Recently I was at a local airport talking to some pilots. One of
them (obviously a real pilot) said that doing a simulator with a
force feedback joystick and then flying a plane made for a smooth
transition.

I'm not a pilot so I didn't argue with that, but I was thinking
"huh?"

Isn't the general consensus here that force feedback is unrealistic?
Maybe I've read the wrong threads or those comments were from non-
pilots?

Partly curious, thanks.








--
I also posted this to a different group. I realize the force
feedback part is not necessarily for piloting, but the piloting part
is.

John Doe > wrote in news:jR0Oi.2629$y21.1720
@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net:

>
> Recently I was at a local airport talking to some pilots. One of
> them (obviously a real pilot) said that doing a simulator with a
> force feedback joystick and then flying a plane made for a smooth
> transition.
>
> I'm not a pilot so I didn't argue with that, but I was thinking
> "huh?"
>
> Isn't the general consensus here that force feedback is unrealistic?
> Maybe I've read the wrong threads or those comments were from non-
> pilots?
>
> Partly curious, thanks.
>
>
>

Even the best sims are a very very poosr substitute for a real airplane,
and learning to fly using a sim is not a good idea.

Bertie
>
>
>
>
>

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> Even the best sims are a very very poosr substitute for a real airplane,
> and learning to fly using a sim is not a good idea.

This is no longer true.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Even the best sims are a very very poosr substitute for a real
>> airplane, and learning to fly using a sim is not a good idea.
>
> This is no longer true.
>

Yes, it is fjukkwit.

I use state of the art sims the doorknobs of shich cost more than the
bankruptcy that broke you and they don't even come close to the real thing.


Bertie

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Even the best sims are a very very poosr substitute for a real airplane,
>> and learning to fly using a sim is not a good idea.
>
> This is no longer true.
..
We must distinguish between MSFS and commercial simulators

"The Old Bloke" > wrote in
:

> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>
>>> Even the best sims are a very very poosr substitute for a real
>>> airplane, and learning to fly using a sim is not a good idea.
>>
>> This is no longer true.
> .
> We must distinguish between MSFS and commercial simulators
>
>
>

You can distinguish all you like. Even commercial ones aren't flying and
don't even come close to duplicating flight. They're good for practicing
procedures, emergencies etc, but none of them fly like an airplane.


Bertie

> To all: Be advised that Anthony Atkielski is not a pilot, and only plays
> MSFS on a computer. He has no basis for comparison between this game and
> real flight.

If this is meant as a generic warning, it fails. A newbie here would
have no way of knowing who Anthony *is*, in this thread, without
further identification.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> Isn't the general consensus here that force feedback is unrealistic?
> Maybe I've read the wrong threads or those comments were from non-
> pilots?

I've taken the flight sim thing as far as money will allow (see our
Kiwi at:
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm ), and can tell you
that force-feedback sticks are cool, but not terribly helpful in a
flight sim -- mostly because (to my knowledge) no one makes a force-
feedback yoke/rudder pedal combination.

I have used Force-feedback sticks in combat sims, and they are very
cool -- but I don't fly fighters, and our Kiwi is set up to replicate
GA flying. (It's a prototype of sims we want to put in at the Iowa
Childrens Museum, as part of a major aviation exhibit...)

If someone were to come out with a Force-feedback yoke, I'd probably
buy it, though. The concept is a good one, but apparently it's MUCH
harder to incorporate in a yoke.

As for whether flying a sim is "real" -- our Kiwi is flown by real
pilots every day at our aviation theme-suite hotel. Pilots from all
over the world have checked it out, and -- although it has obvious
limitations -- it's as real as you can get without leaving the
ground.

The main limitations are (in order of importance):

- No peripheral vision. Even with a 104" projection screen, it's
still like flying a real plane whilst looking through 4" PVC pipes.

- No feedback. In a real plane, if you pull back on the yoke too hard
you know at once to release the back pressure because the G-forces
tell you. In the sim, newbie non-pilots routinely overstress the
planes, simply because they don't know how hard to pull. (Real
pilots, of course, have a built-in sense of what not to do. They,
therefore, don't ever run up against this limitation.)

- No motion. This is less important than you might believe, as your
brain substitutes for the lack of motion. That big screen has made
several people motion sick, without them ever moving an inch.

In the future I want to add a side window screen that will go a long
ways toward addressing the lack of peripheral vision. The other two
limitations are things that can't be addressed for less than a million
bucks...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Oct 7, 7:03 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "The Old Bloke" > wrote :
>
> > "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
> You can distinguish all you like. Even commercial ones aren't flying and
> don't even come close to duplicating flight. They're good for practicing
> procedures, emergencies etc, but none of them fly like an airplane.
>
> Bertie

State of the art, full motion sims do a credible job of replicating
flying. There are some things they can't do very well like high g
maneuvering flight, but things like landing, takeoff, instrument
procedures, even air refueling. are done very realistically. The FAA
awards type certificates in certain airframes without any "real"
airframe time based on the quality of the simulation. I used to do
threat validation for Air Force aircrew training devices and I've seen
many different sims--some of them would give you the leans and motion
sickness just like an aircraft. I am a pilot and flew fighters.

150flivver > wrote in
ups.com:

> On Oct 7, 7:03 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "The Old Bloke" > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>> You can distinguish all you like. Even commercial ones aren't flying
>> and don't even come close to duplicating flight. They're good for
>> practicing procedures, emergencies etc, but none of them fly like an
>> airplane.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> State of the art, full motion sims do a credible job of replicating
> flying. There are some things they can't do very well like high g
> maneuvering flight, but things like landing, takeoff, instrument
> procedures, even air refueling. are done very realistically. The FAA
> awards type certificates in certain airframes without any "real"
> airframe time based on the quality of the simulation. I used to do
> threat validation for Air Force aircrew training devices and I've seen
> many different sims--some of them would give you the leans and motion
> sickness just like an aircraft. I am a pilot and flew fighters.
>
>

KI know all that and I' e flown those sims. I disagree, I don't think they
do a credible job. They do enough to get by, but that's about it,.


Bertie

"150flivver" wrote:

> I've seen
> many different sims--some of them would give you the leans and motion
> sickness just like an aircraft.

I've gotten motion sickness at an IMAX. ;)

The full motion USCG sim I tried out was extremely cool, but it did not feel
like flying.

OTOH, I don't have any real HU-25 time, so my testimony is somewhat suspect.


--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> I use state of the art sims the doorknobs of shich cost more than the
> bankruptcy that broke you and they don't even come close to the real thing.

You're entitled to your opinion, but not everyone shares it.

The Old Bloke writes:

> We must distinguish between MSFS and commercial simulators

Yes, but he said "even the best sims" without further qualification, and the
best sims are not PC-based (unless one is only considering PC sims, of
course).

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> Even commercial ones aren't flying and
> don't even come close to duplicating flight. They're good for practicing
> procedures, emergencies etc, but none of them fly like an airplane.

List a few of the differences. Be specific.

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> KI know all that and I' e flown those sims. I disagree, I don't think they
> do a credible job. They do enough to get by, but that's about it,.

What part of the simulation leads you to this opinion?

My only data point on this is that when I was doing my instrument
training, I flew safety pilot with my CFII's son. He'd done a huge
amount of simulator flying to learn the basics of insturment work, and
I can tell you he was the smoothest insturment flier I've ever seen.
His corrections were almost unnoticable; the plane just stayed where
it was meant to be. I comment on this to his dad later, and we both
wondered if his sim training had giving him this skill...

Perhaps those who have experienced both actual and sim would be in a
better position to understand the differences. Experience counts more
than words.


On Oct 7, 12:40 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
> > Even commercial ones aren't flying and
> > don't even come close to duplicating flight. They're good for practicing
> > procedures, emergencies etc, but none of them fly like an airplane.
>
> List a few of the differences. Be specific.

Jay Honeck writes:

> - No motion. This is less important than you might believe, as your
> brain substitutes for the lack of motion. That big screen has made
> several people motion sick, without them ever moving an inch.

I've had trouble with motion sickness in slew mode on the sim. Then again,
I've had the same trouble with some video games, such as Doom. Apparently it
is quite common. If the movements on the screen exceed those of real life,
motion sickness is quite a risk. It obviously could still make someone sick
if the sim is showing motion that would make someone sick in real life.

> In the future I want to add a side window screen that will go a long
> ways toward addressing the lack of peripheral vision. The other two
> limitations are things that can't be addressed for less than a million
> bucks...

A million dollars is quite an exaggeration, but it would be very expensive,
perhaps more than it's worth for this type of use.

Also, a motion base is important if you fly by feel in a small aircraft or a
high-performance aerobatic or military aircraft, but if you're flying large
airliners, you don't need it much for normal flight. Strong sensations on an
airliner are often an indication of a bad pilot.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> KI know all that and I' e flown those sims. I disagree, I don't think
>> they do a credible job. They do enough to get by, but that's about
>> it,.
>
> What part of the simulation leads you to this opinion?
>

All of it, fukkwit.

Not that you will ever know.


Bertie

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> I use state of the art sims the doorknobs of shich cost more than the
>> bankruptcy that broke you and they don't even come close to the real
>> thing.
>
> You're entitled to your opinion, but not everyone shares it.
>



You don't get an opinion, fjukktard.

You don't fly.


Bertie

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> The Old Bloke writes:
>
>> We must distinguish between MSFS and commercial simulators
>
> Yes, but he said "even the best sims" without further qualification,
> and the best sims are not PC-based (unless one is only considering PC
> sims, of course).
>

PC sims are toys.

You're as qualified from flying those as would be some kid running around
with a dinky toy making airplane noises.


Fjukkwit

Bertie

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Even commercial ones aren't flying and
>> don't even come close to duplicating flight. They're good for
>> practicing procedures, emergencies etc, but none of them fly like an
>> airplane.
>
> List a few of the differences. Be specific.
>


One is a box of tricks and the other is an airplane.


Bertie

Tina > wrote in
ups.com:

> Perhaps those who have experienced both actual and sim would be in a
> better position to understand the differences. Experience counts more
> than words.
>
>

Zachery.


Bertie

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> - No motion. This is less important than you might believe, as your
>> brain substitutes for the lack of motion. That big screen has made
>> several people motion sick, without them ever moving an inch.
>
> I've had trouble with motion sickness in slew mode on the sim. Then
> again, I've had the same trouble with some video games, such as Doom.
> Apparently it is quite common. If the movements on the screen exceed
> those of real life, motion sickness is quite a risk. It obviously
> could still make someone sick if the sim is showing motion that would
> make someone sick in real life.
>
>> In the future I want to add a side window screen that will go a long
>> ways toward addressing the lack of peripheral vision. The other two
>> limitations are things that can't be addressed for less than a
>> million bucks...
>
> A million dollars is quite an exaggeration, but it would be very
> expensive, perhaps more than it's worth for this type of use.
>
> Also, a motion base is important if you fly by feel in a small
> aircraft or a high-performance aerobatic or military aircraft, but if
> you're flying large airliners, you don't need it much for normal
> flight.


Yeah, right, that's why they spend millions on a six axis motion system


Fjukkwit


Bertie

Tina writes:

> Perhaps those who have experienced both actual and sim would be in a
> better position to understand the differences.

Yes ... and they'd be in a better position to explain the differences as well,
which is what I've requested, without success.

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> PC sims are toys.

That's not what the FAA says.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Tina writes:
>
>> Perhaps those who have experienced both actual and sim would be in a
>> better position to understand the differences.
>
> Yes ... and they'd be in a better position to explain the differences
> as well, which is what I've requested, without success.
>


Liar.

I told you, one flies and the othr one sits there.


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> Yeah, right, that's why they spend millions on a six axis motion system

The motion system adds credibility and realism for an airliner. The idea is
not to teach pilots about the sensations, but to provide sensations that make
the rest of the simulation realistic enough to confuse with real life.

This is quite different from using a motion base to teach pilots how to fly by
the seat of their pants (which they must not do in an airliner).

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> PC sims are toys.
>
> That's not what the FAA says.
>

How would you know, fjukkwit.


Besides, that expression was first told to me by an inspector. I think his
precise words were "It's only a box of tricks"


You don't fly and you never will.


Bertie

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Yeah, right, that's why they spend millions on a six axis motion
>> system
>
> The motion system adds credibility and realism for an airliner. The
> idea is not to teach pilots about the sensations, but to provide
> sensations that make the rest of the simulation realistic enough to
> confuse with real life.


But oyu said that the big sims are just the same.

