument flight.
Trust it completely? Of course not. Neccesary? Not at all. Useful?
Definitely.

Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
news
writes:

As I keep stressing, the absence of a feeling is equally as important
as looking at an erroneous AI that is saying I have a 20 to 30 degree
pitch up.

Except that it's not. The absence of a feeling tells you nothing,
just as a feeling tells you nothing. If you could trust feelings, you
wouldn't have to rely on instruments, and all the effort that goes
into obtaining an instrument rating would be unnecessary.

Denying or ignoring that feeling and listening to a
defective instrument does toss the above text book out the window in
a trouble shooting stage..

Well, yes, it does.

If you have a backup AI, you should periodically look at it to see if
it agrees with your primary AI. You should also correlate instruments
to each other. If your AI says you're in a 45-degree bank, you should
see a change in heading on the DG, the turn coordinator should show a
bank, and the magnetic compass should be moving. If you see only the
bank indication on the AI, without the other indications, the AI might
have a problem, and then you look at the backup AI. If it shows no
bank, and no other instrument shows what it should show for a turn,
the primary AI is malfunctioning. No physical sensations required.

Conversely, if the seat of your pants tells you that you are climbing,
but the altimeter is not changing and the VSI is zeroed, you are not
climbing, no matter what your rear end says. Your instrument scan
might tell you that you are turning instead. Or your airspeed
indicator might tell you that you are changing speed. In any case,
your instruments are right, and the seat of your pants is wrong.

It was that feeling that helped me identify a problem quicker then
just "trust the instrument indications" I didn't oscillate in my
altitude which would have been a potential result had I trusted the
AI. It was when I didn't feel what the AI was telling me, then I
went to my secondary instrumentation to indeed confirm and verify
that my AI was amiss.

Why weren't you scanning all your instruments? If you were, you'd
notice something wrong without any need for physical sensation.

Had I trusted the instruments and pushed the nose over, I would have
put myself in a more dangerous position.

The instruments? How many were failing? How many did you check? The
AI was failing ... what else was failing? If the other instruments
were working, your instrument scan would tell you that something was
wrong. If you weren't scanning your instruments, you had already put
yourself in a dangerous position.

In all of the above, I am not saying don't fly by instruments, but
use what you feel and what you know IN ADDITION to what sits in front
of you.

No. In IFR flight, use the instruments only, and ignore what you
feel.

When you are standing on the ground, or walking down a sidewalk, your
senses are doing what they are designed to do, and they work quite
well. When you are flying in IMC, your senses are being used for
something for which they were not intended, and they become
notoriously unreliable.

Not sure if you are familiar with Martial arts, but to win a battle,
you use the opponents weakness for your strength, and I apply this to
my IFR flying. Our weakness is inner ear balance, and I do disregard
any "head feelings" I get, but I do use my rear end to assist me on
what I feel, and SHOULD be feeling based on POWER INPUTS.

That's a mistake.


No, it isn;'t, since he's here to talk about it and didn't lose control
of the airplane, fukkwit.

You don't fly and you have no idea of what you are talking about.


Bertie

Robert Moore wrote in
46.128:

A Lieberman wrote
I don't ever diss anybody, and my posting history will back me, but
this is one of the most closed minded statements I have seen since
being in newsgroups, and I do go a long way back.

It might be closed minded, but it is straight out of the FAA
Instrument Flying Handbook, Chapter 1, Human Factors:

Eyes
During flight in visual meteorological conditions (VMC), the
eyes are the major orientation source and usually provide
accurate and reliable information. Visual cues usually prevail
over false sensations from other sensory systems. When these
visual cues are taken away, as they are in IMC, false
sensations can cause the pilot to quickly become disoriented
The only effective way to counter these false sensations is to
recognize the problem, disregard the false sensations, AND
WHILE RELYING TOTALLY ON THE FLIGHT INSTRUMENTS, use the eyes
to determine the aircraft attitude. The pilot must have an
understanding of the problem and the self-confidence to control
the aircraft using ONLY instrument indications.

Bob Moore

All of which is absolutely true. You'll notice that they said "major
orientation source, though"
I'm not advocating anyone ty flying by the seat of their pants IMC. In
fact, making a conscious decision to use the other senses isn't really a
very good idea either, but they do come into play and, as in the case of
A L they did guide him to the source of the problem, which is what one
would expect. I don;'t believe he's saying they guided him to a zero
zero landing, only that it prevented an upset.
Remember the guys in New York state that were test flying the 727 and
got an ASI malfunction? You know, the accident that resultd in the
installation of the active pitot heat warning rather than just having
greens to indicate they were on?




Bertie

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in news:275c5528-d77b-456f-
:

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?


Not because he didn't trust, them fjukkwit. he didn't know how to use
them.

And you are not a "newbie" You're an idiot and will always be an idiot.




Bertie

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

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

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

Extremely high, for pilots unfamiliar with IFR flight.


How would you know, fjukktard?

you don't fly.


pronouncements like this are pointless coming from an idiot such as you.
Even more worthless than the crap you see on the 11:00 news



Bertie


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

A Lieberman writes:

Did you forget what system failed? What DG????????????

Does the altimeter require vacuum?


Why, you gonna plug your head into the monitor?


Bertie