Pilot Simulator Study - U Wisc Madison

[gprellwitz]

NON-Instrument rated pilots!

Pilot Simulator Study - Volunteers Needed
Notice Number: NOTC1604

Attention General Aviation Pilots!
Help promote GA safety by participating in a Pilot Simulator Study!

The University of Wisconsin-Madison is conducting an FAA-supported research project to evaluate pilot flight skills and decision-making during cross-country flights. They are currently seeking private pilots (single engine land) that are not instrument rated to participate in a brief simulator session.

Participants will be asked to “fly” an advanced PC-based flight simulator located on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus. Participation in this study would require you travel to the campus for a 1½ to 2 hr session. This session would involve filling out a questionnaire about your flight experience and completing a short cross-country flight in the flight simulator.

Participants will be compensated $10/hour for their participation and reimbursed for some travel expenses. Your participation will be kept completely confidential.

If you are interested, please contact Professor Douglas Wiegmann at (608) 890-1932 or via email at dawiegmann@wisc.edu We would appreciate it if you pass this information along to your flying colleagues even if you do not wish to participate or don’t qualify. Thanks!

For more information, please visit http://tinyurl.com/cvb3le(document opens in PDF format)

 

[ScottM]

private pilots (single engine land) that are not instrument rated [/B]to participate in a brief simulator session.

Bummer!!

That sounds fun

 

[vontresc]

Sounds like the ol VMC into IMC for non IR pilot study....

 

[Ghery]

Bummer!!

That sounds fun

It does, but I don't think I'm going to make a special trip to Madison to participate. A little out of the way from here.

 

[Trapper John]

Sounds like the ol VMC into IMC for non IR pilot study....

Magenta line of death, maybe?


Trapper John

 

[gprellwitz]

My understanding is that they'll be conducting an extensive double-blind study into the effects of running on a treadmill better allows one to differentiate the magenta line on the GPS from the magenta rings on the sectional when one inadvertently strays into IMC.

 

[vontresc]

What about us poor pilots who can only afford the monochrome gray, amber, or green line of peril????

 

[Ted]

I'm sure a study performed by such an institution would include advanced comparisons of monochrome gray, amber, green, and magenta lines of death, to ensure that all of them offer equal peril to the user.

Sounds like fun. Too bad that it's that far away. And I'm not about to turn in my instrument ticket to participate.

 

[KennyFlys]

If you want to make fun of what I've said, make your quote accurate. I said, "Magenta lines kill pilots."

If you let yourself become Dependant upon a GPS, particularly coupled flight/approaches, it's only a matter of time. But, joke all you want. Meanwhile, there's another pilot out there buying time until they're in too deep or their equipment fails.

 

[SkyHog]

If you want to make fun of what I've said, make your quote accurate. I said, "Magenta lines kill pilots."

If you let yourself become Dependant upon a GPS, particularly coupled flight/approaches, it's only a matter of time. But, joke all you want. Meanwhile, there's another pilot out there buying time until they're in too deep or their equipment fails.

I'm about 99% sure you didn't coin the MLOD phrase.

But you're perpetuating it. Just like those crazy advanced VORs and that insane digital timer, one day, the GPS will be accepted by old timers too (since the current batch of old timers will be gone timers).

 

[Trapper John]

If you let yourself become Dependant upon a GPS, particularly coupled flight/approaches, it's only a matter of time.

But doesn't a GPS approach, by definition, make you dependant upon the GPS for guidance? Just like a VOR or ILS approach makes you dependant upon that equipment for the execution of the approach?


Trapper John

 

[gprellwitz]

I'm about 99% sure you didn't coin the MLOD phrase.

Interestingly enough, it appears that Mari coined the phrase in

I also don't think you are doing anyone any favors by talking about the "magenta line of death" or whatever you called it.

when she misquoted Kenny, who, as he pointed out above, said that "Magenta lines kill pilots." (Why they don't also kill passengers is the subject of a forthcoming book! )

And a search for the phrase on Google only turns up PoA as a source!

 

[ScottM]

If you let yourself become Dependant upon a GPS, particularly coupled flight/approaches, it's only a matter of time.

Well GPS is a time based navigation system so yes, GPS is a matter of time.

 

[Ted]

Kenny, we've all been over this with you ad nauseum, and it's one of the reasons why it scares me that you teach people to fly. Correct, Mari coined the phrase in misquoting you, but Nick is right: you perpetuate it. No point in restating what I've already said on details.