~you're confused, aintcha/


>
> This is quite different from using a motion base to teach pilots how
> to fly by the seat of their pants (which they must not do in an
> airliner).
>

Yes, we do.


Bertie

To all: Be advised that mxsmanic (Anthony Atkielski) is not a pilot and
never has been one.

In fact he has never flown in a small plane at all, or been at the
controls of anything other than a game.

He certainly doesn't know anything about avionics. His only connection to
flying is sitting in a chair and playing MSFS. This is his only reference
point to actual flying.

To all: Be advised that mxsmanic (Anthony Atkielski) is not a pilot and
never has been one. In fact he has never flown in a small plane at all, or
been at the
controls of anything other than a game.

He certainly doesn't know anything about avionics, let alone flying anything
from a Cessna 150 to an F-16 or anything in between.

> I told you, one flies and the othr one sits there.

Well, we now know that Bertie is an engineer...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> I've had trouble with motion sickness in slew mode on the sim. Then again,
> I've had the same trouble with some video games, such as Doom. Apparently it
> is quite common. If the movements on the screen exceed those of real life,
> motion sickness is quite a risk. It obviously could still make someone sick
> if the sim is showing motion that would make someone sick in real life.

Yeah, I used to play Quake (one of the early first-person shooters),
and could easily make myself nauseated by "running" through
buildings.

I never have the problem in the Kiwi when I'm flying, even when doing
aerobatics in an Extra 300 (Yes, Viperdoc, it's got your plane in it!
Actually Patty Wagstaff's, but I digress...). I have felt queasy
*watching* others fly, though, especially ham-fisted newbies who over-
control in all three axes...

We had one little girl puke when her dad (a non-pilot) simply could
NOT stop over-controlling the roll axis. Back, and forth, and back,
and forth, and...**urp**.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 17:05:07 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:
>
>You're as qualified from flying those as would be some kid running around
>with a dinky toy making airplane noises.

What if there's no toy, but he has his arms out and he's running
around the back yard? <G>

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 09:42:29 -0700, Mike Granby >
wrote:

> I comment on this to his dad later, and we both
>wondered if his sim training had giving him this skill...

I personally think PC sims are great for instrument training and
procedure practice. Note how the FAA allows certain non-motion sims
to be logged for IFR training and currency. There is some value
there.

It's the VFR flying and actual aircraft handling, like the transition
from an ILS approach to the hand-flown landing where the PC falls
short.

Since IFR has a large procedural component, sims can be of great
value.

I've tried MSFS with the Extra 300 model. Unfortunately, it came pretty
short. The roll and pitch rates were too slow, and not very responsive.

Also, much of acro is visceral, a sense of how hard you need to push or
pull, and this just doesn't across well with MSFS.

I have used it to practice approaches in the Baron, and it seems to be more
useful here. It was especially good in reviewing approaches in different
environments and locations.

> I've tried MSFS with the Extra 300 model. Unfortunately, it came pretty
> short. The roll and pitch rates were too slow, and not very responsive.

Hmmm... Next time you guys fly down we'll have to try it. With the
rudder pedals/yoke (no stick yet, sorry) set up, I can get the roll
rate of the Extra way beyond the point where I can tell which way is
up. The 104" screen is just a big, spinning blur...

It's hard to imagine the real deal being any faster, but you'll have
to be the judge of that...

> Also, much of acro is visceral, a sense of how hard you need to push or
> pull, and this just doesn't across well with MSFS.

Agreed. I've only flown aerobatics once, but it seemed to be mostly
"feel", with visual cues used to help you get the maneuver set up.
With no motion to provide G forces, MSFS is pretty useless for
simulating this kind of flying. (Although it IS fun...)

I'm sure with practice that feeling of "just hang on!" goes away
some....right?

> I have used it to practice approaches in the Baron, and it seems to be more
> useful here. It was especially good in reviewing approaches in different
> environments and locations.

Yep, approaches, both VFR and IFR, are where MSFS really shines. It's
a great procedures trainer.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

The :just hang on" goes away pretty quickly (it better!). I am far from
expert, but the airplane simply does what you want- if you over rotate on a
snap or roll, it isn't the plane that has the problem.

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1191785185.692659.24160
@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

>> I told you, one flies and the othr one sits there.
>
> Well, we now know that Bertie is an engineer...


Bertie wishes.

Bertie

B A R R Y > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 17:05:07 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>>
>>You're as qualified from flying those as would be some kid running
>>around with a dinky toy making airplane noises.
>
> What if there's no toy, but he has his arms out and he's running
> around the back yard? <G>
>
>

Day VFR only restricion.

Bertie

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 22:38:20 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>
>Day VFR only restricion.

It would suck to hit the swingset at full speed in IFR. <G>

On Oct 7, 4:22 pm, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> The :just hang on" goes away pretty quickly (it better!). I am far from
> expert, but the airplane simply does what you want- if you over rotate on a
> snap or roll, it isn't the plane that has the problem.

Interesting thread.

Seven years ago, I went to Flight Safety in Wichita to get a type
rating in the Citation Bravo, a model 550. Another pilot went with me
to do initial training for this type He already had a Citation 500
type rating but hadn't flown one in a number of years. We did a two
week course together. I took the check ride for the type rating in
the full motion simulator (my first type rating). Then we went out to
the airplane and flew it home together with no previous experience
flying this airplane at all. It was a piece of cake after the
simulator experience. Besides having full motion the sim also had a
view out the window of 180 degrees, (but still not good enough for
the FAA to approve doing circling approaches in it.)

As for PC based sims, about 10 years I became (briefly) addicted to
playing a multiplayer WWII air combat game. At that time, I'd had
about two years experience in aerobatic competition in Extras and
Yaks. As it turns out, my aerobatic experience just made me "fresh
meat" for the other guys in the game. Eventually, one of them told me
that was because I flew the acro maneuvers T O O S M O O T H L Y.
Made me predictable and an easier target. Hmmmm......

BTW, the Extra's roll rate exceeds 360 degrees/sec - even faster for
snap rolls. Stopping the roll at the desired attitude is mainly a
timing thing which requires a good bit of practice. Fortunately,
practice is major fun. ;-)

K l e i n

B A R R Y > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 22:38:20 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Day VFR only restricion.
>
> It would suck to hit the swingset at full speed in IFR. <G>
>

Eww. If he did it it would explain a lot.

Bertie

> >> I told you, one flies and the othr one sits there.
>
> > Well, we now know that Bertie is an engineer...
>
> Bertie wishes.

Dang. With an answer like that (I.E.: Something we already knew, in a
less than useful format) I thought I had you pegged...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 18:40:46 -0400, B A R R Y >
wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 22:38:20 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Day VFR only restricion.
>
> It would suck to hit the swingset at full speed in IFR. <G>

Cumuloplayskool?

Ron Wanttaja

Jay Honeck writes:

> I never have the problem in the Kiwi when I'm flying, even when doing
> aerobatics in an Extra 300 (Yes, Viperdoc, it's got your plane in it!
> Actually Patty Wagstaff's, but I digress...). I have felt queasy
> *watching* others fly, though, especially ham-fisted newbies who over-
> control in all three axes...

It is well known that it's unusual for the person controlling a vehicle to
develop motion sickness, even if he might otherwise be prone to it. As far as
I know, no definitive explanation for this exists, although there are many
theories. Indeed, motion sickness itself, when caused just by _looking_ at
something, is also somewhat of an unexplained mystery.

I became nauseated watching _The Blair Witch Project_, not because it was
scary (it wasn't), but simply because the actors had no training in
cinematography and could not keep the cameras still. And apparently the movie
was edited to remove the worst of the camera movements. It also made some
people sick in theaters for the same reason.

> We had one little girl puke when her dad (a non-pilot) simply could
> NOT stop over-controlling the roll axis. Back, and forth, and back,
> and forth, and...**urp**.

She didn't just look away? Perhaps she didn't know why she felt sick. It
does sneak up on you.

How many times can he overcontrol before he realizes that he is
overcontrolling?

Viperdoc writes:

> I have used it to practice approaches in the Baron, and it seems to be more
> useful here. It was especially good in reviewing approaches in different
> environments and locations.

Fly the Dreamfleet Baron. It's almost like having a new simulator.

> How many times can he overcontrol before he realizes that he is
> overcontrolling?

It's rare, but some people are absolutely clueless about flying the
sim. What's really odd is to watch people who interpret the motion of
a 104" screen BACKWARDS. They see the plane roll left, and turn the
yoke MORE left, resulting in rolling inverted.

Usually someone only does this once before they figure out what's
wrong. Sometimes, though, the "pilot" doesn't ever figure it out,
crashes repeatedly, and gives up. It's almost like something is wired
backwards in their head.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck writes:

> It's rare, but some people are absolutely clueless about flying the
> sim. What's really odd is to watch people who interpret the motion of
> a 104" screen BACKWARDS. They see the plane roll left, and turn the
> yoke MORE left, resulting in rolling inverted.
>
> Usually someone only does this once before they figure out what's
> wrong. Sometimes, though, the "pilot" doesn't ever figure it out,
> crashes repeatedly, and gives up. It's almost like something is wired
> backwards in their head.

What percentage of people who fly the sim make these mistakes? Do you notice
any personality traits that seem to go with being a good pilot or a bad pilot?

> What percentage of people who fly the sim make these mistakes? Do you notice
> any personality traits that seem to go with being a good pilot or a bad pilot?

It's a small but measurable percentage. I'd say 5%?

I haven't noticed anything specific about the personality of the folks
who reverse the controls in the sim.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1191798022.074484.246820@
57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:

>> >> I told you, one flies and the othr one sits there.
>>
>> > Well, we now know that Bertie is an engineer...
>>
>> Bertie wishes.
>
> Dang. With an answer like that (I.E.: Something we already knew, in a
> less than useful format) I thought I had you pegged...
>

Many people have over the years.

I jussa simpuw pile it.

Bertie

Richard Riley > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:00:22 -0700, Jay Honeck >
> wrote:
>
>>> >> I told you, one flies and the othr one sits there.
>>>
>>> > Well, we now know that Bertie is an engineer...
>>>
>>> Bertie wishes.
>>
>>Dang. With an answer like that (I.E.: Something we already knew, in a
>>less than useful format) I thought I had you pegged...
>>
>>;-)
>
> Bertie has flown both state of the art sims and large aluminum
> structures, and been paid well to do so.
>

KI do like sims, BTW, They;re great toys. Airplanes are also great toys,
but they;r two very different kinds of toys. I just gotta copy of Xplane
8.6 based on that review it got in SA. It is very good and the design your
own replicated the flight performance of the Hatz extremely well. I,m gonna
try a flate plate 767 next and see how well it flies!


Bertie

Ron Wanttaja > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 18:40:46 -0400, B A R R Y
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 22:38:20 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Day VFR only restricion.
>>
>> It would suck to hit the swingset at full speed in IFR. <G>
>
> Cumuloplayskool?

Snort!




Bertie

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Viperdoc writes:
>
>> I have used it to practice approaches in the Baron, and it seems to
>> be more useful here. It was especially good in reviewing approaches
>> in different environments and locations.
>
> Fly the Dreamfleet Baron. It's almost like having a new simulator.
>

Why, pages ge stuck togeher on the manual for your old one?

Bertie

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> I never have the problem in the Kiwi when I'm flying, even when doing
>> aerobatics in an Extra 300 (Yes, Viperdoc, it's got your plane in it!
>> Actually Patty Wagstaff's, but I digress...). I have felt queasy
>> *watching* others fly, though, especially ham-fisted newbies who
>> over- control in all three axes...
>
> It is well known that it's unusual for the person controlling a
> vehicle to develop motion sickness, even if he might otherwise be
> prone to it. As far as I know, no definitive explanation for this
> exists, although there are many theories. Indeed, motion sickness
> itself, when caused just by _looking_ at something, is also somewhat
> of an unexplained mystery.
>
> I became nauseated watching _The Blair Witch Project_,


Yes, but you kep watching.

Just like we keep watching your little horror show.

It's hypnotic


Bertie

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> It's rare, but some people are absolutely clueless about flying the
>> sim. What's really odd is to watch people who interpret the motion
>> of a 104" screen BACKWARDS. They see the plane roll left, and turn
>> the yoke MORE left, resulting in rolling inverted.
>>
>> Usually someone only does this once before they figure out what's
>> wrong. Sometimes, though, the "pilot" doesn't ever figure it out,
>> crashes repeatedly, and gives up. It's almost like something is
>> wired backwards in their head.
>
> What percentage of people who fly the sim make these mistakes? Do you
> notice any personality traits that seem to go with being a good pilot
> or a bad pilot?
>






You are an idiot.


Bertie

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1191814995.190468.209590@
57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:

>> How many times can he overcontrol before he realizes that he is
>> overcontrolling?
>
> It's rare, but some people are absolutely clueless about flying the
> sim.


Mostly because sims don't fly.

Yes, they are good for fun and they are good for practicing procedures,
but that's it.
One thing I've noticed about sim/airplane talent over the years is there
is no correlation whatsoever between a good sim pilot and a good pilot
in the aircraft frm a handling point of view.
One of the smoothest pilots I ever knew couldn't fly the sim to save his
life. The clocks were all over the place in the sim. In the airplane,
however, .
I can land the real airplane perfectly almost every ime (it;s a
relatively easy one at the moment, the 75) but the sim is as resoponsive
and graceful falling down stairs.
I can't land even the best sims worth a damn no matter how often I try.
The rest is OK, except I worry about how realistic V1 cuts might be even
in the ones good enough for zero time (we don't do v1 cuts in the
airplanes anymore so I have nothing to compare it with) So I wonder how
it's going to feel like on the day I have one.
In an case, it;'s just a tool. We use autoflight for about 99% of every
sim flight nowadays, even for non-precision approaches, so it;s all only
for procedure.
Some of the sim instructors can fly the thng very well. Doesn't make
them any better at all in the airplane (though some think it does)
They're great tools for procedure and I have been very glad of my sim
time on more than one occasion. When the **** hits the fan and your
vrain degenerates to i's lizard state it is the training in the sim that
allows that lizard to survive. For that they are terrific.
Some people have mentioned that they are good for instrument training.
Yes and no. They are good for procedure and maybe building up your scan
a bit. Also theyre good for developing the picture on instrument
approaches, particularly NDB approaches, but I have reservations about
anything else. Real ILS' never realy feel the same and sims do a poor
job of introducing ever changing winds as you descend down the approach.
One thing I've noticed about sims is that since they are trying to drive
a point into your lizard like skull, they use carrot and stick
programming. If you fly the numbers that should make the airplane go
well, than you ae rewarded. For example, a good target pitch if you lose
an engine at V1 is about 12.5 degrees in most modern jets. Once you're
there you can mess around with it to get your best climb speed and fly
aay while your heart rate decreases to a level where you can start to
deal with the emergency.
So, the sim is geared towards rewarding achieving this pitch by allowing
the airplane to go up pretty much regardless of what else you might be
doing. So, you can be all over the place in the other two planes, which
would drastically affect climb in the real thing, but in the sim, not so
much.
A good thing, of course, since, besides not rolling inverted, that pitch
is the one thing that is going to save your bacon, but it isn't realy
going to teach you a whole lot about V1 cuts and what they reall yfeel
like.
Another quirk is that if you are hand flying it and making the millin
corrections per minute required to fly an airplane smoothly, the clocks
are going to be all over the place. I learned the trick to flying these
contraptions years ago when I saw a non-pilot tekkie do a takeoff from
the back of the sim better than any of mine had been all day. He did
nothing.

He let it go down the runway, in a crosswind, all by itself and then
rotated around v1. then he let go and went back and tweaked a few pots
or something while the airplane climbed merrily away all by itself.
Completely unaided. Now this was an old three axis sim, but I have found
this principal applies to more modern sims as well.
In short, they;re only a box of tricks.


Bertie

In a previous article, Jay Honeck > said:
>It's rare, but some people are absolutely clueless about flying the
>sim. What's really odd is to watch people who interpret the motion of
>a 104" screen BACKWARDS. They see the plane roll left, and turn the
>yoke MORE left, resulting in rolling inverted.

I find when I play non-sim PC games that I always have to turn on an
option, usually called "reverse mouse" or something like that. It seems
that the average PC gamer wants the mouse to act differently than I do - I
think it has something to do with whether you expect it to control the
position of the viewport or your position in the world or something like
that. I wonder if what you're seeing is a PC gamer expectation of control
movements being different than a pilot's expectation?


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
"The aircraft limits are only there in case there is another flight by
that particular aircraft. If subsequent flights do not appear likely,
there are no limits."

In a previous article, Bertie the Bunyip > said:
>One thing I've noticed about sim/airplane talent over the years is there
>is no correlation whatsoever between a good sim pilot and a good pilot
>in the aircraft frm a handling point of view.
>One of the smoothest pilots I ever knew couldn't fly the sim to save his
>life. The clocks were all over the place in the sim. In the airplane,

I keep telling people that I've crashed every time trying to land a plane
in MSFS. Usually I tell them that when we're on final in a real plane.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
The superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid situations in which he
has to demonstrate his superior skill.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> I use state of the art sims the doorknobs of shich cost more than the
>> bankruptcy that broke you and they don't even come close to the real
>> thing.
>
> You're entitled to your opinion, but not everyone shares it.

He is but you are not because you have never felt the control forces of a
real aircraft you have nothing to compare your sim experience to.

I suspect Mx is striving for recognition any way he can. You may
remember he posted a note once about not being able to afford a
McDonald Happymeal, and his website does ask for donated money.

He, I think, resent many on this site can use avgas at the rate of 20
Big Macs with Cheese an hour. "How can", some in his circumstances
often ask, "such obviously inferior people be doing so well compared
to me?"

I see that on the professional side of my life quite a lot.

And others here might ask, "How come a non pilot like tina posts so
often." The answer of course is I'm brilliant (and do get some right
seat time too).




On Oct 8, 7:45 am, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> To all: be advised that mxsmanic, Anthony Atkielski is not a pilot,
> physician, or aeronautical engineer. He has never flown anything, and his
> only frame of reference is through playing the game Microsoft Flight
> Simulator. He has never held a medical, taken a flight lesson, or handled
> the controls of anything that flies.
>
> He is obviously also unaware of the FAA policy on the use of PC based games
> for flight training.

> >Dang. With an answer like that (I.E.: Something we already knew, in a
> >less than useful format) I thought I had you pegged...
>
> >;-)
>
> Bertie has flown both state of the art sims and large aluminum
> structures, and been paid well to do so.

I know. Jeez, it was a *joke*.

(Note to Self: Never tell engineer jokes in a room full of pilots...)

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> >Dang. With an answer like that (I.E.: Something we already knew, in a
> >less than useful format) I thought I had you pegged...
>
> Proper Engineering Procedure
>
> http://s154.photobucket.com/albums/s277/NomenRules/misc/?action=view&...

Sweet!

My dad worked for a power generating utility for almost 40 years,
eventually becoming #3 in the company. Thanks to his acutely
perceptive mind and a remarkable ability to grasp mechanical and 3D
problems, he had a whole raft of engineers reporting to him, despite
his own lack of a college degree. (He did go through accelerated
college during World War II, becoming a "90-day-wonder", ending up a
Captain in the Air Corps)

He would go on for twenty minutes at supper time, bemoaning to my
mother how all of his college-educated engineers couldn't see the
forest cuz the trees were in the way. It drove him absolutely nuts
that they came out of college with no practical knowledge or training
in how to make things work in the real world.

I'm certainly not qualified to comment, but from what I've read here
over the years, this problem hasn't gotten any better in the last 25
years....
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> I can't land even the best sims worth a damn no matter how often I try.

<Many good points snipped>

In our Kiwi flight simulator, it is tail-dragger pilots that have had
the most difficulty landing. I believe this is because of our
aforementioned lack of peripheral vision, despite having a 104"
projection screen. They simply don't have the visual cues they are
used to in the flare, and usually crash at first.

Since you're flying heavy metal, I don't know why landing would be
difficult. One thing I've learned is that computer processing speed
(along with a top-notch vido card) are absolutely necessary to ensure
a fast enough screen frame rate. Although I presume any professional
3-axis simulator has up-to-the-minute computers installed, perhaps
not?

If this were the case, you would experience a slight, nearly
imperceptible lag behind your control input and reaction on the
screen(s). I've flown sims with this problem, and landing them is
damn near impossible without doing as little movement as possible --
just like you describe.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

(Paul Tomblin) wrote in news:fed98o$25n$3
@xen1.xcski.com:

> In a previous article, Bertie the Bunyip > said:
>>One thing I've noticed about sim/airplane talent over the years is there
>>is no correlation whatsoever between a good sim pilot and a good pilot
>>in the aircraft frm a handling point of view.
>>One of the smoothest pilots I ever knew couldn't fly the sim to save his
>>life. The clocks were all over the place in the sim. In the airplane,
>
> I keep telling people that I've crashed every time trying to land a plane
> in MSFS. Usually I tell them that when we're on final in a real plane.
>
>

Does your wife watch you fly MSFS?


Bertie

> I find when I play non-sim PC games that I always have to turn on an
> option, usually called "reverse mouse" or something like that. It seems
> that the average PC gamer wants the mouse to act differently than I do - I
> think it has something to do with whether you expect it to control the
> position of the viewport or your position in the world or something like
> that. I wonder if what you're seeing is a PC gamer expectation of control
> movements being different than a pilot's expectation?

Yeah, I've considered that -- but I honestly don't know.

The problem usually first manifests itself on the *ground*, when the
newbie is learning to steer with their feet. No matter how I tell
them to "push left, turn left", they will keep pushing RIGHT. I've
even tried tapping the appropriate leg, thinking that perhaps they
didn't know "right" from "left", and that didn't help. They just end
up out in the weeds.

If I can start 'em in the air (another advantage of a sim!) they
generally learn which way to turn the yoke to make the plane go where
they expect it to -- but not always. I've had some folks give up,
and NEVER figure it out.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1191858153.025012.269810
@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

>> I can't land even the best sims worth a damn no matter how often I try.
>
> <Many good points snipped>
>
> In our Kiwi flight simulator, it is tail-dragger pilots that have had
> the most difficulty landing. I believe this is because of our
> aforementioned lack of peripheral vision,=


No , I don't think so, it's because they're more accustomed to actually
flying the aiplane raher than driving it around. It goes to what I was
saying earlier. Because they're trying to fly an airplane, rather than
operate a box of tricks, it all goes wrong because the box doesn't
understand what they're doing, they don't undrstand what the box is doing
and there's just no loop at all.


Bertie

Jay Honeck > wrote in
ups.com:

>> I find when I play non-sim PC games that I always have to turn on an
>> option, usually called "reverse mouse" or something like that. It
>> seems that the average PC gamer wants the mouse to act differently
>> than I do - I think it has something to do with whether you expect it
>> to control the position of the viewport or your position in the world
>> or something like that. I wonder if what you're seeing is a PC gamer
>> expectation of control movements being different than a pilot's
>> expectation?
>
> Yeah, I've considered that -- but I honestly don't know.
>
> The problem usually first manifests itself on the *ground*, when the
> newbie is learning to steer with their feet. No matter how I tell
> them to "push left, turn left", they will keep pushing RIGHT. I've
> even tried tapping the appropriate leg, thinking that perhaps they
> didn't know "right" from "left", and that didn't help. They just end
> up out in the weeds.
>
> If I can start 'em in the air (another advantage of a sim!) they
> generally learn which way to turn the yoke to make the plane go where
> they expect it to -- but not always. I've had some folks give up,
> and NEVER figure it out.



Too bad we on't use our asses and elbows to fly then, if that were the case
anthony would have given up on his sim by now.


Bertie

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

Although I presume any professional
> 3-axis simulator has up-to-the-minute computers installed, perhaps
> not?
>
Probably not. They are FAA certified.

Karl

> It's rare, but some people are absolutely clueless about flying the
> sim. What's really odd is to watch people who interpret the motion of
> a 104" screen BACKWARDS. They see the plane roll left, and turn the
> yoke MORE left, resulting in rolling inverted.

My guess is that they are not "flying a plane", they are "riding a
bike" instead. They turn into the direction of bank to avoid
"falling".

Bartek

>
> Proper Engineering Procedure
>
> http://s154.photobucket.com/albums/s277/NomenRules/misc/?action=view&...
>
I guess its kinda sad that I find this funny and understand the
equations all at the same time...

I guess that's why my wife playfully calls me an engi-nerd. An M.E.
friend of mine says it takes an E.E. to spell gE.E.k, but clearly
that's just jealousy on his part. Besides, he's so self-centered that
its "always about M.E." with him.

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> One thing I've noticed about sim/airplane talent over the years is there
> is no correlation whatsoever between a good sim pilot and a good pilot
> in the aircraft frm a handling point of view.

Of course, most modern airliners are never (or almost never) "handled," so
even if this were true, it would not be very important.

> I can't land even the best sims worth a damn no matter how often I try.

You depend too much on physical sensations or other unsimulated clues,
perhaps.

