Using points that are at, or near, the horizon put your focus near to the horizon. This is how you judge level flight attitude as a visual pilot, right? If you are looking at the ground you have absolutely no idea the attitude of your aircraft.
Well, you will learn the attitude control by practicing. Honestly, I'm just trying to throw another tool in your box. I have become more aware of attitude perception by looking at the ground beneath me
in addition to the far points, and when you are in a valley with ragged unfamiliar horizon or the vis is very low, which is not not a good day for horizon training, but the object of the maneuver is to achieve control of the attitude in all possible conditions, so the training should include attitude reference with no real far horizon.
I use, and teach, using all available information. On the original subject of covering the instruments, I do this also, but I also teach the use of the instruments. They do enhance my ability, and I started on basic stick and rudder skills long before I had an airplane with an instrument panel, and I teach it that way. All visual attitude control can come from outside visual reference only and primarily learned that way,...but, continued training with the use of instruments enhances our ability to perform during less than ideal conditions.
Our eyes central vision is a 10 degree diameter circle, when we focus. Focusing on a ground point means you will see the ground point/area you're doing a chandelle around. This raises two question for me:
- Who or what is paying attention to the constantly changing attitude?
- What relevant data does this ground point provide?
1. You are. You would be learning to relate attitude and bank control more by a closer-in reference.
2. Besides the above attitude control, the lateral turning reference, or how far you've turned, and possibly specific ground reference data which may not be a part of a PTS maneuver, but may help with SA when doing a PTS maneuver, but more importantly will help if and when it is ever necessary in the life of this pilot.
You harp on me repeatedly for my ideals on "less techniques" and more procedures. There are "better" ways to do things. Using a bad technique just because it is your technique doesn't stand up to logic.
OK, please accept my sincere apology here. It does me or you or anybody else no good if my suggestions are perceived as "harping". For that I am sorry.
I was, and still am, attempting to throw a little more light on "another" way. Not a "better" way - another way, which is an
additional way, or technique, which maybe nobody thought of, or have not tried.
Oh, remember when you are thinking about this: there is no requirement in the commercial PTS for these maneuvers to be performed with a symmetrical ground track. You need only make your air track perfect. Translation: Wind drift information is useless.
Right, matter of fact, you
couldn't do them as prescribed in the AFH if you were trying to groundtrack, in a serious wind, but sometimes, in the non-PTS environment of maneuvering pitch bank and yaw in tight quarters, wind drift may be useful, and that would be an advantage of learning to reference the ground beneath.
Disclaimer: I am only returning the attitude received. Critique nicely next time, aren't we here to learn?
Right here. I'm here to learn. I did make a snotty pitch that you were teaching only the PTS maneuver. I was thinking of it more as an elbow to the ribs of an instructor buddy. (punch)
But my pitch is only that we should teach the use of both. I only got in when I saw your long OHHHH, like it was really a crime. Maybe you were meaning using
only ground reference; that would be as bad as the other way 'round, using only the far horizon. Like teaching
only the outside references vs. the instrument references - or saying
only pitch controls airspeed, or - well, you get the idea. I'm just sayin' - let them use both.
irate:
