Very interesting IFR finding

dwalt

dwalt

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Messages
351
Location
Atlanta
Display Name
Display name:
DWalt
I was doing some IFR training with my CFI last night and he told me a very interesting fact.

Some line of the military did a study and found that their pilots were under more stress (as measured by heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, etc) while flying an approach to minimums in IMC than when under fire.

I found this to be an interesting little tidbit, so I thought I'd share.
 
I'm pretty sure your CFI is misinformed. I think that's a misapprehension of a study the Navy did during the Viet Nam war on stress levels in combat in which they inadvertantly discovered that stress levels (as measured by pulse, respiration, and possibly BP) were higher when landing on the carrier than when in the combat area (basically, feet-dry to feet-wet). And I'm quite sure that carrier landings (of which I have 116 in my Navy logbook) are a lot more stressful than instrument approaches, even to mins (except at the boat).
 
Ron Levy said:
I'm pretty sure your CFI is misinformed. I think that's a misapprehension of a study the Navy did during the Viet Nam war on stress levels in combat in which they inadvertantly discovered that stress levels (as measured by pulse, respiration, and possibly BP) were higher when landing on the carrier than when in the combat area. And I'm quite sure that carrier landings (of which I have 116 in my Navy logbook) are a lot more stressful than instrument approaches, even to mins (except at the boat).
Click to expand...

This may very well be the case. Either way, the overall message is that there was more stress when your fate is in your own hands, which I found interesting.
 
Wow, that is crazy... I really hope that is true, I mean I can imagine it being so. Every single one of your sense are being pushed to the max on IMC approaches to minimums, not only that but you are fighting somotographic illusions, graveyard spirals, vertigo, I mean the list goes on and on while still flying the plane, I think their heart rate would go up if their plane got hit while being shot at to a point that would overcome the IMC approach, but either way that is a cool fact!
 
dwalt said:
This may very well be the case. Either way, the overall message is that there was more stress when your fate is in your own hands, which I found interesting.
Click to expand...

Facing off against a well armed group of people trying as hard as they can to kill you is not in the same universe as flying an approach. Those who haven't been in the military like to make these types of comparisons.

Do you have a reference?
 
Alexb2000 said:
Facing off against a well armed group of people trying as hard as they can to kill you is not in the same universe as flying an approach. Those who haven't been in the military like to make these types of comparisons.

Do you have a reference?
Click to expand...

I do not. It was just relayed to me.
 
dwalt said:
I was doing some IFR training with my CFI last night and he told me a very interesting fact.

Some line of the military did a study and found that their pilots were under more stress (as measured by heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, etc) while flying an approach to minimums in IMC than when under fire.

I found this to be an interesting little tidbit, so I thought I'd share.
Click to expand...

How do you know that's a "fact"?
 
roncachamp said:
How do you know that's a "fact"?
Click to expand...

No, I can't substantiate it as "fact". My goal in posting this was nothing more than to relay something cool that I was told from someone whom I trust. I'm not trying to start an argument here; I just wanted to share something that I thought would be relevant to the community here. Take it for what it's worth, and do what ya'll want with it.
 
My reaction is that whoever said that must not have flown many approaches. At some point they are just like the rest of the trip. Slow down, hang out the drag, fly to the MAP and look out the window. If you see some stuff on the ground, land. If not, fly the miss.
 
dwalt said:
No, I can't substantiate it as "fact". My goal in posting this was nothing more than to relay something cool that I was told from someone whom I trust. I'm not trying to start an argument here; I just wanted to share something that I thought would be relevant to the community here. Take it for what it's worth, and do what ya'll want with it.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you misunderstood what he said, or perhaps your trust is misplaced.
 
roncachamp said:
Perhaps you misunderstood what he said, or perhaps your trust is misplaced.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps he was simply sharing something he heard from someone else. My OP was a bit misleading in the sense that he didn't present it to me as "here is a fact, it's important you know it." He shared the tidbit when we were flying a particular approach and I said "wow, there's a lot to keep track of here." He responded with, "you know, I believe they did a study and found that....."

Again, this isn't a major deal and has no effect on anyone's life. It was simply an interesting anecdote that, true or not, is interesting to think about, and that I took as truth because I trust the man.
 
dwalt said:
Again, this isn't a major deal and has no effect on anyone's life. It was simply an interesting anecdote that, true or not, is interesting to think about, and that I took as truth because I trust the man.
Click to expand...

I think it'd be interesting only if it was true, but I doubt it's true.
 
roncachamp said:
I think it'd be interesting only if it was true, but I doubt it's true.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Our trust in different sources will vary based on our past experiences with said source.
 
dwalt said:
Or perhaps he was simply sharing something he heard from someone else. My OP was a bit misleading in the sense that he didn't present it to me as "here is a fact, it's important you know it." He shared the tidbit when we were flying a particular approach and I said "wow, there's a lot to keep track of here." He responded with, "you know, I believe they did a study and found that....."

Again, this isn't a major deal and has no effect on anyone's life. It was simply an interesting anecdote that, true or not, is interesting to think about, and that I took as truth because I trust the man.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting it, that is interesting. It brought up a good debate.

If someone gets their nose out of sorts it is of no matter. You need not defend it.
 
wabower said:
My reaction is that whoever said that must not have flown many approaches. At some point they are just like the rest of the trip. Slow down, hang out the drag, fly to the MAP and look out the window. If you see some stuff on the ground, land. If not, fly the miss.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:


If you are doing it right an instrument approach to low minimums is simply sitting there monitoring your panel and doing nothing fast because you are ahead of the aircraft and know what's coming up next. No where near as exciting as plonking a helo on a tiny flight deck on a crappy night.
 
Almost all the landings on the boat are in VFR conditions - given that VFR is 1000' and 3 miles . . . nothing in my VFR weather manual about deck pitching, sleet, ice, snow, rain or wind . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top