Jay Honeck writes:

> Since you're flying heavy metal, I don't know why landing would be
> difficult. One thing I've learned is that computer processing speed
> (along with a top-notch vido card) are absolutely necessary to ensure
> a fast enough screen frame rate. Although I presume any professional
> 3-axis simulator has up-to-the-minute computers installed, perhaps
> not?

On a PC running a simulator, most of the horsepower goes to generating the
visuals. The actual flight simulation is well within an average PC's
capabilities. If you could dedicate one or more PCs to the display and
another one to they flight dynamics, you could get very good results.

As it is, it's true that high frame rates will improve the simulation. Beyond
30 fps or so, you can't see the difference unless things are moving very
rapidly across the screen, but you can sense the difference in the way the
simulated aircraft handles.

> If this were the case, you would experience a slight, nearly
> imperceptible lag behind your control input and reaction on the
> screen(s). I've flown sims with this problem, and landing them is
> damn near impossible without doing as little movement as possible --
> just like you describe.

In worst case scenarios, such as 1-2 fps, nobody can land successfully in
anything other than dead calm and a 25-mile final.

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> No , I don't think so, it's because they're more accustomed to actually
> flying the aiplane raher than driving it around. It goes to what I was
> saying earlier. Because they're trying to fly an airplane, rather than
> operate a box of tricks, it all goes wrong because the box doesn't
> understand what they're doing, they don't undrstand what the box is doing
> and there's just no loop at all.

So why are simulators so popular and so useful?

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> Yes, but you kep watching.

No, I actually skipped most of the movie, as it wasn't worth the motion
sickness, and it was pretty boring, anyway--not at all scary, and laced with
profanity.

"Jay Honeck" wrote ..
>
> In our Kiwi flight simulator, it is tail-dragger pilots that have had
> the most difficulty landing. I believe this is because of our
> aforementioned lack of peripheral vision, despite having a 104"
> projection screen. They simply don't have the visual cues they are
> used to in the flare, and usually crash at first.

MSFS has the drawback that the airplane's nose is not visible, as the panel
blocks the view. This IMO makes judging the flare much more difficult than
in real life, especially in a taildragger.

Years ago I used to "fly" a WWII simulator called Warbirds, which had a
better view of the nose of the plane. After some practice, landings were
really no problem. Well, maybe "practice" is the key word anyway ;-)

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> One thing I've noticed about sim/airplane talent over the years is
>> there is no correlation whatsoever between a good sim pilot and a
>> good pilot in the aircraft frm a handling point of view.
>
> Of course, most modern airliners are never (or almost never)
> "handled," so even if this were true, it would not be very important.


Wrong again dip****.

We're actually encouraged to hand fly when it's practical so we remain
proficient.

Whihc just goes to show you know nothing.
>
>> I can't land even the best sims worth a damn no matter how often I
>> try.
>
> You depend too much on physical sensations or other unsimulated clues,
> perhaps.
>

Nope.


Bertie

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> The problem usually first manifests itself on the *ground*, when the
> newbie is learning to steer with their feet. No matter how I tell
> them to "push left, turn left", they will keep pushing RIGHT. I've
> even tried tapping the appropriate leg, thinking that perhaps they
> didn't know "right" from "left", and that didn't help. They just end
> up out in the weeds.

The very first time I flew (airplane or sim) was in a real airplane, and at
first, I could not understand that the rudder did not work like handlebars
on a bicycle. After I was told to think of old time airplanes having a
cable hooked up on the "rudder bar" and the same side of the rudder, it made
sense.
--
Jim in NC

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> Since you're flying heavy metal, I don't know why landing would be
>> difficult. One thing I've learned is that computer processing speed
>> (along with a top-notch vido card) are absolutely necessary to ensure
>> a fast enough screen frame rate. Although I presume any
>> professional 3-axis simulator has up-to-the-minute computers
>> installed, perhaps not?
>
> On a PC running a simulator, most of the horsepower goes to generating
> the visuals. The actual flight simulation is well within an average
> PC's capabilities. If you could dedicate one or more PCs to the
> display and another one to they flight dynamics, you could get very
> good results.
>
> As it is, it's true that high frame rates will improve the simulation.
> Beyond 30 fps or so, you can't see the difference unless things are
> moving very rapidly across the screen, but you can sense the
> difference in the way the simulated aircraft handles.
>
>> If this were the case, you would experience a slight, nearly
>> imperceptible lag behind your control input and reaction on the
>> screen(s). I've flown sims with this problem, and landing them is
>> damn near impossible without doing as little movement as possible --
>> just like you describe.
>
> In worst case scenarios, such as 1-2 fps, nobody can land successfully
> in anything other than dead calm and a 25-mile final.
>


You're an idiot,. Nobody lands a som, fjukkwit

bertie

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> No , I don't think so, it's because they're more accustomed to
>> actually flying the aiplane raher than driving it around. It goes to
>> what I was saying earlier. Because they're trying to fly an airplane,
>> rather than operate a box of tricks, it all goes wrong because the
>> box doesn't understand what they're doing, they don't undrstand what
>> the box is doing and there's just no loop at all.
>
> So why are simulators so popular and so useful?
>
They're popular with jerkoffs like you.


They're useful only for porcedural training, they don't teach much of
anythng aobut flying an airplane.


Period.


Fjukwit


Bertie

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> Yes, but you kep watching.
>
> No, I actually skipped most of the movie, as it wasn't worth the
> motion sickness, and it was pretty boring, anyway--not at all scary,
> and laced with profanity.
>

Oh dear.

Poor sensiticve fjukkwit


Bertie

"Snowbird" > wrote in
ti.fi:

>
> "Jay Honeck" wrote ..
>>
>> In our Kiwi flight simulator, it is tail-dragger pilots that have had
>> the most difficulty landing. I believe this is because of our
>> aforementioned lack of peripheral vision, despite having a 104"
>> projection screen. They simply don't have the visual cues they are
>> used to in the flare, and usually crash at first.
>
> MSFS has the drawback that the airplane's nose is not visible, as the
> panel blocks the view. This IMO makes judging the flare much more
> difficult than in real life, especially in a taildragger.
>


You couldn't start my airplane, let alone get it to the end of the runway,
fjukkwit.


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote ...
> "Snowbird" wrote in
>
> You couldn't start my airplane, let alone get it to the end of the runway,
> fjukkwit.
>
What was it again... a Hatz?? Probably not. However, for the time being I'm
quite happy with those I do fly.

"Snowbird" > wrote in
ti.fi:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote ...
>> "Snowbird" wrote in
>>
>> You couldn't start my airplane, let alone get it to the end of the
>> runway, fjukkwit.
>>
> What was it again... a Hatz?? Probably not. However, for the time
> being I'm quite happy with those I do fly.
>
>
>

Nah, hatz is still a building.. Fact is he couldn't fly a chcuk glider
anyway.

Bertie

On Oct 8, 1:13 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>
> > The problem usually first manifests itself on the *ground*, when the
> > newbie is learning to steer with their feet. No matter how I tell
> > them to "push left, turn left", they will keep pushing RIGHT. I've
> > even tried tapping the appropriate leg, thinking that perhaps they
> > didn't know "right" from "left", and that didn't help. They just end
> > up out in the weeds.
>
> The very first time I flew (airplane or sim) was in a real airplane, and at
> first, I could not understand that the rudder did not work like handlebars
> on a bicycle. After I was told to think of old time airplanes having a
> cable hooked up on the "rudder bar" and the same side of the rudder, it made
> sense.
I saw something similar in a sailing club, where we had a lot of brand
new people starting out. They were confused because when you push the
tiller the boat moves toward you, and we could sometimes help them by
explaining that the linkage was 'reversed'. The best thing to do,
however, was to put them in a boat, point at a distant tree, and tell
them to 'make the boat go that way'. In a minute they would have it
figured out, and in ten minutes, they would forget about the rudder
and just ' make it go that way'.

John Halpenny

In a previous article, Bertie the Bunyip > said:
(Paul Tomblin) wrote in news:fed98o$25n$3
:
>> I keep telling people that I've crashed every time trying to land a plane
>> in MSFS. Usually I tell them that when we're on final in a real plane.
>
>Does your wife watch you fly MSFS?

No, but I haven't tried MSFS since I started flying a real plane except
for the Wright Flyer demo at Oshkosh.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
If you're not part of the solution, be part of the problem!

(Paul Tomblin) wrote in
:

> In a previous article, Bertie the Bunyip > said:
(Paul Tomblin) wrote in news:fed98o$25n$3
:
>>> I keep telling people that I've crashed every time trying to land a
>>> plane in MSFS. Usually I tell them that when we're on final in a
>>> real plane.
>>
>>Does your wife watch you fly MSFS?
>
> No, but I haven't tried MSFS since I started flying a real plane
> except for the Wright Flyer demo at Oshkosh.
>
>

I did that as well. I want one!

A real one, of course, the sim is way too easy, though my 12 YO nephew did
better on it.


Bertie

"150flivver" > wrote in message
ups.com...

> The FAA awards type certificates in certain airframes without any "real"
> airframe time based on the quality of the simulation.

I don't disagree with the idea that simulators are very useful; however,
it's important to note that everybody the FAA certifies as above has already
flown an actual airplane and is aware of the differences, haven't they?

IOW, you can't go from Zero hours to solo-ready in a simulator.

-c

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...

>>Day VFR only restricion.
>
> It would suck to hit the swingset at full speed in IFR. <G>

I used to fly off the swingset in the second grade, but the teacher made us
come in out of the rain in IMC days. Only NOW can I understand!

-c

"John Halpenny" > wrote

> I saw something similar in a sailing club, where we had a lot of brand
> new people starting out. They were confused because when you push the
> tiller the boat moves toward you, and we could sometimes help them by
> explaining that the linkage was 'reversed'.

I never had a lick of trouble with that. I think it was partially because
you can see which way the rudder is moving.

I've spent a lot of time on a tiller. I even broke one (delaminated the
fiberglass) one time in a race, that was blowing pretty hard with a little
too much jib up! <g>
--
Jim in NC

wrote:

>>Proper Engineering Procedure
>>
>>http://s154.photobucket.com/albums/s277/NomenRules/misc/?action=view&...
>>
>
> I guess its kinda sad that I find this funny and understand the
> equations all at the same time...
>
> I guess that's why my wife playfully calls me an engi-nerd. An M.E.
> friend of mine says it takes an E.E. to spell gE.E.k, but clearly
> that's just jealousy on his part. Besides, he's so self-centered that
> its "always about M.E." with him.
>
How can you tell if there's an angineer at a party? Oh, he'll tell you!

Scott Skylane wrote:

> How can you tell if there's an angineer at a party? Oh, he'll tell
> you!

And he will teach you to spell it correctly.

Gatt writes:

> IOW, you can't go from Zero hours to solo-ready in a simulator.

Then again, if you have a simulator so realistic that it allows you to become
"solo-ready," why would you want to solo at all? Flying the real thing might
not have any obvious advantages.

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> They're popular with jerkoffs like you.

Like airlines, you mean?

> They're useful only for porcedural training, they don't teach much of
> anythng aobut flying an airplane.

Flying an airliner today is essentially procedural.

Snowbird writes:

> MSFS has the drawback that the airplane's nose is not visible, as the panel
> blocks the view. This IMO makes judging the flare much more difficult than
> in real life, especially in a taildragger.

Depending on the aircraft, you may be able to turn off the panel and see only
the nose. Virtual cockpits also allow you to position yourself wherever you
wish. Some aircraft have an "approach" view that puts your eyepoint in a
different position for landing, one with somewhat greater visibility.

Bertie the Bunyip writes:

> You couldn't start my airplane, let alone get it to the end of the runway,
> fjukkwit.

Some aircraft I know how to start, others not.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Gatt writes:
>
>> IOW, you can't go from Zero hours to solo-ready in a simulator.
>
> Then again, if you have a simulator so realistic that it allows you to
> become "solo-ready," why would you want to solo at all? Flying the
> real thing might not have any obvious advantages.
>



Yes, good advice,. stick to your guns and your bedroom, fjukktard

bertie

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> They're popular with jerkoffs like you.
>
> Like airlines, you mean?
>
>> They're useful only for porcedural training, they don't teach much of
>> anythng aobut flying an airplane.
>
> Flying an airliner today is essentially procedural.
>



Nope.

