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

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

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

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

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.

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-

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.

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.

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.

"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.