|
Post by Cybermortis on May 4, 2013 12:03:37 GMT
Fly by the seat of your pants; A popular saying indicating that one must use instinct rather than skill to follow a course of action. The saying comes from aviation, and seems to date to the 1930's.
The basic idea was that a pilot could often get more information about what his aircraft was doing from the sensations in his body - especially through their backside which was in contact with the seat - than through instruments alone.
There is evidence to support this, as a pilot once numbed his own backside to test it. Resulting in him getting airsickness for the first time in his life. But there is also evidence that doesn't support it, as if an aircraft is pulling some moves and creating its own gravity it can give the pilot misleading information - such as flying straight and level when they are in a dive.
So how true is this saying? How much do we rely on our sense of touch and balance when controlling vehicles?
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on May 4, 2013 16:09:24 GMT
Well, the days of power steering have reduced the amount of "information" you can through the steering wheel, but you still get some. Likewise, power breaks and fuel injection have reduced the amount of information you receive through the brake and gas pedals. Sound/vibration dampening materials, have reduced the amounts of information we receive through the floor pans and firewall, "better" shock absorbers reduce how much you "feel" the road and so on... Thus there are decreased numbers of people of actually "know" that you receive information by "feel" while driving and how to interpret that information and the demand grows for "information" to be replaced with a smoother, quieter ride. To the airplane thing, I read before and I know it was discussed on the old Disco forums, that many new pilots would fly with one wing slightly dipped, because they "felt" they were flying level. The flight instructors would make them rely on the Attitude Indicator until they actually learned how straight and level felt, instead of how they thought it felt. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_indicatorAlso in that discussion was included many links to WWII sites or discussions on the "why Japanese Zero pilots seemed to often fly with one wing down lower than level and so on.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on May 4, 2013 16:36:08 GMT
Anyone that has had any flight training knows that it is drilled into your head over and over and over, "trust the instruments, not your feelings." I know that many fly-by-wire systems have some sort of physical feedback built into the controls, but those "feelings" are just computer generated and just another form of virtual information.
It would be interesting to hear from someone that flies drones.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on May 4, 2013 23:21:36 GMT
For those who don't know:
1. I work as a courier for a local newspaper.
2. I drive a 1990 Buick.
Myth Confirmed.
I can feel the road just perfectly, such that I have most of the bumps and vibrations of my usual route memorized; if I feel a new sensation, I immediately U-turn to check it out just in case I hit something.
I know what the engine sounds like - and feels like - when it's going, and also know to pay attention if I smell anything at all (I have a gremlin in the cooling system, and the car has also had problems with burning oil).
I also know what the car's limitations are, such that even though it's got one foot in the grave I can do things even a street kid in a rice burner would be hard-pressed to pull off; it's part of how I'm still alive, since this has allowed me to avoid being involved in several accidents that would likely have been fatal.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 5, 2013 1:12:04 GMT
I have always interpreted the expression a bit differently: I have always interpreted "I'm flying by the seat of my pants" to mean "I have lost all absolute frames of reference and I am doing the best I can based on subjective frames of reference"
by which I interpret it to mean that SOP flying may be acceptable in a crisis situation, but it is not something to do on purpose.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 5, 2013 9:08:12 GMT
Confirmed.
By Myself, my Uncle, my Granddad, various other members of the family, and too many RAF pilots I know than I can count.....
starting with something simple. My Granddad told me you "Feel" a miss-fire in the engine... I was not old enough to drive when he told me that, it was that long ago. We are also with Piston engines here, My Granddad was there in the RAF when they invented Jets and Turbines.... but he flew/mended/tested mainly Piston aircraft.
When I eventually got my first miss-fire in an engine, I "Felt" something was wrong.... I didnt know what, so I investigated, and found a cracked spark-plug. I know know what that feels like. No dash mounted instruments were available at that time to "Diagnose" such things...
My Dad told me you can "Feel" when a wheel starts to loose traction... he was teaching me the finer points of driving at the time, he suggested we take a corner a little too fast, we did, and I "Felt" the car starting to go sideways.....