Bertie

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Snowbird writes:
>
>> MSFS has the drawback that the airplane's nose is not visible, as the
>> panel blocks the view. This IMO makes judging the flare much more
>> difficult than in real life, especially in a taildragger.
>
> Depending on the aircraft, you may be able to turn off the panel and
> see only the nose. Virtual cockpits also allow you to position
> yourself wherever you wish. Some aircraft have an "approach" view
> that puts your eyepoint in a different position for landing, one with
> somewhat greater visibility.
>



What an idiot you truly are

Bertie

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>
>> You couldn't start my airplane, let alone get it to the end of the
>> runway, fjukkwit.
>
> Some aircraft I know how to start, others not.
>



You couldn't start a rubber band model.


Bertie

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> >Dang. With an answer like that (I.E.: Something we already knew, in a
>> >less than useful format) I thought I had you pegged...
>>
>> >;-)
>>
>> Bertie has flown both state of the art sims and large aluminum
>> structures, and been paid well to do so.
>
> I know. Jeez, it was a *joke*.
>
> (Note to Self: Never tell engineer jokes in a room full of pilots...)
>
> :-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

So this engineering student is walking across the campus when
another one cruises up on a new bicycle.

1st student, "Where'd you get the Bike?"

2nd student, "You know, funny thing, yesterday just after class, this
beautiful cheerleader rode up to me on this bike, stopped, took off all of
her clothes, and said Take what you want!".

1st student, "Good choice, the clothes wouldn't have fit."



Al G

In article >,
says...
> Gatt writes:
>
> > IOW, you can't go from Zero hours to solo-ready in a simulator.
>
> Then again, if you have a simulator so realistic that it allows you to become
> "solo-ready," why would you want to solo at all? Flying the real thing might
> not have any obvious advantages.

ROTFL

--
Duncan

150flivver > wrote:

> State of the art, full motion sims do a credible job of
> replicating flying.

> I am a pilot and flew fighters.

That particular qualification is quite cool IMO (and yes, I'm sure
there are others very similar in this group).

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 13:30:55 -0800, Scott Skylane > wrote:

> How can you tell if there's an angineer at a party? Oh, he'll tell you!

I was at a dinner party a while back, and man there introduced himself as the
director of the local symphony orchestra.

I shouted out, "Hey, look, folks...a conductor and an engineer!"

Ron "Well, *I* thought it was funny" Wanttaja

Tina <tbaker27705 gmail.com> wrote:

> I suspect Mx is striving for recognition any way he can. You may
> remember he posted a note once about not being able to afford a
> McDonald Happymeal, and his website does ask for donated money.
>
> He, I think, resent many on this site can use avgas at the rate of
> 20 Big Macs with Cheese an hour. "How can", some in his
> circumstances often ask, "such obviously inferior people be doing
> so well compared to me?"

That could be. But that doesn't explain why a control freak puts so
much time into trying to oust him from the group (especially since
it just ain't going to happen), and so little time debunking his
arguments. If I were a pilot, I probably wouldn't bother much unless
his advice was unsafe, then I'd jump on it.

> I see that on the professional side of my life quite a lot.
>
> And others here might ask, "How come a non pilot like tina posts
> so often." The answer of course is I'm brilliant (and do get some
> right seat time too).

In a professional group like this, really useful might be to include
a very brief summary of past and present flying experience at the
end or in the signature of a post, especially when discrediting
someone for lack of piloting experience.

Good luck and have fun.












>
>
>
>
> Path: newssvr14.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. net!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!newscon 04.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!p ostnews.google.com!o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: Tina <tbaker27705 gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
> Subject: Re: Force feedback versus real piloting?
> Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 13:37:11 -0000
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 29
> Message-ID: <1191850631.730651.292350 o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
> References: <jR0Oi.2629$y21.1720 newssvr19.news.prodigy.net> <Xns99C26C55FF7E7****upropeeh 207.14.116.130> <2ihhg352tv685bhgp5pq5ll0eo80n6vj8s 4ax.com> <kO3Oi.6639$H22.728 news-server.bigpond.net.au> <ps2ig31us01d15lm10n404bklokjg255tk 4ax.com> <Xns99C2B4E5EEF75****upropeeh 207.14.116.130> <l05ig3tjr2srdv81evoq2j2vhibla8mp0v 4ax.com> <470a1845$0$4997$4c368faf roadrunner.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.111.243.18
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1191850632 28640 127.0.0.1 (8 Oct 2007 13:37:12 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 13:37:12 +0000 (UTC)
> In-Reply-To: <470a1845$0$4997$4c368faf roadrunner.com>
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; YPC 3.2.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; yplus 5.6.04b),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> Injection-Info: o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=71.111.243.18; posting-account=ps2QrAMAAAA6_jCuRt2JEIpn5Otqf_w0
> Xref: prodigy.net rec.aviation.piloting:603296
>

Richard Riley > wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 09:49:18 -0500, "Viperdoc"
> > wrote:
>
>>Good point- Anthony Atkielski, aka mxsmanic, is not a pilot and
>>never has been one. His only frame of reference is through playing
>>MSFS.
>>
>
> Compact, objective, clear, to the point. I might spell out
> Microsoft Flight Simulator.

It's also redundant, he has already stated the same elsewhere in
this thread. And anybody who's read the group would know that
already anyway. I think you guys have it covered, if not smothered.

> Now all we need is a bot.

All you need is to include a very brief summary of your past and
present flying experience in your posts when discrediting someone
for lack of flying experience. Lots of groups include regular
authors that don't have the expected qualifications.

And that's the way it is, IMO.

John Doe wrote:
> Tina <tbaker27705 gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I suspect Mx is striving for recognition any way he can. You may
>> remember he posted a note once about not being able to afford a
>> McDonald Happymeal, and his website does ask for donated money.
>>
>> He, I think, resent many on this site can use avgas at the rate of
>> 20 Big Macs with Cheese an hour. "How can", some in his
>> circumstances often ask, "such obviously inferior people be doing
>> so well compared to me?"
>
> That could be. But that doesn't explain why a control freak puts so
> much time into trying to oust him from the group (especially since
> it just ain't going to happen), and so little time debunking his
> arguments. If I were a pilot, I probably wouldn't bother much unless
> his advice was unsafe, then I'd jump on it.
>
>> I see that on the professional side of my life quite a lot.
>>
>> And others here might ask, "How come a non pilot like tina posts
>> so often." The answer of course is I'm brilliant (and do get some
>> right seat time too).
>
> In a professional group like this, really useful might be to include
> a very brief summary of past and present flying experience at the
> end or in the signature of a post, especially when discrediting
> someone for lack of piloting experience.
>
> Good luck and have fun.

Listing experience on Usenet is really a lost cause. Anyone can state
anything about experience and it can be true or false.
The best and only way to deal with Usenet properly in my opinion anyway,
is simply to post information and data. Those who know will know
immediately what is right and what is bull crap.

Those who don't know are well advised to check out everything they read
on Usenet with competent authority before accepting the poster or what
has been posted as fact.
Those newbies hanging out on a group like this one for any length of
time soon learn who to trust and not to trust by watching the reaction
and counter posting to those who post on the forum.
Basically the old rule about Usenet still applies and has merit even
today. Come on in....lurk for a while....get a handle on who's who and
what's being said; then enter the group by ASKING something rather than
telling people what you know. If you know something that you'd like to
contribute, by all means do so, but those doing that right away should
at least TRY and use a little tact :-)
DH

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques <dhenriques rcn.com> wrote:

> John Doe wrote:

>> In a professional group like this, really useful might be to
>> include a very brief summary of past and present flying
>> experience at the end or in the signature of a post, especially
>> when discrediting someone for lack of piloting experience.

> Listing experience on Usenet is really a lost cause.

Because it didn't make you rich and famous? I read your post about
your early USENET days frustration with listing experience. To be
clear, I didn't say a list, I said "a very brief summary of past and
present flying experience" like maybe 10 words or less.

> Anyone can state anything about experience and it can be true or
> false. The best and only way to deal with Usenet properly in my
> opinion anyway, is simply to post information and data. Those who
> know will know immediately what is right and what is bull crap.

Or obviously contradictory hogwash. The reply by 150flivver stated
"I am a pilot and flew fighters." With all your past piloting
experience, Dudley Henriques, that qualification might not mean
anything to you, but it means a lot to me. And if it were not true,
regulars would have jumped all over him.













> at least TRY and use a little tact :-)
> DH
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques
>
> Path: newssvr14.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. net!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!newscon 04.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!b order1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!loc al01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.rcn.net!news.rcn.n et.POSTED!not-for-mail
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 21:28:05 -0500
> Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 22:28:04 -0400
> From: Dudley Henriques <dhenriques rcn.com>
> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728)
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
> Subject: Re: Force feedback versus real piloting?
> References: <jR0Oi.2629$y21.1720 newssvr19.news.prodigy.net> <Xns99C26C55FF7E7****upropeeh 207.14.116.130> <2ihhg352tv685bhgp5pq5ll0eo80n6vj8s 4ax.com> <kO3Oi.6639$H22.728 news-server.bigpond.net.au> <ps2ig31us01d15lm10n404bklokjg255tk 4ax.com> <Xns99C2B4E5EEF75****upropeeh 207.14.116.130> <l05ig3tjr2srdv81evoq2j2vhibla8mp0v 4ax.com> <470a1845$0$4997$4c368faf roadrunner.com> <1191850631.730651.292350 o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <%qBOi.5273$4V6.3325 newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>
> In-Reply-To: <%qBOi.5273$4V6.3325 newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Message-ID: <QNOdnT81fqCoepfanZ2dnUVZ_rmjnZ2d rcn.net>
> Lines: 53
> X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.172.126.29
> X-Trace: sv3-QhGz/OK3u06aT6mGf7FldWmc2MQ/UGa6j/ay5EMRSASku8//PYn4ccyPWYJpL+/OIdrjfBuF1pjZafN!2gkv4hqQnY8a49/2RehHz1MK+TZYhFibXa0DzCpl5oAwUi3vDYUaVaQwy0LULLNVZ 72fb0/4AnhS!pw0=
> X-Complaints-To: abuse rcn.net
> X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse rcn.net
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
> X-Postfilter: 1.3.35
> Xref: prodigy.net rec.aviation.piloting:603529
>

On Oct 9, 11:08 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
> > You couldn't start my airplane, let alone get it to the end of the runway,
> > fjukkwit.
>
> Some aircraft I know how to start, others not.

My aeroplane would not fit in your bedroom

John Doe wrote:
> Dudley Henriques <dhenriques rcn.com> wrote:
>
>> John Doe wrote:
>
>>> In a professional group like this, really useful might be to
>>> include a very brief summary of past and present flying
>>> experience at the end or in the signature of a post, especially
>>> when discrediting someone for lack of piloting experience.
>
>> Listing experience on Usenet is really a lost cause.
>
> Because it didn't make you rich and famous?

Actually, I am rich. Not to sure about famous.

I read your post about
> your early USENET days frustration with listing experience.

That's where I learned what I'm telling you now.




To be
> clear, I didn't say a list, I said "a very brief summary of past and
> present flying experience" like maybe 10 words or less.

What difference whether it's a list or 10 words or less. The point isn't
the list or the words. It's that on Usenet nobody knows you're a dog.
That list and those words can list or say anything.
Hell, I might not even BE Dudley Henriques for all you know. I could be
an ugly old lady in Spokane with a wart on my ass sitting here feeding
you the biggest line of crap I could think up. You'd never know the
difference. It's Usenet, not truth or consequences.
>
>> Anyone can state anything about experience and it can be true or
>> false. The best and only way to deal with Usenet properly in my
>> opinion anyway, is simply to post information and data. Those who
>> know will know immediately what is right and what is bull crap.
>
> Or obviously contradictory hogwash. The reply by 150flivver stated
> "I am a pilot and flew fighters." With all your past piloting
> experience, Dudley Henriques, that qualification might not mean
> anything to you, but it means a lot to me.

How the hell do you know what or what not means anything to me.
This is the whole point. You don't know me from Adam. It's Usenet!
The ONLY way you can identify me as a credible poster or a bull ****
artist is by the information I post. I can feed you "experience" all day
long and it will tell you absolutely nothing about me.




And if it were not true,
> regulars would have jumped all over him.

Finally you're catching on. The "regulars" as you call them will know by
the information posted how credible he is, NOT by anything he says about
himself. In fact, the "regulars" will most likely tell you exactly what
I'm telling you about stating "experience" on public forums, as they
wouldn't go by that any more than I would.

Hey....I can see you and I are not meant to agree on much of anything so
you go on and take the last shot if you like and I'll be moving on.
DH



--
Dudley Henriques

george wrote:
> On Oct 9, 11:08 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>> You couldn't start my airplane, let alone get it to the end of the runway,
>>> fjukkwit.
>> Some aircraft I know how to start, others not.
>
> My aeroplane would not fit in your bedroom
>

It might if you flew a Pitts.