Back to the original point: I believe it's important for us to do a study of the difference in fatality rates when using magenta lines of death vs. green, amber, and monochrome gray lines of peril.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

But you're perpetuating it. Just like those crazy advanced VORs and that insane digital timer, one day, the GPS will be accepted by old timers too (since the current batch of old timers will be gone timers).

I remember spending a lot of time as a kid studying up on the A-N ranges and the like.

 

[ClimbnSink]

buddy of mine participated in a similar study with the FAA in OKC. FAA paid for his travel/hotel and he got to fly a sim for a bit. Same idea vfr pilot into imc.

 

[Clark1961]

Kenny, we've all been over this with you ad nauseum, and it's one of the reasons why it scares me that you teach people to fly. Correct, Mari coined the phrase in misquoting you, but Nick is right: you perpetuate it. No point in restating what I've already said on details.

I'm not up for defending Kenny. On the other hand I've flown with at least nine different instructors at various times. With exception of a couple, the rest had something in particular screwed up that a student would have to figure out and unscrew.

A few examples include a claim that I was trimming incorrectly on final ( the DPE fixed that one for me - got me back to doing what I had been doing before the *&*%^# instructor told me I was doing it wrong). Another claimed the best glide speed I used was wrong when the POH said otherwise. Another didn't bother to check aircraft specs, just made declarations as to a particular aircraft's performance numbers. Another instructor didn't understand gyro instruments - specifically he didn't understand that a turn coordinator gyro senses only turn rate.

In other words, we're all human and all have our foibles. No big deal.

Now for the MOLD. Be real careful. I've heard most systems have "Direct-To" so if you're flying a "Direct-To" line then chances are somebody else is also flying "Direct-To" and you're both in danger! I used that joke on my instructor one day: "I'm not flying directly on that line, somebody else might be Direct-To also." It took him a few minutes to get the joke...too many episode of oxygen deprivation I suspect...

 

[KennyFlys]

I'm not perpetuating anything. I'm telling you what I've witnessed among certificated instrument pilots I've flown with. Refuse to believe it all you want. There are a lot of folks around the country wearing rose-colored glasses. Feel free to be one of them.

 

[Trapper John]

Refuse to believe it all you want.

There are a lot of folks around the country wearing rose-colored glasses. Feel free to be one of them.

You may have just solved the problem. Wearing rose-colored glasses would make the MLOD very difficult to see!


Trapper John

 

[Ted]

I'm not perpetuating anything. I'm telling you what I've witnessed among certificated instrument pilots I've flown with. Refuse to believe it all you want. There are a lot of folks around the country wearing rose-colored glasses. Feel free to be one of them.

Please, save us from ourselves, Kenny.

This holier-than-thou crap from you is well past being old. If someone else agreed with you I might be more inclined to take your statements seriously, but all I see is a self-righteous CFI who, when he sees a (frequently legitimate) problem one way, then violently overreacts the other way, causing an equal or greater problem.

Have you even considered the professional implications of what you post on here? Your posts on your thread about the checklists certainly don't look like the sorts of things that your employer would want to read. I know if I was your employer, I would be unimpressed to say the least.

 

[Ted]

I'm not up for defending Kenny. On the other hand I've flown with at least nine different instructors at various times. With exception of a couple, the rest had something in particular screwed up that a student would have to figure out and unscrew.
{snip}
In other words, we're all human and all have our foibles. No big deal.

You're right, and I don't mean to imply that anyone is perfect. I know that there were a few things with my CFI that I've had to either unlearn or change (and one or two things I've taught him). I don't consider that a big deal.

I consider it a big deal when either I see some major deficiencies in instructional philosophy, or some major deficiencies in what is being taught.

Now for the MOLD. Be real careful. I've heard most systems have "Direct-To" so if you're flying a "Direct-To" line then chances are somebody else is also flying "Direct-To" and you're both in danger! I used that joke on my instructor one day: "I'm not flying directly on that line, somebody else might be Direct-To also." It took him a few minutes to get the joke...too many episode of oxygen deprivation I suspect...

I love it!

 

[Ted]

You may have just solved the problem. Wearing rose-colored glasses would make the MLOD very difficult to see!

 

[dmccormack]

(I can't believe I'm posting to this thread....)

Maybe we can clarify and bring some order to this long-running, somehwat rancorous "debate" about the Argyle Line of Unusual Size?