Many pilots I know tell that when something is "Not quite right", they can "Feel" the aircraft not responding in the way it should do, an Un-usual rattle, as in one that isnt normally there, a slight hesitancy on the control surfaces indicating Icing of the wings if they are a little too high, the list of possibles is endless?...
This is one reason why many RAF pilots keep to their own aircraft.... They know their OWN aircraft...... They knew their OWN set of unique squeaks and rattles.... They know how this loose collection of spare parts flying in close formation will respond. This is why their name is written on the side of it...
Put them in an exact same model make and to all extents identical aircraft.... "Its just different", and it will take them a few hours to get used to the new plane....
That is the same whatever you drive, fly, ....
Yes you can get instruments that do all that diagnostic work for you.... If you are not ahead of those instruments, .....
Trust the instruments?... "About as far as I can throw them". Whilst training, yes... yes you MUST trust the instruments... the artificial horizon is your best friend.... But when you are seasoned, the instruments should confirm what you already know.
Drones, by the way, are not "Flown" in a conventional way...... The idea is that they are mostly autonomous.... You tell them where to fly to, and that is where they go, when they are "On station", you start to investigate the video sent back. There will always be a (slight) delay in video sent back, its not always in real time.
I suppose the best description is its the same as flying a Video game plane.... Just in real time. You dont really fly a drone, you tell it where to go, and where to point the camera, the flying bit, compensating for side/head/tail winds, is all done by onboard computers?.... That and VERY accurate Sat-Navs.....
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on May 23, 2013 23:01:25 GMT
I know this isn't exactly normal in the US, but anyone who's ever driven a stick-shift car for a long time, sold/scrapped that car and got another stick-shift know that the feel of the new car is totally different. And that's regardless of whether it's the same make and model as the one you just got rid of and how many other features (as those FormerMarine mentioned) are added or taken away.
The first thing you'll notice is how the clutch is different from what you're used to and the next is the spacing between gears. You may have to lift your foot off the clutch a little more or a little less than in your old car and you may have to shift earlier or later than you're used to. Then comes all the other differences, but what I'm saying is: Yes, you feel your vehicle. Once you're used to driving it, all others take some getting used to.
|
|
|
Post by blindleader on May 24, 2013 5:48:38 GMT
As far as I know, the expression originated in aviation, as is obvious from the word "flying". The meaning has also been, as thelightworks says, flying without the benefit of the instruments you would normally rely on.
All this stuff about being in tune with the vehicle and knowing by feel what might be going on with the machine is just so much embellishment. It certainly is useful, but doesn't belong with the original expression.
Going back to the original meaning - Being able to fly by the seat of your pants is a desirable skill, but it is possible to do safely only under VFR (visual flight rules) when the actual horizon or cloud deck below is always visible. Any other time, it just isn't safe. The flight will end very badly within just a few minutes because the pilot's frame of reference has no anchor. When you can't see the horizon, gyroscopically controlled instruments such as an attitude indicator are absolutely essential. This is true for seasoned pilots with thousands of flight hours as much as for beginners.
One of the tests given new pilots taking their check ride for a private license is "unusual attitude recovery". The student pilot closes his eyes while the examiner maneuvers the plane into some “unusual” attitude and then gives control back to the examinee. With a good examiner such as I had, you never feel that the plane has departed from straight and level flight except for a couple tenths of a g from a few gentle turns. It's quite a surprise when you open your eyes. Your inner ear tells you to expect a perfectly level horizon straight ahead. What I discovered was that the plane was in a turning dive, and nothing but the Arizona desert filled the view forward.
On to other things. I hate the word drone. Drones are dumb, pilotless aircraft that do nothing but fly straight and level. They were used decades ago as targets for anti-aircraft gunnery and missile training. The Unmanned Aerial Vehicles such as the Predator and the Reaper, that spy on battle fields and sometimes attack ground targets, and are incessantly called drones by the talking heads on TV, are not autonomous. They are flown hands on in real time by trained combat pilots. They can, and sometimes do, crash when the pilot temporarily looses contact and the plane gets into an unrecoverable attitude while communication is down.