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> John Doe wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques <dhenriques rcn.com> wrote:

....

>> To be clear, I didn't say a list, I said "a very brief summary of
>> past and present flying experience" like maybe 10 words or less.

> That list and those words can list or say anything.

Not if it's 10 words or less.

> Hell, I might not even BE Dudley Henriques for all you know.

How do you know what I know?

> I could be an ugly old lady in Spokane with a wart on my ass
> sitting here feeding you the biggest line of crap I could think
> up. You'd never know the difference. It's Usenet, not truth or
> consequences.

This is also the age of instant messaging and webcams. Some, if not
many, regulars know each other personally. There are USENET poster
impersonators like your friend Bertie, but they're easy enough to
identify if you view header information. Everybody knows who
Mxsmanic is. When your friend Bertie impersonated Mxsmanic, someone
quickly pointed out that fact.

>>> Anyone can state anything about experience and it can be true or
>>> false. The best and only way to deal with Usenet properly in my
>>> opinion anyway, is simply to post information and data. Those
>>> who know will know immediately what is right and what is bull
>>> crap.
>>
>> Or obviously contradictory hogwash. The reply by 150flivver
>> stated "I am a pilot and flew fighters." With all your past
>> piloting experience, Dudley Henriques, that qualification might
>> not mean anything to you, but it means a lot to me.
>
> How the hell do you know what or what not means anything to me.

That part was rhetoric. I was just trying to show some respect for
your flying history.

> This is the whole point. You don't know me from Adam. It's Usenet!
> The ONLY way you can identify me as a credible poster or a bull
> **** artist is by the information I post. I can feed you
> "experience" all day long and it will tell you absolutely nothing
> about me.

You appear to be thinking in black-and-white again Mr. Henriques.
What a poster posts and the ID he (or she) is using are both useful.
If you're good at it, you can usually tell whether the poster is
legit.

>> And if it were not true, regulars would have jumped all over him.
>
> Finally you're catching on. The "regulars" as you call them

Regular author. Regular poster. That's what they're called.










> DH
>
>
>

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> george wrote:
>> On Oct 9, 11:08 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>>> You couldn't start my airplane, let alone get it to the end of the
>>>> runway, fjukkwit.
>>> Some aircraft I know how to start, others not.
>>
>> My aeroplane would not fit in your bedroom
>>
>
> It might if you flew a Pitts.
>


Or one of thsoe Cri Cris.



Just got an old copy of "The conquest of lines and symmetry" in
anticiaption of my return to the wonderful world of trying to break your
neck. His syllaus is very strange in my view, but I can see soe sense in
it at the same time. I developed my own over the years when I used to
teach them and came to the conclusion early that one of the first things
they needed to learn was how to stay out, but more importantlt, how to
get out of trouble.
Now. Immelmans would have been well down the road in my classes, bu the
teaches them on lesson one. "This is nuts" though I. But then I realised
that even though the student was going to end up pointing about 90 deg
from the entry heading at the end when he tries this first, he's going
to be learning the principles of an escape manuever by virtue of the
fact that it's forcing him to think in three axes.
Clever boy!



Bertie

John Doe > wrote in news:9UEOi.58301$YL5.31880
@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:

> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> John Doe wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques <dhenriques rcn.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>> To be clear, I didn't say a list, I said "a very brief summary of
>>> past and present flying experience" like maybe 10 words or less.
>
>> That list and those words can list or say anything.
>
> Not if it's 10 words or less.
>
>> Hell, I might not even BE Dudley Henriques for all you know.
>
> How do you know what I know?
>
>> I could be an ugly old lady in Spokane with a wart on my ass
>> sitting here feeding you the biggest line of crap I could think
>> up. You'd never know the difference. It's Usenet, not truth or
>> consequences.
>
> This is also the age of instant messaging and webcams. Some, if not
> many, regulars know each other personally. There are USENET poster
> impersonators like your friend Bertie, but they're easy enough to
> identify if you view header information. Everybody knows who
> Mxsmanic is. When your friend Bertie impersonated Mxsmanic, someone
> quickly pointed out that fact.


Oow! have a Imade it onto your litle list, fruitcake bOI?

anyone want a quick laugh?

Check out this froup.. free.usenet.


It's like a scene from "Silence of the lames"

Bertie
>

John Doe > wrote in
. net:

> Dudley Henriques <dhenriques rcn.com> wrote:
>
>> John Doe wrote:
>
>>> In a professional group like this, really useful might be to
>>> include a very brief summary of past and present flying
>>> experience at the end or in the signature of a post, especially
>>> when discrediting someone for lack of piloting experience.
>
>> Listing experience on Usenet is really a lost cause.
>
> Because it didn't make you rich and famous?


Because lusers like you wander around querying it, mostly.



Bertie
>>
>
>
>

John Doe > wrote in news:9UEOi.58301$YL5.31880
@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:


>
> You appear to be thinking in black-and-white again Mr. Henriques.
> What a poster posts and the ID he (or she) is using are both useful.
> If you're good at it, you can usually tell whether the poster is
> legit.

But you , apparently, can't.


Bertie

John Doe > wrote in news:1zBOi.5274$4V6.314
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net:

> Richard Riley > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 09:49:18 -0500, "Viperdoc"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Good point- Anthony Atkielski, aka mxsmanic, is not a pilot and
>>>never has been one. His only frame of reference is through playing
>>>MSFS.
>>>
>>
>> Compact, objective, clear, to the point. I might spell out
>> Microsoft Flight Simulator.
>
> It's also redundant, he has already stated the same elsewhere in
> this thread. And anybody who's read the group would know that
> already anyway. I think you guys have it covered, if not smothered.
>
>> Now all we need is a bot.
>
> All you need is to include a very brief summary of your past and
> present flying experience in your posts when discrediting someone
> for lack of flying experience. Lots of groups include regular
> authors that don't have the expected qualifications.
>
> And that's the way it is, IMO.
>
>
Tha's cute.



Not enough bandwidth for mine, though.


Bertie

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> John Doe wrote:
>> Tina <tbaker27705 gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I suspect Mx is striving for recognition any way he can. You may
>>> remember he posted a note once about not being able to afford a
>>> McDonald Happymeal, and his website does ask for donated money.
>>>
>>> He, I think, resent many on this site can use avgas at the rate of
>>> 20 Big Macs with Cheese an hour. "How can", some in his
>>> circumstances often ask, "such obviously inferior people be doing
>>> so well compared to me?"
>>
>> That could be. But that doesn't explain why a control freak puts so
>> much time into trying to oust him from the group (especially since
>> it just ain't going to happen), and so little time debunking his
>> arguments. If I were a pilot, I probably wouldn't bother much unless
>> his advice was unsafe, then I'd jump on it.
>>
>>> I see that on the professional side of my life quite a lot.
>>>
>>> And others here might ask, "How come a non pilot like tina posts
>>> so often." The answer of course is I'm brilliant (and do get some
>>> right seat time too).
>>
>> In a professional group like this, really useful might be to include
>> a very brief summary of past and present flying experience at the
>> end or in the signature of a post, especially when discrediting
>> someone for lack of piloting experience.
>>
>> Good luck and have fun.
>
> Listing experience on Usenet is really a lost cause. Anyone can state
> anything about experience and it can be true or false.
> The best and only way to deal with Usenet properly in my opinion
anyway,
> is simply to post information and data. Those who know will know
> immediately what is right and what is bull crap.



Even those who don't will quickly suss out the wheat form the chaff. I
recently paid a visit to a new group. If you want to see some chaos, try
alt.global-warming. Anyhow, it didn't take long to figure out who knew
what there, and it's a much more complicated place than this is.


BTW, if you do post there, tell em Bertie sent you. There's a pilot
acquantenece there who might give you a program to the show if you'r
enice to him.


Bertie

On Oct 7, 12:42 pm, Mike Granby > wrote:
> His corrections were almost unnoticable; the plane just stayed where
> it was meant to be. I comment on this to his dad later, and we both
> wondered if his sim training had giving him this skill...

My CFI said the same thing. I "played" MSFS with an eye toward IRL
flying for about 2 years before sitting left seat the first time. We
did a 30 mile cross country during my second lesson and he said that I
held course and altitude better than some people he knows who have
been flying for 20 years. Either FS was responsible or I am the most
natural pilot to get in a plane. I am not even thinking about it
being the latter.

John Doe wrote:

>
> You appear to be thinking in black-and-white again Mr. Henriques.
> What a poster posts and the ID he (or she) is using are both useful.
> If you're good at it, you can usually tell whether the poster is
> legit.
>

Well, I'll tell you.......when you start posting back to me stating
exactly what I've been telling you from the beginning and treating that
as something I need to know as you have done here, it's time for me to
bail out.
Best to you
DH



--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> John Doe wrote:
>>> Tina <tbaker27705 gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I suspect Mx is striving for recognition any way he can. You may
>>>> remember he posted a note once about not being able to afford a
>>>> McDonald Happymeal, and his website does ask for donated money.
>>>>
>>>> He, I think, resent many on this site can use avgas at the rate of
>>>> 20 Big Macs with Cheese an hour. "How can", some in his
>>>> circumstances often ask, "such obviously inferior people be doing
>>>> so well compared to me?"
>>> That could be. But that doesn't explain why a control freak puts so
>>> much time into trying to oust him from the group (especially since
>>> it just ain't going to happen), and so little time debunking his
>>> arguments. If I were a pilot, I probably wouldn't bother much unless
>>> his advice was unsafe, then I'd jump on it.
>>>
>>>> I see that on the professional side of my life quite a lot.
>>>>
>>>> And others here might ask, "How come a non pilot like tina posts
>>>> so often." The answer of course is I'm brilliant (and do get some
>>>> right seat time too).
>>> In a professional group like this, really useful might be to include
>>> a very brief summary of past and present flying experience at the
>>> end or in the signature of a post, especially when discrediting
>>> someone for lack of piloting experience.
>>>
>>> Good luck and have fun.
>> Listing experience on Usenet is really a lost cause. Anyone can state
>> anything about experience and it can be true or false.
>> The best and only way to deal with Usenet properly in my opinion
> anyway,
>> is simply to post information and data. Those who know will know
>> immediately what is right and what is bull crap.
>
>
>
> Even those who don't will quickly suss out the wheat form the chaff. I
> recently paid a visit to a new group. If you want to see some chaos, try
> alt.global-warming. Anyhow, it didn't take long to figure out who knew
> what there, and it's a much more complicated place than this is.
>
>
> BTW, if you do post there, tell em Bertie sent you. There's a pilot
> acquantenece there who might give you a program to the show if you'r
> enice to him.
>
>
> Bertie

All I have to do is mention global warming and that reminds my wife of
Al Gore. The next week after that could be hell to pay around here.
She considers Al Gore right as the fifth horseman of the apocalypse :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> John Doe wrote:
>>>> Tina <tbaker27705 gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I suspect Mx is striving for recognition any way he can. You may
>>>>> remember he posted a note once about not being able to afford a
>>>>> McDonald Happymeal, and his website does ask for donated money.
>>>>>
>>>>> He, I think, resent many on this site can use avgas at the rate of
>>>>> 20 Big Macs with Cheese an hour. "How can", some in his
>>>>> circumstances often ask, "such obviously inferior people be doing
>>>>> so well compared to me?"
>>>> That could be. But that doesn't explain why a control freak puts so
>>>> much time into trying to oust him from the group (especially since
>>>> it just ain't going to happen), and so little time debunking his
>>>> arguments. If I were a pilot, I probably wouldn't bother much
>>>> unless his advice was unsafe, then I'd jump on it.
>>>>
>>>>> I see that on the professional side of my life quite a lot.
>>>>>
>>>>> And others here might ask, "How come a non pilot like tina posts
>>>>> so often." The answer of course is I'm brilliant (and do get some
>>>>> right seat time too).
>>>> In a professional group like this, really useful might be to
>>>> include a very brief summary of past and present flying experience
>>>> at the end or in the signature of a post, especially when
>>>> discrediting someone for lack of piloting experience.
>>>>
>>>> Good luck and have fun.
>>> Listing experience on Usenet is really a lost cause. Anyone can
>>> state anything about experience and it can be true or false.
>>> The best and only way to deal with Usenet properly in my opinion
>> anyway,
>>> is simply to post information and data. Those who know will know
>>> immediately what is right and what is bull crap.
>>
>>
>>
>> Even those who don't will quickly suss out the wheat form the chaff.
>> I recently paid a visit to a new group. If you want to see some
>> chaos, try alt.global-warming. Anyhow, it didn't take long to figure
>> out who knew what there, and it's a much more complicated place than
>> this is.
>>
>>
>> BTW, if you do post there, tell em Bertie sent you. There's a pilot
>> acquantenece there who might give you a program to the show if you'r
>> enice to him.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> All I have to do is mention global warming and that reminds my wife of
> Al Gore. The next week after that could be hell to pay around here.
> She considers Al Gore right as the fifth horseman of the apocalypse
> :-)
>

well, I'd be in his camp as well. Still, almost everything I do snots up
the atmosphere..


I'm simultaneously looking forward to and loathing the day when the
electric airplane becomes a reality.


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> george wrote:
>>> On Oct 9, 11:08 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>>>> You couldn't start my airplane, let alone get it to the end of the
>>>>> runway, fjukkwit.
>>>> Some aircraft I know how to start, others not.
>>> My aeroplane would not fit in your bedroom
>>>
>> It might if you flew a Pitts.
>>
>
>
> Or one of thsoe Cri Cris.
>
>
>
> Just got an old copy of "The conquest of lines and symmetry" in
> anticiaption of my return to the wonderful world of trying to break your
> neck. His syllaus is very strange in my view, but I can see soe sense in
> it at the same time. I developed my own over the years when I used to
> teach them and came to the conclusion early that one of the first things
> they needed to learn was how to stay out, but more importantlt, how to
> get out of trouble.
> Now. Immelmans would have been well down the road in my classes, bu the
> teaches them on lesson one. "This is nuts" though I. But then I realised
> that even though the student was going to end up pointing about 90 deg
> from the entry heading at the end when he tries this first, he's going
> to be learning the principles of an escape manuever by virtue of the
> fact that it's forcing him to think in three axes.
> Clever boy!
>
>
>
> Bertie

I had a copy of Duane's book around here somewhere but it's probably
hidden under something REAL dusty by now.

Not quite sure how Cole structured his book, but verticals are a bit
easier for new akro students to handle than rolls. I wouldn't start
anyone with Immelmans however.
I'd always start a newbie out by allowing them to do simple nose high
entry aileron rolls both ways which allowed them to see and feel the
airplane go around and gave them a taste of going inverted. This was a
teaser really as aileron rolls have little use in aerobatics other than
in rolling recoveries from botched maneuvers.

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> John Doe wrote:
>>>>> Tina <tbaker27705 gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect Mx is striving for recognition any way he can. You may
>>>>>> remember he posted a note once about not being able to afford a
>>>>>> McDonald Happymeal, and his website does ask for donated money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He, I think, resent many on this site can use avgas at the rate of
>>>>>> 20 Big Macs with Cheese an hour. "How can", some in his
>>>>>> circumstances often ask, "such obviously inferior people be doing
>>>>>> so well compared to me?"
>>>>> That could be. But that doesn't explain why a control freak puts so
>>>>> much time into trying to oust him from the group (especially since
>>>>> it just ain't going to happen), and so little time debunking his
>>>>> arguments. If I were a pilot, I probably wouldn't bother much
>>>>> unless his advice was unsafe, then I'd jump on it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I see that on the professional side of my life quite a lot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And others here might ask, "How come a non pilot like tina posts
>>>>>> so often." The answer of course is I'm brilliant (and do get some
>>>>>> right seat time too).
>>>>> In a professional group like this, really useful might be to
>>>>> include a very brief summary of past and present flying experience
>>>>> at the end or in the signature of a post, especially when
>>>>> discrediting someone for lack of piloting experience.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good luck and have fun.
>>>> Listing experience on Usenet is really a lost cause. Anyone can
>>>> state anything about experience and it can be true or false.
>>>> The best and only way to deal with Usenet properly in my opinion
>>> anyway,
>>>> is simply to post information and data. Those who know will know
>>>> immediately what is right and what is bull crap.
>>>
>>>
>>> Even those who don't will quickly suss out the wheat form the chaff.
>>> I recently paid a visit to a new group. If you want to see some
>>> chaos, try alt.global-warming. Anyhow, it didn't take long to figure
>>> out who knew what there, and it's a much more complicated place than
>>> this is.
>>>
>>>
>>> BTW, if you do post there, tell em Bertie sent you. There's a pilot
>>> acquantenece there who might give you a program to the show if you'r
>>> enice to him.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> All I have to do is mention global warming and that reminds my wife of
>> Al Gore. The next week after that could be hell to pay around here.
>> She considers Al Gore right as the fifth horseman of the apocalypse
>> :-)
>>
>
> well, I'd be in his camp as well. Still, almost everything I do snots up
> the atmosphere..
>
>
> I'm simultaneously looking forward to and loathing the day when the
> electric airplane becomes a reality.
>
>
> Bertie


Kind of gives new meaning to driving out to the airport in a new Prius,
then climbing into a P51 and firing up the ole' Merlin!

--
Dudley Henriques

es330td wrote:
>
> My CFI said the same thing. I "played" MSFS with an eye toward IRL
> flying for about 2 years before sitting left seat the first time. We
> did a 30 mile cross country during my second lesson and he said that I
> held course and altitude better than some people he knows who have
> been flying for 20 years.

I got complemented on my first lesson, too. After that, the CFI spent
the next 15 lessons getting me to look outside the airplane. <G>

Why would you do a 30 mile cross country on the second lesson? That's
kind of strange.

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> John Doe wrote:
>>>>>> Tina <tbaker27705 gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suspect Mx is striving for recognition any way he can. You may
>>>>>>> remember he posted a note once about not being able to afford a
>>>>>>> McDonald Happymeal, and his website does ask for donated money.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He, I think, resent many on this site can use avgas at the rate
>>>>>>> of 20 Big Macs with Cheese an hour. "How can", some in his
>>>>>>> circumstances often ask, "such obviously inferior people be
>>>>>>> doing so well compared to me?"
>>>>>> That could be. But that doesn't explain why a control freak puts
>>>>>> so much time into trying to oust him from the group (especially
>>>>>> since it just ain't going to happen), and so little time
>>>>>> debunking his arguments. If I were a pilot, I probably wouldn't
>>>>>> bother much unless his advice was unsafe, then I'd jump on it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see that on the professional side of my life quite a lot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And others here might ask, "How come a non pilot like tina posts
>>>>>>> so often." The answer of course is I'm brilliant (and do get
>>>>>>> some right seat time too).
>>>>>> In a professional group like this, really useful might be to
>>>>>> include a very brief summary of past and present flying
>>>>>> experience at the end or in the signature of a post, especially
>>>>>> when discrediting someone for lack of piloting experience.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good luck and have fun.
>>>>> Listing experience on Usenet is really a lost cause. Anyone can
>>>>> state anything about experience and it can be true or false.
>>>>> The best and only way to deal with Usenet properly in my opinion
>>>> anyway,
>>>>> is simply to post information and data. Those who know will know
>>>>> immediately what is right and what is bull crap.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Even those who don't will quickly suss out the wheat form the
>>>> chaff. I recently paid a visit to a new group. If you want to see
>>>> some chaos, try alt.global-warming. Anyhow, it didn't take long to
>>>> figure out who knew what there, and it's a much more complicated
>>>> place than this is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BTW, if you do post there, tell em Bertie sent you. There's a pilot
>>>> acquantenece there who might give you a program to the show if
>>>> you'r enice to him.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> All I have to do is mention global warming and that reminds my wife
>>> of Al Gore. The next week after that could be hell to pay around
>>> here. She considers Al Gore right as the fifth horseman of the
>>> apocalypse
>>> :-)
>>>
>>
>> well, I'd be in his camp as well. Still, almost everything I do snots
>> up the atmosphere..
>>
>>
>> I'm simultaneously looking forward to and loathing the day when the
>> electric airplane becomes a reality.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
> Kind of gives new meaning to driving out to the airport in a new
> Prius, then climbing into a P51 and firing up the ole' Merlin!
>


Well, exactly!


Bertie

On Oct 8, 7:49 pm, Ron Wanttaja > wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 13:30:55 -0800, Scott Skylane > wrote:
> > How can you tell if there's an angineer at a party? Oh, he'll tell you!
>
> I was at a dinner party a while back, and man there introduced himself as the
> director of the local symphony orchestra.
>
> I shouted out, "Hey, look, folks...a conductor and an engineer!"
>
> Ron "Well, *I* thought it was funny" Wanttaja

Whooo whooooooo!!!! Chugga chugga chugga....

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> george wrote:
>>>> On Oct 9, 11:08 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>>>>> You couldn't start my airplane, let alone get it to the end of
>>>>>> the runway, fjukkwit.
>>>>> Some aircraft I know how to start, others not.
>>>> My aeroplane would not fit in your bedroom
>>>>
>>> It might if you flew a Pitts.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Or one of thsoe Cri Cris.
>>
>>
>>
>> Just got an old copy of "The conquest of lines and symmetry" in
>> anticiaption of my return to the wonderful world of trying to break
>> your neck. His syllaus is very strange in my view, but I can see soe
>> sense in it at the same time. I developed my own over the years when
>> I used to teach them and came to the conclusion early that one of the
>> first things they needed to learn was how to stay out, but more
>> importantlt, how to get out of trouble.
>> Now. Immelmans would have been well down the road in my classes, bu
>> the teaches them on lesson one. "This is nuts" though I. But then I
>> realised that even though the student was going to end up pointing
>> about 90 deg from the entry heading at the end when he tries this
>> first, he's going to be learning the principles of an escape manuever
>> by virtue of the fact that it's forcing him to think in three axes.
>> Clever boy!
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> I had a copy of Duane's book around here somewhere but it's probably
> hidden under something REAL dusty by now.
>
> Not quite sure how Cole structured his book, but verticals are a bit
> easier for new akro students to handle than rolls. I wouldn't start
> anyone with Immelmans however.
> I'd always start a newbie out by allowing them to do simple nose high
> entry aileron rolls both ways which allowed them to see and feel the
> airplane go around and gave them a taste of going inverted. This was a
> teaser really as aileron rolls have little use in aerobatics other
> than in rolling recoveries from botched maneuvers.
>

I agree, and that's kind of the way I was thinking, but duane made me
think again. And who wouldn't listen to him?
My own syllabus would vary, but for these guys who have no tailwheel
time to speak of I'll start them with Dutch rolls, some slow flight, and
when they figure out what their feet are for then some spins with the
emphasis on recognition and recovery.
Chandelles then to reasonable proficiency. A few lazy eights, then
loops. Aileron rolls next, then wingovers (one of my favorites since it
hones rudder skills in particular) Snaps. then some inverted and onto
barrel rolls and slow rolls. Everything after that is some combination
anyway. Before they go solo I show them how to recognise trouble early
by having a series of gates. If they fail to reach an attitude or
airspeed by the time they reached one of the gates, they exit the
manuever.


