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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
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 |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
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 |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
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 |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
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 |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
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 |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
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 |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
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? |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
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 |
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 |