Act Acting » Method Acting » Primary instrument?

Primary instrument?

Question:

(David A. Cloutier) writes about what Mike Friedman () writes: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m a relitively new instrument pilot – about a year – but I find that the less I think about which instrument is primary (etc) the better my flying becomes.  Thinking in terms of the "mechanical" methods is like thinking about walking in terms of which muscle to activate next and when to bend your ankle for best leverage.  Try it, you’ll quickly trip and fall!  I find that I "look at" the panel, and in my head visualize what the view would look like.  I basically fly VFR, except the only V is the panel!  I’ll also admit that I’m not yet fully there, and every so often have to really concentrate to keep flying right side up, but the more I do it the better it gets, and I have been getting more comfortable as I go along. I had a text book for a theatre class in college once, "The Inner Game of Tennis" by (I think) Tim Gallaway (?).  It was an excellent book… about tennis… that had techniques applicable to many things in life. I’m tempted to recommend it as a flight training supplement.

When I read the first couple of sentences of Mike’s original post, I thought immediately of Timothy Gallwey’s books, including in addition to the one mentioned (the first, and probably best) the later "Inner Tennis" and "Inner Skiing" (I may have the second title wrong).  These books improved both my tennis and my skiing greatly, and made them more enjoyable.  I had already begun applying the general lessons of "The Inner Game" (very similar to Zen) to my skiing, before the skiing book came out.  And David read it for theater!  (Wow!) Flying is such a highly cognitive skill that I think it’s easy to neglect its equally important "inner game" aspects, among which I would include doing smooth landings and effortless instrument scan.  Speculating, I would think "inner game" theory would be especially helpful for doing aerobatics.  "Inner Skiing" in particular addresses how to deal with fear.   I have seen no instructional books on flying that address these things with the insight that Gallwey brought to them for tennis and skiing.  Some enterprising CFI should look up Gallwey, teach him to fly, and then write a book with him!  The previous books sold very well. But an imaginative reader will have no trouble making the connection from Gallwey’s books to flying.  I highly recommend these books to pilots.   I’m excited for myself to realize that my own skill and enjoyment in flying can improve through applying some of the old "inner game" lessons I haven’t thought about in a long time.  Thanks, Mike and David! Chris Floyd

Response:

I’m a relitively new instrument pilot – about a year – but I find that the less I think about which instrument is primary (etc) the better my flying becomes.  Thinking in terms of the "mechanical" methods is like thinking about walking in terms of which muscle to activate next and when to bend your ankle for best leverage.  Try it, you’ll quickly trip and fall!  I find that I "look at" the panel, and in my head visualize what the view would look like.  I basically fly VFR, except the only V is the panel!  I’ll also admit that I’m not yet fully there, and every so often have to really concentrate to keep flying right side up, but the more I do it the better it gets, and I have been getting more comfortable as I go along.

I had a text book for a theatre class in college once, "The Inner Game of Tennis" by (I think) Tim Gallaway (?).  It was an excellent book… about tennis… that had techniques applicable to many things in life. I’m tempted to recommend it as a flight training supplement. Basically, the learning process ("Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" is another excellent book) seems to begin on the left side of the brain – the concious side, and as our muscles & reflexes learn what they’re supposed to do, the right side (the unconcious) begins to take over.  Have you ever been driving to work, and you realize that you don’t remember the past twenty minutes worth of driving?  It’s scary, but if you were asleep you’d be wrapped around a tree somewhere.  The right side of the brain took over and did the driving for you.  You were probably a safer driver than you would have been had you been conciously doing every turn and stop without letting yourself go (a la the force, Luke). If we – as experienced pilots – THINK too much about what we’re doing (dang, gotta pitch up to get my altitude!  Whoops, I lost my heading.. Oh no!  There goes my altitude again!)  we end up over-controlling, fixating, and otherwise acting like we did as students. The left side – the concious side – should be used for interpreting checklists, talking to ATC, and checking aircraft systems.  It should NOT be used for flying the airplane! I understand that you have to begin instruction on some foundation, but IMO the mechanical scan should be a means, not an end.   Mike

I absolutely agree.  If a pilot finds the control performance method more useful (I don’t trust it in little vacuum/pump airplanes), or just naturally finds a system that works, the goal has been accomplished. I’m a believer in the primary/supporting system because it has really improved my flying, both IFR & VFR.  Because of the imprecision and unreliability of the attitude indicator (the only instrument I’ve ever lost in flight) I don’t trust it’s use as anything other than a backup. I’ve flown just fine without it.  But if you asked me what’s primary and secondary for a standard rate turn, I’d have to stop and imagine myself in that situation and ask myself, "Okay, what am I looking at?  Oh yeah…" before I could tell you.  Primary/secondary was the means, the end is being able to fly the plane. Well, maybe "end" wasn’t the right word.  But you know what I mean.     Dave            "May the Force be with You"

Response:

I have seen no instructional books on flying that address these things with the insight that Gallwey brought to them for tennis and skiing.  Some enterprising CFI should look up Gallwey, teach him to fly, and then write a book with him!  The previous books sold very well. But an imaginative reader will have no trouble making the connection from Gallwey’s books to flying.  I highly recommend these books to pilots.   I’m excited for myself to realize that my own skill and enjoyment in flying can improve through applying some of the old "inner game" lessons I haven’t thought about in a long time.  Thanks, Mike and David! Chris Floyd