The autonomy described by silverdragon does not apply to the above mentioned UAVs but more or less to the high flying, long range Global Hawk and probably to the secret spy plane that the Iranians hijacked.
Sorry; That about uses up my word quota for the month.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 25, 2013 7:03:29 GMT
Sorry, but, That is wrong. All pilots should be able to fly using what info is given back via fingertips, sounds, smells, and vibrations, literally through the seat of your pants, and if the engine starts to misbehave, the instruments should only be confirming what you already know. You use every single sense you have to fly a plane. Anything "Unusual" should be suspect.
The Aircraft will tell you when something is wrong, because you already know each and every squeak intimately... when you get a NEW one, only a stupid pilot ignores it.
Flying by the seat of your pants is used to denote such actions, you are ignoring the instruments, and using the "Feel" of the vehicle to tell you what you need to know.
And I know exactly what feelings, vibrations, sounds and outside visual clues that denote my vehicle is doing 30 mph.... the speedometer confirms what I already know.
Belong WITH the original expression?... its how the original expression became what it is.
Part of pilot training is total loss of instrumentation, land by VFR. (This may be armed forces only... I have not done fast jet training, or PPL, so I dont know if its exclusive Military...)(So if I havnt done it, how do I know?... we are allowed to talk to the pilots you know....) If that isnt flying by the seat of your pants, what is?...
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 25, 2013 13:57:24 GMT
so maybe the myth is whether "seat of the pants" refers to being so good a pilot you could fly blindfolded (assuming no scenery to bang into in normal flight) or whether it means a condition where the pilot ends up flying essentially blindfolded.
here, VFR is the rule for basic pilots - if you can't see the dirt, you are not sufficiently trained for the conditions. advanced pilots get IFR approval.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on May 25, 2013 14:13:12 GMT
As far as I know, the expression originated in aviation, as is obvious from the word "flying". The meaning has also been, as thelightworks says, flying without the benefit of the instruments you would normally rely on. All this stuff about being in tune with the vehicle and knowing by feel what might be going on with the machine is just so much embellishment. It certainly is useful, but doesn't belong with the original expression. Yes and no. In the strictest sense you are correct, the myth *should* be tested purely in terms of aircraft. However, MB have limited time and money to put into episodes so finding what may be related tests/myths can help them considerably. In this case we also have to remember that MB like to get the cast to be their own test subjects, which might not be possible in this case given that none of them are pilots. (Meaning that even if they use a real pilot, for safeties sake they'd want to have a second pilot in the aircraft. This would render the cast bystanders.) They could probably test the basic idea in a flight simulator - both Adam and Jamie do have experience in this regards from an earlier episode. But having an alternative version that they could safely test themselves would be a godsend. In the case of cars it would be a good follow on from their JATO car revisit as it *might* explain why Adam had trouble steering the RC rig when he was sitting in a moving truck but had no problems when the truck was stationary. Currently we have three different ways this could be tested, which is VERY helpful as even if one of them proves impractical for some reason they have two more they can fall back on. If they can film all three tests this is a bonus, since they can keep as much or as little footage as they need for an episode. In TV it is better to have too much footage than too little - You can shorten an episode by cutting footage. You can't increase an episode without filming something else.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on May 25, 2013 23:09:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 26, 2013 4:14:12 GMT
No.... not exactly?.... Its almost, if you fly with just One eye, good for you, but most pilots with two eyes fly using BOTH eyes....?... Does that analogy make sense?...
The seat of your pants will give you "Feedback", you use that. Being able to use the seat of your pants as an extra set of data input, and "Feeling" how thw aircraft is flying as well as seeing what its doing... thats seat of your pants stuff.... Being able to RELY on what the seat of your pants tells you without using any other instrumentation, as in knowing what vibrations mean you are just about to slow down too much to stall without using the air speed indicator to tell you that, "Feeling" the side-slip, and knowing how much will loose you too much height, getting into a tight turn and knowing just how much g-force this crate of bolts will take without needing a g-meter....