{begin SERIOUS}

Dependence on any single input at any point in flight is hazardous, but not necessarily fatal. The pilot is simply placing great dependence on a single data point, and sometimes that's all we have (Partial panel).

But as long as the pilot recognizes this fact, and employs whatever means necessary to increase the variety and sources of information, he/she will improve his/her odds, but won't ncessarily be assured safety.

So if you depend on the Airspeed Indicator only for takeoff, you're placing an inordinate amount of trust in a single data source. It certainly can work -- but just be aware it is a single data source and thus a failure in that single source will cause problems.

If you're doing a RNAV-coupled approach, and you have the secondary NAV set to a nearby VOR, you've now increased your data points -- but haven't necessarily assured complete and total situational awareness.

So talk of Lines of Malice and the like obscures the real message -- use as many datapoints/cues/sources of information as available at all times, to provide redundancy, cross check, and maintain proficiency in same.

{end SERIOUS}


OK, can we all just get along now?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8H5263jCGg

 

[ScottM]

OK, can we all just get along now?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8H5263jCGg

Only if we sing this

 

[Ted]

Dan, your view is the same the rest of us share, and I'm in full agreement.

Now let's all sing and make s'mores around the campfire and be happy.

 

[dmccormack]

Dan, your view is the same the rest of us share, and I'm in full agreement.

Now let's all sing and make s'mores around the campfire and be happy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3MiD_U4CHQ

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Sounds like the ol VMC into IMC for non IR pilot study....

If, and only if, this is the case - I have to wonder how effective it is to do this sort of thing on a PC based simulator. I don't have much trouble keeping the shiny side up when I'm sitting on the family room couch (I can even do it riding an excercise bike), but I seriously doubt that I could do it in real life when my inner ear would be screaming dirty lies into my brain...

 

[Trapper John]

If, and only if, this is the case - I have to wonder how effective it is to do this sort of thing on a PC based simulator. I don't have much trouble keeping the shiny side up when I'm sitting on the family room couch (I can even do it riding an excercise bike), but I seriously doubt that I could do it in real life when my inner ear would be screaming dirty lies into my brain...

FAA used to have a traveling spatial disorientation simulator on the airshow circuit (maybe they still do). It was an eye-opener, no doubt about it.


Trapper John

 

[jmaynard]

So talk of Lines of Malice and the like obscures the real message -- use as many datapoints/cues/sources of information as available at all times, to provide redundancy, cross check, and maintain proficiency in same.

From the PTS:

Single-Pilot Resource Management refers to the effective use of ALL available resources: human resources, hardware, and information.

I'm going to use every bit of information I can get my hands on, whether it's a chart, a DUATS session, an FSS briefing, or either of the two MLODs in my airplane. Yes, I'll set up the 430 and the autopilot to get me there from here. That just lets me devote more of my attention to other sources of information, while lowering my workload a bit. When my 6-month-old 430 suddenly tells me NO GPS POSITION in big letters across the display, I'll still have other ways of getting there safely.

I don't care what some folks say. If it's in the airplane, it's getting used.

(BTW, at the safety seminar I went to last night, I spent some time talking to the manager of the Princeton, MN AFSS. He said that he understood lots of folks had very real problems when Lockheed Martin first took over. He asked anyone who got away from using them because of that to give them another try before writing them off completely. He promises the bugs have been worked out.)

 

[Everskyward]

Interestingly enough, it appears that Mari coined the phrase in...

Guilty!

 

[KennyFlys]

I'm going to use every bit of information I can get my hands on, whether it's a chart, a DUATS session, an FSS briefing, or either of the two MLODs in my airplane. Yes, I'll set up the 430 and the autopilot to get me there from here. That just lets me devote more of my attention to other sources of information, while lowering my workload a bit. When my 6-month-old 430 suddenly tells me NO GPS POSITION in big letters across the display, I'll still have other ways of getting there safely.

I don't care what some folks say. If it's in the airplane, it's getting used.

That's the whole key right there... "Effective use of all equipment."

I'm not perpetuating a myth, here. It's not from an ego or otherwise. I've observed currently certificated pilots with instrument ratings operating with virtually no proficiency but they are doing so because they are "current" under the FARs. That's all the law requires. Unfortunately, common sense does not prevail and such pilots are on track to hurt themselves or another.