Well, You’re welcome!  And thanks for bringing "Inner Skiing" to my attention!  The next time I’m out, I’ll pick it up. You know, fear is something that is rarely written about in aviation publications (that I’ve seen, at least) except in regards to non-flying passengers.  I think my fear of stalls early on did a little to hold me back in my training.  It really wasn’t until I started commercial maneuvers for my COMM certificate that I became comfortable with stalls. In fact, my fear of FAILURE (still an irritating problem, one I often cured by "unconciously" screwing up on purpose; that way it’s not REALLY failure) was the single biggest barrier in my training, and caused a lot of heartache for me as well as time and $$.  (Karen, my instructor, was the personification of patience and never gave up on me!) When I started the COMM maneuvers the "Inner Game…" (my first "intellectual" and concious exposure to the inner mind) started coming back to me, and I spent more time flying the airplane and less time yanking the controls back and forth. As with riding a bicycle or driving a car, the airplane loses its identity as a operated machine.  It becomes an extension of the pilot’s body.  The pilot no longer pulls the yoke to pitch up, he or she just "flies upward"!  Muscles respond to the commands in the pilot’s brain and cause the yoke to move precisely the way it should to make the airplane do what it’s supposed to do. Sometimes I think people find it funny to hear things like, "Be one with the airplane."  But really, that’s what happens.  That’s what works in real life.  What else can I say? Thanks again!     Dave Dave Cloutier… Comm SE/ME Land, CFII; Aviation Forum, Novalink. (Also cow milker extraordinaire! OSV, Sturbridge, Mass. :)  )

Response:

| | Hi Jenny – You were taught in much the way that I was (16 years ago for me) – | however the FAA now promotes an integrated method of learning to fly visually | and with reference to instruments.  At first the "mechanical" methods of the | FAA (ie: which instrument is primary vs supporting) seem like just a bunch of | Government stuff to fill up written exams, but the more you fly IFR the more | you realize that the material has meaning.  A cursory understanding of the | instruments is fairly easy to learn, but a thorough understanding – and the | development of skills to monitor the proper instrument at each moment is much | more difficult and takes time and experience (and a skilled instructor). What | works in the relatively relaxed and slow paced world of VFR does not | necessarily transfer well to IFR – so the integrated approach was developed | to begin to lay the groundwork. I’m a relitively new instrument pilot – about a year – but I find that the less I think about which instrument is primary (etc) the better my flying becomes.  Thinking in terms of the "mechanical" methods is like thinking about walking in terms of which muscle to activate next and when to bend your ankle for best leverage.  Try it, you’ll quickly trip and fall!  I find that I "look at" the panel, and in my head visualize what the view would look like.  I basically fly VFR, except the only V is the panel!  I’ll also admit that I’m not yet fully there, and every so often have to really concentrate to keep flying right side up, but the more I do it the better it gets, and I have been getting more comfortable as I go along. I understand that you have to begin instruction on some foundation, but IMO the mechanical scan should be a means, not an end.  I never got this from my instructor, but rather learned it as I began to venture off on my own after passing my checkride.  Perhaps it is my personality, and not common amoung other pilots but I find flying to be as much art as science, and perhaps more so at times… Mike

Response:

 JF I have down very little instrument flying, but the way i was taught to  JF fly was mostly (99%) outside view rather than referring much to  JF instruments,to the extent that as a student pilot i frequently had the  JF instruments covered. Is this the way others have been taught to fly VFR  JF ?   I found this makes me a much better pilot as well as much safer  JF than if i looked at my instruments often.   As far as i am concerned  JF information on attidue (obviously) and air speed  JF etc can easily be gained by carefully listening to the sound of the  JF engine, watching the horizon etc.   I find this attitude to flying  JF gives an overally flying  JF technique rather than i more textbook approach to flying a particular  JF aircraft, and also makes flying more enjoyable.  JF I would be interested to hear others views on this.  JF Jenny Hi Jenny – You were taught in much the way that I was (16 years ago for me) – however the FAA now promotes an integrated method of learning to fly visually and with reference to instruments.  At first the "mechanical" methods of the FAA (ie: which instrument is primary vs supporting) seem like just a bunch of Government stuff to fill up written exams, but the more you fly IFR the more you realize that the material has meaning.  A cursory understanding of the instruments is fairly easy to learn, but a thorough understanding – and the development of skills to monitor the proper instrument at each moment is much more difficult and takes time and experience (and a skilled instructor). What works in the relatively relaxed and slow paced world of VFR does not necessarily transfer well to IFR – so the integrated approach was developed to begin to lay the groundwork. Dan MacDonald, CFI-MEI Bonanza N467B Twin Comanche N2268Y  * Evaluation copy of Silver Xpress. Day # 26 —   Fidonet:  Dan Macdonald 1:282/47 | The views of this user are strictly his own. | From The FlightLine [MSP] (612)544-5118 Aviation & Sim Resource

Response:

Related Posts

Leave a Reply