Its hard to explain, because seat-of-your-pants is so much MORE than just words?.... Flying without the seat of your pants, or ignoring them, well, that would be almost as bad as flying blindfolded?...
|
|
|
Post by blindleader on May 26, 2013 5:28:39 GMT
Sorry, but, That is wrong. All pilots should be able to fly using what info is given back via fingertips [snip] Belong WITH the original expression?... its how the original expression became what it is. Pardon me, but I never disagreed with any of that, except for the part about it being referred to when the expression came into use in the early days of aviation. In those days the only instruments there would have been were the needle and ball, which constituted a primitive attitude indicator, and maybe an engine gauge or two. So, while the meaning of the expression in common usage may have expanded along with the universe of instruments, the loss of ability to tell up from down was then, and is now, the most critical and harrowing event that can take place in an aircraft (other than being shot at or having the wings fall off). As such, it's in a class by itself as far as I'm concerned. Therefore I prefer to limit the expression to the physical control of the aircraft. We could argue the semantics forever, but neither of us were there, and if we could ask ten different pilots who were flying in the 1910's and 20s, we'd probably get twenty different answers. "Visual approach" is not just part of training; It's an everyday part of aviation. Even a 747 carrying 300 passengers on final approach is being flown with the pilot's eyes outside for anywhere from the last 200 vertical feet (bad weather, can't see anything but the runway lights) to the last couple of miles (normal visual conditions). And yes, I have flown with "total loss of instrumentation" in the middle of the night over the Arizona desert with the only electrical activity in the plane being the engines' ignition systems and my quartz watch. It's not as dramatic as it sounds. Being able to tell which way is down to within a couple of degrees is critical to keeping the plane out of the dirt and it's not that difficult as long as you can see some features on the ground or a vague indication of where the ground ends and the sky starts. I can't find the article now, but some time ago an experiment was done in a full motion simulator to see how pilots fared without instruments in IMC (Instrument Meteorological Conditions). Even the best, and most experienced, pilots crashed within shockingly few minutes.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 26, 2013 15:09:30 GMT
No.... not exactly?.... Its almost, if you fly with just One eye, good for you, but most pilots with two eyes fly using BOTH eyes....?... Does that analogy make sense?... The seat of your pants will give you "Feedback", you use that. Being able to use the seat of your pants as an extra set of data input, and "Feeling" how thw aircraft is flying as well as seeing what its doing... thats seat of your pants stuff.... Being able to RELY on what the seat of your pants tells you without using any other instrumentation, as in knowing what vibrations mean you are just about to slow down too much to stall without using the air speed indicator to tell you that, "Feeling" the side-slip, and knowing how much will loose you too much height, getting into a tight turn and knowing just how much g-force this crate of bolts will take without needing a g-meter.... Its hard to explain, because seat-of-your-pants is so much MORE than just words?.... Flying without the seat of your pants, or ignoring them, well, that would be almost as bad as flying blindfolded?... are you missing the point on purpose? my contention is that first we need to establish whether "seat of the pants" is an expression of how good the pilot is or an expression of how bad the conditions are. I contend it is an expression meaning that conditions are so bad that "seat of the pants" is the only reference available.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on May 26, 2013 17:07:49 GMT
"Seat of the Pants"="Gut Instinct"=Doing the best you can under limited circumstances and using your experience as a substitute for critical data.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on May 27, 2013 5:38:26 GMT
Greg.... one line that did what I need a whole page to say?... Neat. I salute you...
An example of when I heard it used in RAF flying situation was a pilot referring to a flight over defended territory in the some part of the world, deploying anti-missile mechanisms, trying to "loose" the thing on his tail firing those missiles, using all his knowledge to fly as low as possible to "Dissuade" whatever was following him, to get into a position where he could return fire, using Knowledge rather than Instruments to put the crate through some high-G turns. Stuff you cant be taught in a classroom, you only learn through experience...
Real set-of-the-pants stuff.
In other situations, as I have said before, I have experienced rally driving, and know what it is to literally fly by the seat of my pants in a WRC car, over a few jumps where you get serious air... you have no idea how high you are, or do you have any ability to change direction in the air, you have pace notes being read by co-pilot, but otherwise, those jumps are part of a fast trek through forest with limited visibility on a loose surface. And you make that jump on the edge of control, on purpose. That is driving by the seat of your pants.
