Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

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.


Nope.

Bertie

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

so you come up with more and more extreme examples in an attempt to
justify
not doing so.

POT - KETTLE - BLACK

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.

It worries me that so many pilots here are trying so desperately to justify an
extremely dangerous practice. Dudley is being very diplomatic. Under IFR,
sensations don't count at all, ever. Only instruments count. Countless
pilots have died because they refused to accept this. All training and
literature ceaselessly emphasize the importance of this. And yet some people
still argue against it, because they want to believe that they can fly by the
seat of their pants in all conditions. These pilots should take care to
always remain VFR in VMC, because it is clear that they would endanger
themselves under IFR in IMC.

We react to 'bumps' and the like long before the instruments indicate their
effect.

Not if you are doing things right. First, you've been scanning the
instruments constantly, so any change they indicate is immediately noticed.
Second, the bumps must be ignored, so there is nothing to react to when they
occur.

No instrument in our airplane will tell us we are picking up ice, but a
flashlight out along the leading edge will.

That is not a sensation in the context of this discussion. Sensations here
clearly mean physical movements, and people here are trying to justify using
physical movement sensations in the aircraft to fly it, while giving the
instruments only secondary priority. That's not the right way to fly IFR.

At night no instrument will tell us we are in a cloud, but the anti-collision
lights will.

Under IFR, you don't need to know. Your instruments tell you where you are
and where you're going. If you're in IMC, you obviously have visible
moisture, and you can check the temperature to see if you're at risk for
icing.

When getting close to MDA, and including the windscreen in your
instrument scan so you can transition to visual is not an
instrumentation issue.

You are not at MDA during most of the flight. If you can see outside, you're
not in IMC. If you are in IMC, you use only your instruments.

If it were not for the physical effects, the
wind noise, the way the control feel changes with airspeed, and the
like, we might just as well be flying sims.

If you don't like flying by instruments, then fly only VFR in VMC. If you
cannot get away from the desire to depend on physical sensations to fly, don't
go anywhere near IMC. Yes, it's a lot like a sim, the only difference being
that in a sim you feel nothing (unless it's a motion sim), and in real life
you feel something. However, whether you feel nothing or something, you still
fly by instruments, period.

Except of course sims
don't take us to other destinations, and it's the going to some other
place that really drives our particular use of general aviation.

If you don't rely on your instruments in IMC, you'll never reach those other
destinations.

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.

gatt writes:

The action is different in IMC because if you feel a sensory perception,
you have to check the instruments rather than look outside.

No. In IMC, you are ALWAYS checking the instruments, perception or not. You
don't wait for a sensation to motivate you to look at the instruments, nor do
you allow a sensation to take the place of looking at the instruemnts. There
no sensation is; there only instrument is.

gatt writes:

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.

An alert pilot wouldn't dismiss it as turbulence ...

An alert IFR pilot is constantly scanning his instruments, so funny feelings
are irrelevant.

On May 20, 1:02 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
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.

Nope.

My version of IFR is
I Follow Rivers
I Follow Roads
I Follow Railways
:-)

Mxsmanic wrote:
gatt writes:

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?

You're demonstrating a poor attitude.


If I want the opinion of a non-pilot video-game addict with absolutely
zero hours of actual flight training or time, I'll ask you.

You don't want to follow the rules, and so you come

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.

If you are in IMC, you're IFR, and if you're IFR, you should _already_ be
fully aware of what all the instruments on the panel are saying.

Don't presume to talk to instrument-rated pilots about flying IMC.
Hell, you augured outside of Telluride in a freakin' flight simulator.
That's funny, 'cause I flew it in the same software and didn't have that
problem. It's easy; you're not even a competent Flight Simulator geek.

He http://204.108.4.16/d-tpp/0805/06920LD9.PDF

Bye, now. I'm going flying.

-c

Steve Foley writes:

POT - KETTLE - BLACK

What extreme examples have I used to justify flying by instruments in IMC?

gatt writes:

If I want the opinion of a non-pilot video-game addict with absolutely
zero hours of actual flight training or time, I'll ask you.

I don't qualify. Besides, I'll offer my opinion without prompting.

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.

Don't presume to talk to instrument-rated pilots about flying IMC.

Why not? Some of them have dangerous ideas.

Hell, you augured outside of Telluride in a freakin' flight simulator.
That's funny, 'cause I flew it in the same software and didn't have that
problem. It's easy; you're not even a competent Flight Simulator geek.

A simulator might be a better play to practice IFR, if you haven't
internalized the necessity of relying on instruments.

Bye, now. I'm going flying.

Avoid IMC.