Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...
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.


Best post in awhile snipped for brevity


Who knows; I'll be giving it a shot anyway.

My best to everybody here; friends, old enemies, and yes, Mxsmanic too.
--
Dudley Henriques



You get a big AMEN form the choir.

Al G

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. 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.


Dudley, I trust with absolute confidence that I'll learn from this
discussion from you so I'll refer to what I mentioned earlier in terms
of ignoring physical sensations in IMC and see what you think?

1) The chart leaves the dash panel and I'm floating against the harness
but the panel shows nothing. Do I ignore the floating sensation and the
visual clue?

2) My altimeter says 12,000 and MSA is 3500 but ahead of me I see
terrain, I'm sure we agree that it's a "sensation" I shouldn't ignore.

3) The airplane begins to buffet or I hear the engine sound change
dramatically but the VSI and airspeed indicator show no change....


We must be talking about different meanings of "physical sensation" but
in my statements about "feel" I was referring to both sensory inputs and
the sensation of being compressed or pulled from the seat. (As opposed
to coriolis illusion.)

How should an instructor interlace what you're saying with the examples
above? I'm of the opinion that if my senses indicate a problem, at the
very least I'll say "Wait...what?" and check the instrument panel. If
the AI shows straight and level I'll check the altimeter, airspeed
indicator, DG, compass etc depending on the inputs, and at the very
least I'll be able to go "Wow. THAT'S what the leans feels like."

Cheers!


-c

On Mon, 19 May 2008 17:10:55 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
:

On May 18, 5:09 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
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

I was a Professional teacher for awhile, and so
understand the attitude.



Bwawhawhhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwha!


We did about 5 hours of night flying together,
he didn't say much by that time, except the odd
ancedote.


"oh ****, watch what you are doing!" is not an anectdote, fjukkwit.
Oh wait, maybe it;s a "ancedote"


Maybe it's an antidote!

Jade



It was very pleasant.
Ken

Daedalus wrote in
:

On Mon, 19 May 2008 17:10:55 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
news:f41822f7-8b58-4810-bf30-97634fd4dec3
@z24g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

On May 18, 5:09 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
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

I was a Professional teacher for awhile, and so
understand the attitude.



Bwawhawhhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwha!


We did about 5 hours of night flying together,
he didn't say much by that time, except the odd
ancedote.


"oh ****, watch what you are doing!" is not an anectdote, fjukkwit.
Oh wait, maybe it;s a "ancedote"


Maybe it's an antidote!

Jade

Maybe it was an antecedant.

BTW, you wanna watch Larry, he has your number.

Bertie

gatt 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. 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.


Dudley, I trust with absolute confidence that I'll learn from this
discussion from you so I'll refer to what I mentioned earlier in terms
of ignoring physical sensations in IMC and see what you think?

1) The chart leaves the dash panel and I'm floating against the harness
but the panel shows nothing. Do I ignore the floating sensation and the
visual clue?

2) My altimeter says 12,000 and MSA is 3500 but ahead of me I see
terrain, I'm sure we agree that it's a "sensation" I shouldn't ignore.

3) The airplane begins to buffet or I hear the engine sound change
dramatically but the VSI and airspeed indicator show no change....


We must be talking about different meanings of "physical sensation" but
in my statements about "feel" I was referring to both sensory inputs and
the sensation of being compressed or pulled from the seat. (As opposed
to coriolis illusion.)

How should an instructor interlace what you're saying with the examples
above? I'm of the opinion that if my senses indicate a problem, at the
very least I'll say "Wait...what?" and check the instrument panel. If
the AI shows straight and level I'll check the altimeter, airspeed
indicator, DG, compass etc depending on the inputs, and at the very
least I'll be able to go "Wow. THAT'S what the leans feels like."

Cheers!


-c

The answer to your specific questions lies in the pilot having a firm
foundational basics background that has developed in THAT specific pilot
into his/her instrument scan technique. There really is no "if this
happens" I do this" when it comes to instrument flying. Each pilot has a
slightly different personal style that makes up their individual
scanning technique. Any specific question regarding what to check and in
what order when this or that happens is so filled with variables that
what would be the right answer one nano second as a scan is taking place
would not necessarily be the right answer the next nano second.
The bottom line is that all instrument flying is fluid as it relates to
the scan. Nothing is static and the scan is in motion all the time.

Your first question says it all really.
If a chart floated up off the glare shield while you were on the clocks
and the panel was telling you nothing, my answer would be that either
the pilot, the airplane, or both shouldn't be IFR at all :-)
I've never been in a situation where the panel was telling me absolutely
nothing.
I think what might be confusing some people reading this thread is that
even though the pilot should always be avoiding physical sensation as a
cue to perform an action while on instruments, Normal scan technique
involves the constant presence of physical sensations. This means tht
you are literally cross checking physical sensation constantly against
what the instruments are telling you. The trick to staying alive is in
being aware of these physical sensations but accepting without question
what the clocks are telling you.

In the case of a chart floating off the glare shield, your normal scan
would be to accept the visual cue that something needed to immediately
be cross checked BEYOND and DEEPER INTO the panel than your normal scan.
The answer is to widen the scan immediately to include a raw data cross
check to verify potential instrument failure if your normal scan was
indicating all ok. Obviously all isn't ok with a chart floating off the
glare shield.

