A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #341  
Old May 24th 08, 03:47 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,alt.fan.notb,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.religion.asatru,alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk
Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,735
Default Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in news:TmVZj.1163$v94.4
@newsfe14.lga:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...


Nope, I know it.



Bertie




Posted by a forger.



Aw, that all you got wannabe boi?

How's the old forgery komplaint coming on there?


Good?

Get any feedback from altopia?


Bertie



  #342  
Old May 24th 08, 03:49 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,alt.fan.notb,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.religion.asatru,alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk
Bertie the Forger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default And the cluelessness continues

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

So I'd say arfoil was not used becasue of it's ability to frustrate
air ( engineers just don't think like that, they seek harmony) but
more because of their resemblance to a leaf or blade.
Actually, the one in that link that stands out is the architectural
one.


Bertie


Posted by a forger.



Aww, you got me.



Bwaahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhhahwh!



Bertie
  #343  
Old May 24th 08, 03:49 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,969
Default Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

wrote in
:

On May 19, 2:27 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Daedalus wrote
:

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


Speaking of cheap; you can replace the artificial horizon- how can you
tell when the wings are level?

Wait for it.



The CFI drools out of both sides of his mouth.


Excellent safety tip! The FAA needs to put out an advisory circular on
this one.


Bertie
  #344  
Old May 24th 08, 03:49 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,alt.fan.notb,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.religion.asatru,alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk
Bertie the Forger[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in news:ymVZj.1162$v94.724
@newsfe14.lga:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

Good link but I think he kind of munged up the lift/drag thing as

being
seperate entities, when they're inextricably linked. IOW you create

lift
and drag is a by product. Not to say, BTW, that the correlation is
rigid!


Bertie


Posted by a forger.






Snort!



Bertie
  #345  
Old May 24th 08, 11:07 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
BakedandFried
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff


"Tina" wrote in message
...
On May 23, 7:27 am, Stealth Pilot
wrote:
It's easy to write the equations, it's classic physics stuff. Start
from basic principles.

You need not involve chaos theory, although some posters seem to try.


By this thread I no longer consider it a theory.


  #346  
Old May 25th 08, 01:18 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.student
yd+yg+as
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

On 5/23/2008 10:45 AM Mxsmanic ignored two million years of human
evolution to write:

Then you should be able to program a computer to recognize both.


What does this have to do with aviation?
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apology re mxsmanic terry Piloting 96 February 16th 08 06:17 PM
I saw Mxsmanic on TV Clear Prop Piloting 8 February 14th 07 02:18 AM
Mxsmanic gwengler Piloting 30 January 11th 07 04:42 AM
Getting rid of MXSMANIC [email protected] Piloting 33 December 9th 06 12:26 AM
Feeling aircraft sensations Ramapriya Piloting 17 January 12th 06 11:15 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.