If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
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 I'm the reverse ytpe of instructor. Initially I like students to get their heads outside the airplane and discover nose attitudes (LF;Climb; glides) THEN after they have a good understanding of these nose attitudes I get them to cross check these attitudes with the panel. Different strokes for different folks -- Dudley Henriques |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
On May 18, 6:14*pm, Robert Moore wrote:
I can't believe what some of these amateur, mostly armchair pilots are posting as gospel. 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. I regularly file and fly in the IFR system. While I don't carry 20,000 hours credentials I would hope some of my experiences whether you agree with them or not be somewhat NOT armchair experience. Not all shoes fit everyone, and just because you and others may not disagree, to sit there and say it's arm chair piloting isn't right. I respect your opinion accordingly, I would hope the same would be in return. I am sharing what TOOLS works for me, it may not be text book, but it's something and food for thought. Allen |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
Robert Moore wrote:
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. Bob Moore ATP CFII 22,000 hours when I stopped counting Exactly. Thank you Dudley and Bob. Finally recognizable experts are weighing in on this topic. Students will benefit. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
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- |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
A Lieberman writes:
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. If you are on top of your instruments, no "exploration" is needed. The reaction you feel may be leading you astray. It may seem uncorrelated to what the instruments say. If it is possible for you to feel a sensation that does not represent any change in the instruments (and it is), then logically it is also possible for the instruments to change without you feeling anything. If the instruments say that you've entered a turn, you've entered a turn, whether you felt anything or not. I am talking the very subtle changes, not changes requiring large power changes. Subtle changes are even more misleading. 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. Watch the instruments to begin with, not when you fail to feel something you expect. 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. If the tachometer rises by 25 RPM, that's a much more reliable indicator. 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. You have way too much trust in your sensations. 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.. Why weren't you checking the backup instruments to begin with? If they do not disagree, chances are that all the instruments are working, no matter what sensations you experience. If they disagree, at least one instrument probably has a problem--again, no matter what sensations you experience. If an instrument does not have a backup, you correlate it with other instruments. They will behave in predictable ways in relation to each other. If one of them does not seem to correlate with the others, perhaps it has a problem. It's not that I even remotely navigated by the seat of my pants, but something was amiss was felt. The danger in instrument flight is that all sorts of things are felt, but none of them is reliable. It is called instrument flight because the pilot ignores things felt and flies exclusively by the instruments. 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 in your rear end is no more reliable than the feeling from your inner ear. It sounds like your Friday incident has given you a false sense of security. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
On May 18, 9:01*pm, Robert Moore wrote:
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. Again, my way is not text book, and I am not here to say the text book is wrong. It's been proven and I am not debating what any book says.. The text book also refers to inner ear false sensations, nothing about what I am talking about in the sense of action vs reaction to power increases or decreases of the throttle. But in my case, which caused all the ruckus, is that I had a vacuum system problem, which was quickly identified by me knowing what I should be feeling in my airplane with an AI that shows a pitch up of 20 to 30 degrees, it wasn't there.. I have over 700 hours in the same plane. I wasn't feeling spatially disoriented so I knew my inner ear balance wasn't an issue. 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. 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.. 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. Had I trusted the instruments and pushed the nose over, I would have put myself in a more 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. 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. I am talking only engine input, NOT control input such as bank or yoke induced climbs that all text books refer to as I do realize in IMC there is no human way we can fly a straight line on feeling or lack of in the seat of the pants based on CONTROL inputs. On my glide slope, I pitch for speed, power for altitude. If I fall below the glide slope, I give more power, and expect to feel that in the seat of my pants. In turbulence, all the above is tossed out and I only use my instruments and don't factor in my rear end. The above applies in pristine calm air. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
Good words Dudley!
And I agree... I was impressed that an intelligent and useful net discussion started by Anthony continued DESPITE the sniping by the usual annoyances. Many here feel as you do Dudley. lets all move on with this.. If an insult is required, use the mail and have at it.. Please..... Spare the rest of us who value the knowledge offered here.. Dave On Sun, 18 May 2008 17:58:22 -0400, Dudley Henriques wrote: Hi folks; Please bear with me on this post. I've just spent the entire day thinking about some things and have a few what I hope will be accepted as friendly thoughts to share. Keep in mind if you're reading this that what I'm going to say isn't meant to be critical of anyone in any way and that I totally respect the right of everyone on this forum to make up their own mind on these issues. What I'd like to share with you are simply my own thoughts on some things. All of what I'm saying here is simply how I personally view the issues involved. So bear with me as I try and get this stuff down without ****ing off half the world in the process. 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. 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. Now, on to the subject of Mxsmanic. I have no idea whether Mxsmanic was posting from knowledge or from a source when he posted on the above issue, but in my opinion he was right in what he was saying about physical sensation vs IFR procedure, and yes, I am aware Mxsmanic doesn't fly. Please know I'm not faulting those who take him on. That's between you and Mxsmanic. If it's your choice to answer this person the way some of you have chosen (and I've been just as guilty myself on occasion) then that is your choice, and I'll make no attempt here to play internet cop or even to try to change your mind. This is a matter of individual choice, but I will try and explain to you how I personally will be attempting to deal with Usenet from now on. If some of you follow my lead, I'll be grateful, but if you don't, I won't attempt to chastise you. It's totally an individual decision. What I'm going to try and do on the forum from now on is to treat every post I see and have addressed to me as an individual post. If the person posting to me is respectful and polite, I won't care if it's someone I like or dislike. I won't care if it's someone who blasted me with a flame thrower the last time around. If that specific post is respectful, I'll be answering that post in kind. If it isn't, I'll make a decision to engage or pass based on my mood at the moment, but hopefully I'll be able to pass on it. I'm going to try anyway. Look guys and dolls, this forum is a great place to exchange information. Most of us have enjoyed it here for eons. I for one don't want to see this forum die out from becoming nothing more than an exchange of venom from angry people. What I'm saying here gang is that I for one have decided that unless someone posts something disrespectful to me personally, I intend to give people a decent shot...and yes, that goes for Mxsmanic and any other simulator pilot who shows up here with a respectful on topic post. 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. My best to everybody here; friends, old enemies, and yes, Mxsmanic too. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Apology re mxsmanic | terry | Piloting | 96 | February 16th 08 05:17 PM |
I saw Mxsmanic on TV | Clear Prop | Piloting | 8 | February 14th 07 01:18 AM |
Mxsmanic | gwengler | Piloting | 30 | January 11th 07 03:42 AM |
Getting rid of MXSMANIC | [email protected] | Piloting | 33 | December 8th 06 11:26 PM |
Feeling aircraft sensations | Ramapriya | Piloting | 17 | January 12th 06 10:15 AM |