Basically what you have here is a judgment call on how deeply you allow
a cue conflicting with what your instruments are telling you to progress
before you expand your scan.
What I'm pushing in this thread is that you make these calls
automatically while IFR at any instant ANY cue conflicts with your basic
scan, but you NEVER....EVER....accept a physical cue or sensation and
ACT on that cue while on instruments. When every once of common sense,
physical sensation, charts floating, and g's pressing on your body tell
you you need to push, and your gyro panel is suspect, go immediately to
primary panel to verify.
If both the gyro panel AND the primary panel tell you nothing, you've
got SERIOUS problems :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

On Mon, 19 May 2008 18:52:05 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Daedalus wrote in
:

On Mon, 19 May 2008 17:10:55 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
news:f41822f7-8b58-4810-bf30-97634fd4dec3
:

On May 18, 5:09 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
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

I was a Professional teacher for awhile, and so
understand the attitude.



Bwawhawhhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwha!


We did about 5 hours of night flying together,
he didn't say much by that time, except the odd
ancedote.


"oh ****, watch what you are doing!" is not an anectdote, fjukkwit.
Oh wait, maybe it;s a "ancedote"


Maybe it's an antidote!

Jade

Maybe it was an antecedant.

BTW, you wanna watch Larry, he has your number.

Bertie

Is that who keeps calling and breathing heavily?

THXS!

Jade

On Sun, 18 May 2008 19:45:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

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

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.

In my case, the change was pretty dramatic as it happened after
departing and in my climb in my departure as I was entering IMC.
Everything was absolutely normal on my first 1000 feet of climb and
nothing had changed on what I felt in the seat of my pants when I saw
the AI start showing a pitch up just about 100 feet inside IMC. Had I
really pitched up that much, I would have felt it. The lack of
feeling it immediately made me look at my VSI and it was rock solid
700 fpm climb, no change from below the cloud deck. Next instrument I
looked at was my airspeed and that was 90 knots, so secondary
instruments confirmed a normal climb and further confirmed my lack of
feeling in my butt indicated the AI was ghosting up on me.

I believe it's not normal to get such a dramatic change like I did,
but then again, as I am still finding out, it may not be the vacuum
pump, but the vacuum pump regulator that went out on me in my plane.
Will find out tomorrow morning when I talk with the A&P.

Ask him/her what instruments show the greatest failure levels.
Pitot-based?

Daedalus wrote in
:

On Mon, 19 May 2008 18:52:05 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Daedalus wrote in
m:

On Mon, 19 May 2008 17:10:55 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip

wrote:

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
news:f41822f7-8b58-4810-bf30-97634fd4dec3
:

On May 18, 5:09 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
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

I was a Professional teacher for awhile, and so
understand the attitude.



Bwawhawhhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwha!


We did about 5 hours of night flying together,
he didn't say much by that time, except the odd
ancedote.


"oh ****, watch what you are doing!" is not an anectdote, fjukkwit.
Oh wait, maybe it;s a "ancedote"


Maybe it's an antidote!

Jade

Maybe it was an antecedant.

BTW, you wanna watch Larry, he has your number.

Bertie

Is that who keeps calling and breathing heavily?

THXS!

He mayb be crude, but he's cheaper than those 1-900 numbers.

Bertie

On Mon, 19 May 2008 16:33:33 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

On May 19, 7:58 am, Tina wrote:
JFK was in a spiral from about 5000 feet when he crashed. A 200 foot
error in his altimeter was the least of his problems.

He had more training for in IR than most do when they pass the test.
This was a case of a pilot who, it would seem, was crossing the sound
with an auto pilot engaged. Radar showed a smooth flight until that
point when most would have started down to pattern altitude from 5000
feet. The airplane went from pretty straight and pretty level to
impact in less than 30 seconds.

The NTSB report is vivid and frightening.

Thank you Tina, I just reread this,

Not that it would mean anything to you.

Bertie

Hey, Bertie, for one thread in your oh so busy day of doing nothing but
projecting yourself as a complete Usenet asshole, why not give it a
****ing rest?

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
On May 18, 5:09 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
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

I was a Professional teacher for awhile, and so
understand the attitude. I was very lucky to get
an Flight Instructor that was A+, never made a
mistake. He had me doing what you say, using
horizon, but then gauged the accuracy of turns
based on instruments, I thought that was fair,
then pointed out my weaknesses when I was
using pure VFR, such as uncentered ball as I
entered the bank going from level wings to 30,
45,60 bank.
It was the change in bank that I had to work on.

We did about 5 hours of night flying together,
he didn't say much by that time, except the odd
ancedote. It was very pleasant.
Ken


Sounds like a good approach.

Many good instructors will introduce turns referencing nose attitude vs
the horizon using medium banked turns as the entry point for turn on the
learning curve as aileron and rudder neutralization in the turn and
increase and decrease of angle of attack into and out of the turn can be
stressed easily with neutral under and over bank present. Instrument
cross check for angle of bank is quite normal at this stage.

As medium banked turns can be entered and exited easily, introduction to
shallow and steeply banked turns where under bank and over bank are
factors can be introduced.

I strongly advocate referencing nose control as opposed to the ball for
control coordination. You can see yaw instantly on the horizon as turns
are entered and exited. FAR better than using the ball. It also gets the
student's head outside the cockpit where it has to be for safety.

--
Dudley Henriques