Does the "magenta line" comment sound drastic? Yes, absolutely. But, rather than condemn someone for saying it, choose to become one of those pilots who either establishes a firm rule to stay away from flight in IMC or takes a very proactive role in remaining proficient. The latter is better because it will assist in all types of flying. Unfortunately, there are many pilots out there who are convinced they don't need it.

All I'm referring to is being proficient on use of all equipment. You're required to be "equipped with an approved and operational alternate means of navigation appropriate to the flight" per AIM 1-1-19. This would be basic use of VORs for both en route and approach. The GPS-Dependant pilot will fly en route and do just fine. Suddenly, they come upon their destination and find a GPS approach is not available or RAIM is not available. Their only option is an ILS or localizer and it's back to basic needles.

Even with an authorized GPS approach, flying it on a needle is going to be more accurate than trying to stay on top of a magenta line on a moving map. Okay, so it's flown coupled. What if the autopilot fails? What if the bases are much lower than expected.

This morning, it was mostly OVC002. Now, it's FEW001 OVC011. What if those few clouds were laying right over the approach lights and you can't see those but suddenly BEFORE the MAP you get a glimpse of a wide pattern of red and white lights? Airports such as Austin have an ALSF that will show up a heck of a lot better than the runway lights and that's with our touchdown zone lights. Most airports your average GA pilot flies into does not have that available. So much for that extra hundred feet you were hoping to descend to so you could see the runway.

Being able to fly an ILS, LOC, VOR, ADF or even GPS on needles is key to being a proficient pilot. I'm not trying to scare anyone. But, I hope it makes folks think. I want pilots to be better than what they think they are. Most are not and takes constant practice to keep it that way.

Every chance I get to land with a longer approach I'll tune in the localizer just for that short bit of practice on needles. That's on top of full or vectored approaches. I have unlimited access to both analog and glass panels. I'll never be better than I think I am but I'll strive to as good or better than required to stay safe. That's what I want to see in others.

Next week, I will be meeting with a guy who is a current master CFI of the year. He has been published and is active with ASF. My goal is to learn about his program that brings pilots back once a month or so for proficiency training. He started the program for his school a few years ago to bring in more work for instructors. He was startled to learn those who need such a program most won't actively seek out such assistance.

Before anyone says the AIM is not regulatory, think back to its purpose. Its guidance is based on existing FARs such as 91.205.

(BTW, at the safety seminar I went to last night, I spent some time talking to the manager of the Princeton, MN AFSS. He said that he understood lots of folks had very real problems when Lockheed Martin first took over. He asked anyone who got away from using them because of that to give them another try before writing them off completely. He promises the bugs have been worked out.)

Flight Service has improved drastically. There's still the issue of getting briefers not familiar with your area but I think that will slowly change for the better.

Edit: Underlined section above modified from earlier post.

 

[jmaynard]

You're required to be "equipped with an approved and operational alternate means of navigation appropriate to the flight" per AIM 1-1-19.

Not necessarily, if you've got WAAS. See AIM 1-1-20(c)(7):

Unlike TSO-C129 avionics, which were certified as a supplement to other means of navigation, WAAS avionics are evaluated without reliance on other navigation systems. As such, installation of WAAS avionics does not require the aircraft to have other equipment appropriate to the route to be flown.

 

[Ted]

Does the "magenta line" comment sound drastic? Yes, absolutely. But, rather than condemn someone for saying it, choose to become one of those pilots who either establishes a firm rule to stay away from flight in IMC or takes a very proactive role in remaining proficient. The latter is better because it will assist in all types of flying. Unfortunately, there are many pilots out there who are convinced they don't need it.

Wait, so it's our fault that you're using inflammatory comments that make you look like a luddite, and as such we should react appropriately?

Kenny, the problem is with your comments. I don't believe anyone on here disagrees in proficiency with the equipment available to you, and I certainly will never disagree people need good needle skills. The fact that YOU choose to respond to a legitimate problem that you see with a statement that discourages use of a potentially life-saving technology (note: I say "potentially" because nothing is certain, just like it's not certain that you're going to die if you forget how to properly use your needles) is what I personally have a problem with. That's how it's been since this has started, and I've told you repeatedly, but you choose to ignore it and claim the problem is with those who disagree with you.

By the way, I HAVE had a situation where it was FEW001 OVC020. That FEW001 happened to be directly over the runway. What'd we do? Went missed, diverted to another airport. No way we could have landed there, we couldn't even see the runway.

 

[Everskyward]

Suddenly, they come upon their destination and find a GPS approach is not available or RAIM is not available. Their only option is an ILS or localizer and it's back to basic needles.