The term therefore is not either/or, its BOTH.
You use EVERYTHING you can to gather as much input as possible, but when the warning lights flash terrain approaching at high speed and you are too low, or that this is a 5-g aircraft and you are pushing 6, you ignore the warnings and push just a little more, because you already know the crate can take it, and that is what is required to get past this part of the day.
"Seat of the pants" is sometimes used when a vehicle is out of its nice shiny operating parameter box and into unknown territory....
Either to the vehicles known abilities, or the person "Piloting" it.
If you have not raced, if you have not driven a car right to the edge of grip, on a track, if you have not continued on that knife edge of control, slid a vehicle on two or all four tyres round a corner right at the edge of grip into a power-slide that is definitely NOT drifting, but definitely controlled, and continued on trough a few more laps of exactly the same, [/i]managing the tyres right to the edge of wear and grip, and gone back out on a new set to do the same again, then trying to explain the pure adrenalin rush you get whilst doing that, and how you NEED that to do some of it.... [Edit--where is SR Racing?... he is much better at explaining this stuff than I am?...] This is not the lucky escape stuff of landing a plane with one engine out of four misbehaving, this is landing the plane on less engines than it takes to fly, this is pushing HARD to the edge, on Purpose, to get abilities that are just not meant to be there in the original design.....
Seat of the pants then becomes what you learned during that, and the "Feeling" you get that says the engine is miss-firing, or that you have a flat tyre, but no instruments to tell you that.
You KNOW you know but can not explain just HOW you know.
As Always, "Please do not try this at home"
[The author is an adrenalin junkie who needed to know he was still alive after an accident and near death experience, so did some extremely dangerous driving in a controlled environment.]
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 27, 2013 14:09:43 GMT
I still disagree. I still believe seat of the pants is when you are flying along and your whole world turns white, and you have only your memory of where you saw the ground 30 seconds ago to guide you as to whether you are about to do a CFIT or not. it is when you come around a corner and you see that the road surface has turned from dry asphalt to snow, or when there is a puff of smoke from your offside tire, and your car decides it wants to get acquainted with the oncoming truck.
un the US, there at least used to be a business that mde a very good living taking people up in "trainer" aircraft fitted with wargames equipment. the pilot would take them well above a safety deck and turn them loose to create virtual mayhem. they made an interesting discovery. the pilots they took up for simulated combat consistently lost to the guys who had never flown a plane in their lives. after studying the phenomenon, they finally figured out it was because the pilots were still pilots at the end of the day and they had been trained with what you do not do in an airplane. they based their entire performance, on absolute values of up and down. meanwhile, the non-pilots based their performance on up being towards the glass and down being towards the seat of their pants. certainly not a good idea when flying combat close to the planet; but certainly a strategic advantage in high altitude combat.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on May 27, 2013 15:06:29 GMT
Like any saying that has survived any length of time the exact meaning tends to get broadened beyond its original roots. While we could argue about what the original meaning was, the current form is more or less as GTCGreg said; You are acting off instinct/natural skill due to a lack of data (or even training or experience) in a situation.
In Mythbusters terms we need to consider the broader use of the term, since this gives them more possible ideas as to how they can test something on the show. In this case, as I said above, none of the MB teams are pilots and safety concerns would mean that any tests done using aircraft would require a second pilot to be in the aircraft. This would result in the test consisting of the MB's standing around twiddling their thumbs rather than being directly involved in the testing - which would be an automatic fail since that is not how they do the show.
Having a version or series of tests that the cast can do themselves is therefore desirable, and hence adding cars to the myth is a good idea. (Not least because cars are a LOT cheaper than aircraft to use for testing.)
This does not mean that they should or would ignore the original meaning. Just that the original meaning would be too limited to base an entire episode around given the shows format.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 27, 2013 15:39:35 GMT
I guess another way of voicing my thoughts is that hearing that your engine is running rough is not "seat of the pants" it is just good skills. nursing your engine along when the carburetor goes wonky would qualify as seat of the pants.
|
|