Under normal circumstances (excluding practice) I don't know anyone who would choose a GPS approach over an ILS to the same runway, but I'm sure someone will chime in to contradict me. If you listen to the tower in bad weather, plane after plane will be doing the ILS. I don't normally hear someone pipe up and ask for the GPS. In any case, the nav display will show the magenta line for an ILS just as well as for a GPS.

Even with an authorized GPS approach, flying it on a needle is going to be more accurate than trying to stay on top of a magenta line on a moving map.

That's obvious. If you meet someone who has this bad habit you should cover the nav display until they learn to use the needles. However, I don't think it is the norm for people.

Okay, so it's flown coupled. What if the autopilot fails?

Pilots should be able to demonstrate hand flown approaches. But they also should be able to do coupled approaches too. The thing is that the two are somewhat different skills. Flying a hand flown approach uses more hand-eye coordination and scan techniques. Flying the with the autopilot requires the pilot to know what buttons to push at the proper time and to be able to monitor the autopilot so it doesn't do something unintended, either horizontally or vertically.

This morning, it was mostly OVC002. Now, it's FEW001 OVC011. What if those few clouds were laying right over the approach lights and you can't see those? Airports such as Austin have an ALSF that will show up a heck of a lot better than the runway lights and that's with our touchdown zone lights. Most airports your average GA pilot flies into does not have that available. So much for that extra hundred feet you were hoping to descend to so you could see the runway.

I don't get your point here. If you don't see the lights or the runway you miss, no matter what method you are using to shoot the approach.

Being able to fly an ILS, LOC, VOR, ADF or even GPS on needles is key to being a proficient pilot.

I don't think anyone disagrees with this, I just think it's a presentation thing. You come on very strong and some people prefer the more laid back approach, especially when you are only talking about an aid to navigation. Whenever I hear the line, "magenta lines kill pilots" I think of the other line, "guns don't kill people, people do", or however it goes.

 

[dmccormack]

Whenever I hear the line, "magenta lines kill pilots" I think of the other line, "guns don't kill people, people do", or however it goes.

 

[Trapper John]

I've observed currently certificated pilots with instrument ratings operating with virtually no proficiency but they are doing so because they are "current" under the FARs.

What's your sample size? How many of these pilots, exactly?

...choose to become one of those pilots who either establishes a firm rule to stay away from flight in IMC or takes a very proactive role in remaining proficient.

Honestly, it's rather presumptuous for you to think there are many or even any here that don't already know this. It's like saying, "look both ways before you cross the street" over, and over, and over...

Unfortunately, there are many pilots out there who are convinced they don't need it.

How do you know there are "many"?

Even with an authorized GPS approach, flying it on a needle is going to be more accurate than trying to stay on top of a magenta line on a moving map.

Thanks for stating the obvious!

What if the autopilot fails? What if the bases are much lower than expected.

What if there's a little kid on the runway? What if I'm on fire?

This morning, it was mostly OVC002. Now, it's FEW001 OVC011. What if those few clouds were laying right over the approach lights and you can't see those? Airports such as Austin have an ALSF that will show up a heck of a lot better than the runway lights and that's with our touchdown zone lights. Most airports your average GA pilot flies into does not have that available. So much for that extra hundred feet you were hoping to descend to so you could see the runway.

Duh...you go missed at DH if you want to live long. Again, thanks for stating the obvious.

Being able to fly an ILS, LOC, VOR, ADF or even GPS on needles is key to being a proficient pilot. I'm not trying to scare anyone. But, I hope it makes folks think. I want pilots to be better than what they think they are. Most are not and takes constant practice to keep it that way.

It's kind of insulting that you think everyone here needs to be preached to, at least at the level you're preaching.


Trapper John

 

[dmccormack]

It's kind of insulting that you think everyone here needs to be preached to, at least at the level you're preaching.


Trapper John

Is someone not singing...?

Come on -- everybody now!

Kum baaa yaaa

 

[Trapper John]

Is someone not singing...?

Come on -- everybody now!

Kum baaa yaaa

...madly flipping the hymnal pages...


Trapper John

 

[Clark1961]

Is someone not singing...?

Come on -- everybody now!

Kum baaa yaaa

But I wanted s'mores!

 

[Everskyward]

Is someone not singing...?

Come on -- everybody now!

Kum baaa yaaa

She was the reason I failed Girl Scouts.