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>> george wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 9, 11:08 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>>>>>> You couldn't start my airplane, let alone get it to the end of
>>>>>>> the runway, fjukkwit.
>>>>>> Some aircraft I know how to start, others not.
>>>>> My aeroplane would not fit in your bedroom
>>>>>
>>>> It might if you flew a Pitts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Or one of thsoe Cri Cris.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just got an old copy of "The conquest of lines and symmetry" in
>>> anticiaption of my return to the wonderful world of trying to break
>>> your neck. His syllaus is very strange in my view, but I can see soe
>>> sense in it at the same time. I developed my own over the years when
>>> I used to teach them and came to the conclusion early that one of the
>>> first things they needed to learn was how to stay out, but more
>>> importantlt, how to get out of trouble.
>>> Now. Immelmans would have been well down the road in my classes, bu
>>> the teaches them on lesson one. "This is nuts" though I. But then I
>>> realised that even though the student was going to end up pointing
>>> about 90 deg from the entry heading at the end when he tries this
>>> first, he's going to be learning the principles of an escape manuever
>>> by virtue of the fact that it's forcing him to think in three axes.
>>> Clever boy!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> I had a copy of Duane's book around here somewhere but it's probably
>> hidden under something REAL dusty by now.
>>
>> Not quite sure how Cole structured his book, but verticals are a bit
>> easier for new akro students to handle than rolls. I wouldn't start
>> anyone with Immelmans however.
>> I'd always start a newbie out by allowing them to do simple nose high
>> entry aileron rolls both ways which allowed them to see and feel the
>> airplane go around and gave them a taste of going inverted. This was a
>> teaser really as aileron rolls have little use in aerobatics other
>> than in rolling recoveries from botched maneuvers.
>>
>
> I agree, and that's kind of the way I was thinking, but duane made me
> think again. And who wouldn't listen to him?
> My own syllabus would vary, but for these guys who have no tailwheel
> time to speak of I'll start them with Dutch rolls, some slow flight, and
> when they figure out what their feet are for then some spins with the
> emphasis on recognition and recovery.
> Chandelles then to reasonable proficiency. A few lazy eights, then
> loops. Aileron rolls next, then wingovers (one of my favorites since it
> hones rudder skills in particular) Snaps. then some inverted and onto
> barrel rolls and slow rolls. Everything after that is some combination
> anyway. Before they go solo I show them how to recognise trouble early
> by having a series of gates. If they fail to reach an attitude or
> airspeed by the time they reached one of the gates, they exit the
> manuever.
>
>
> Bertie
>

Gates are exactly how we structure an airshow display. Using them keeps
people alive :-)

Sounds like a good learning curve you are setting up, also about what
mine was, which of course makes it the perfect plan :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

es330td wrote:
> On Oct 7, 12:42 pm, Mike Granby > wrote:
>> His corrections were almost unnoticable; the plane just stayed where
>> it was meant to be. I comment on this to his dad later, and we both
>> wondered if his sim training had giving him this skill...
>
> My CFI said the same thing. I "played" MSFS with an eye toward IRL
> flying for about 2 years before sitting left seat the first time. We
> did a 30 mile cross country during my second lesson and he said that I
> held course and altitude better than some people he knows who have
> been flying for 20 years. Either FS was responsible or I am the most
> natural pilot to get in a plane. I am not even thinking about it
> being the latter.
>

I'm assuming there's a lot more to this 2nd lesson story as it reads as
the antithesis of normal procedure for a flight training learning curve.
:-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> george wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 9, 11:08 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>>>>>>> You couldn't start my airplane, let alone get it to the end of
>>>>>>>> the runway, fjukkwit.
>>>>>>> Some aircraft I know how to start, others not.
>>>>>> My aeroplane would not fit in your bedroom
>>>>>>
>>>>> It might if you flew a Pitts.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or one of thsoe Cri Cris.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just got an old copy of "The conquest of lines and symmetry" in
>>>> anticiaption of my return to the wonderful world of trying to break
>>>> your neck. His syllaus is very strange in my view, but I can see
>>>> soe sense in it at the same time. I developed my own over the years
>>>> when I used to teach them and came to the conclusion early that one
>>>> of the first things they needed to learn was how to stay out, but
>>>> more importantlt, how to get out of trouble.
>>>> Now. Immelmans would have been well down the road in my classes, bu
>>>> the teaches them on lesson one. "This is nuts" though I. But then I
>>>> realised that even though the student was going to end up pointing
>>>> about 90 deg from the entry heading at the end when he tries this
>>>> first, he's going to be learning the principles of an escape
>>>> manuever by virtue of the fact that it's forcing him to think in
>>>> three axes. Clever boy!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> I had a copy of Duane's book around here somewhere but it's probably
>>> hidden under something REAL dusty by now.
>>>
>>> Not quite sure how Cole structured his book, but verticals are a bit
>>> easier for new akro students to handle than rolls. I wouldn't start
>>> anyone with Immelmans however.
>>> I'd always start a newbie out by allowing them to do simple nose
>>> high entry aileron rolls both ways which allowed them to see and
>>> feel the airplane go around and gave them a taste of going inverted.
>>> This was a teaser really as aileron rolls have little use in
>>> aerobatics other than in rolling recoveries from botched maneuvers.
>>>
>>
>> I agree, and that's kind of the way I was thinking, but duane made me
>> think again. And who wouldn't listen to him?
>> My own syllabus would vary, but for these guys who have no tailwheel
>> time to speak of I'll start them with Dutch rolls, some slow flight,
>> and when they figure out what their feet are for then some spins with
>> the emphasis on recognition and recovery.
>> Chandelles then to reasonable proficiency. A few lazy eights, then
>> loops. Aileron rolls next, then wingovers (one of my favorites since
>> it hones rudder skills in particular) Snaps. then some inverted and
>> onto barrel rolls and slow rolls. Everything after that is some
>> combination anyway. Before they go solo I show them how to recognise
>> trouble early by having a series of gates. If they fail to reach an
>> attitude or airspeed by the time they reached one of the gates, they
>> exit the manuever.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> Gates are exactly how we structure an airshow display. Using them
> keeps people alive :-)
>
> Sounds like a good learning curve you are setting up, also about what
> mine was, which of course makes it the perfect plan :-)
>

Well, I can't see it going any other way. Anyhow, i'll be playing a lot
of it by ear with them giving them what they need as they need it.

Bertie

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> es330td wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 12:42 pm, Mike Granby > wrote:
>>> His corrections were almost unnoticable; the plane just stayed where
>>> it was meant to be. I comment on this to his dad later, and we both
>>> wondered if his sim training had giving him this skill...
>>
>> My CFI said the same thing. I "played" MSFS with an eye toward IRL
>> flying for about 2 years before sitting left seat the first time. We
>> did a 30 mile cross country during my second lesson and he said that
>> I held course and altitude better than some people he knows who have
>> been flying for 20 years. Either FS was responsible or I am the most
>> natural pilot to get in a plane. I am not even thinking about it
>> being the latter.
>>
>
> I'm assuming there's a lot more to this 2nd lesson story as it reads
> as the antithesis of normal procedure for a flight training learning
> curve. :-))

Not to mention that it would hardly be the first time an instructor blew
smoke of a students ass to make them feel good about a flight.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> es330td wrote:
>>> On Oct 7, 12:42 pm, Mike Granby > wrote:
>>>> His corrections were almost unnoticable; the plane just stayed where
>>>> it was meant to be. I comment on this to his dad later, and we both
>>>> wondered if his sim training had giving him this skill...
>>> My CFI said the same thing. I "played" MSFS with an eye toward IRL
>>> flying for about 2 years before sitting left seat the first time. We
>>> did a 30 mile cross country during my second lesson and he said that
>>> I held course and altitude better than some people he knows who have
>>> been flying for 20 years. Either FS was responsible or I am the most
>>> natural pilot to get in a plane. I am not even thinking about it
>>> being the latter.
>>>
>> I'm assuming there's a lot more to this 2nd lesson story as it reads
>> as the antithesis of normal procedure for a flight training learning
>> curve. :-))
>
> Not to mention that it would hardly be the first time an instructor blew
> smoke of a students ass to make them feel good about a flight.
>
>

101 actually :-) Any good instructor uses the first flight to bolster
the new student's confidence level to the point where they honestly
believe that they CAN learn to fly. In almost all cases this involves a
bit of "positive over stating". No harm at all in doing this as it's all
corrected down the line.
DH

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>> es330td wrote:
>>>> On Oct 7, 12:42 pm, Mike Granby > wrote:
>>>>> His corrections were almost unnoticable; the plane just stayed
>>>>> where it was meant to be. I comment on this to his dad later, and
>>>>> we both wondered if his sim training had giving him this skill...
>>>> My CFI said the same thing. I "played" MSFS with an eye toward IRL
>>>> flying for about 2 years before sitting left seat the first time.
>>>> We did a 30 mile cross country during my second lesson and he said
>>>> that I held course and altitude better than some people he knows
>>>> who have been flying for 20 years. Either FS was responsible or I
>>>> am the most natural pilot to get in a plane. I am not even
>>>> thinking about it being the latter.
>>>>
>>> I'm assuming there's a lot more to this 2nd lesson story as it reads
>>> as the antithesis of normal procedure for a flight training learning
>>> curve. :-))
>>
>> Not to mention that it would hardly be the first time an instructor
>> blew smoke of a students ass to make them feel good about a flight.
>>
>>
>
> 101 actually :-) Any good instructor uses the first flight to bolster
> the new student's confidence level to the point where they honestly
> believe that they CAN learn to fly. In almost all cases this involves
> a bit of "positive over stating". No harm at all in doing this as it's
> all corrected down the line.
> DH
>

And there would be a lot of damage to repair if this guy has been
spending too much toime at the box.

One of my first primary students was a kid who was obsessed with
becoming an airplane pilot. He had a friend that flew a Cv580 for you
know who. The kid got a lot of stick time in this airplane (this was
long before even the primitive desktop sims came around) and sure
enough, he was pretty good on instruments. I eventually signed him off,
though he resisted all my attempts to shove pilotage and other good ole
trad methods down his neck. He went for his flight test and one of the
first things the examoner did was to fail the radios on him.

he failed.
By the time he was ready to retake I had moved to another field where I
was now teaching in proper airplanes, though for some reason we had a
cherokee on the books. Anyhow, he hunted me down and wanted to do some
more towards getting signed off for another flight test. He came up. I
failed the radio on him and he still bitched, but had his sectional
which he pulled out and off we went towards the destination.
He was lost inside of five miles. Completely lost. Not a clue where he
was.
He had brought up a five year old sectional that did not have the lake
that had just been formed by the new dam at it;s head...

Anyhow, I signed him off again after a few more hours and he got his
private. Don't know if he ever became "A Airline pile-it" but he;'s not
in the FAA database.


Bertie

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
:

> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> es330td wrote:
>>> On Oct 7, 12:42 pm, Mike Granby > wrote:
>>>> His corrections were almost unnoticable; the plane just stayed where
>>>> it was meant to be. I comment on this to his dad later, and we both
>>>> wondered if his sim training had giving him this skill...
>>>
>>> My CFI said the same thing. I "played" MSFS with an eye toward IRL
>>> flying for about 2 years before sitting left seat the first time. We
>>> did a 30 mile cross country during my second lesson and he said that
>>> I held course and altitude better than some people he knows who have
>>> been flying for 20 years. Either FS was responsible or I am the most
>>> natural pilot to get in a plane. I am not even thinking about it
>>> being the latter.
>>>
>>
>> I'm assuming there's a lot more to this 2nd lesson story as it reads
>> as the antithesis of normal procedure for a flight training learning
>> curve. :-))
>
> Not to mention that it would hardly be the first time an instructor blew
> smoke of a students ass to make them feel good about a flight.
>
>

Has anyone ever not done this?

Wait, mine didn't!


There are one or two I did this with who I really should have encouraged to
take up boating, though.

Bertie

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
> Not to mention that it would hardly be the first time an instructor blew
> smoke of a students ass to make them feel good about a flight.
>

They usually want them to come back. <G>

B A R R Y wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>
>> Not to mention that it would hardly be the first time an instructor
>> blew smoke of a students ass to make them feel good about a flight.
>
> They usually want them to come back. <G>
>

That's part of it, but not the main reason for it with instructors who
are any good at all.
Very few newbies arrive at the airport for the first hour of dual
feeling confident about what they are about to attempt to achieve. With
few exceptions they might appear confident on the surface, but below
that lies an area of entering the unknown that can be quite intimidating.

The very worst thing any instructor can do to these people is to allow
that first dual session to go beyond the newbies capabilities to cope
and into the area where the session ends with the newbie feeling over
tasked and thereby over their head.
The fine line you want to walk as the instructor on that first flight is
to achieve a dual purpose with the flight.
You want to take them into this new world carefully. You want to give
them tasks simple enough that they can achieve a degree of success with
those tasks and at the same time take them just enough into the unknown
where the flight leaves them feeling good about themselves and at the
same time looking forward to what's coming next.
Trust me; this is something that marks an instructor as being
exceptional or just doing the job.

Walking the fine line that defines superior flight instruction is
perhaps the single most difficult aspect of flight instruction.

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip <Sn rt.1> wrote:

> John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
> news:9UEOi.58301$YL5.31880
> newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
>
>
>>
>> You appear to be thinking in black-and-white again Mr. Henriques.
>> What a poster posts and the ID he (or she) is using are both
>> useful. If you're good at it, you can usually tell whether the
>> poster is legit.
>
> But you , apparently, can't.

I can and I do. And I don't persistently make an ass out of myself
by posting ineffectual control freak garbage after every message
from someone I don't like. You are a garbage spewing asshole, Bertie
the Bunyip.

Take your own advice, take a good look at (free.usenet). Learn a
lesson and stop spamming the groups you frequent. Most people would
rather you don't, but you do because you're just an intentionally
disruptive troll who couldn't care less about anybody else.











>
>
> Bertie
>
>
> Path: newssvr27.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm04.news.prodigy. net!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!newscon 04.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!n ews.alt.net
> From: Bertie the Bunyip <Sn rt.1>
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
> Subject: Re: Force feedback versus real piloting?
> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 07:25:45 +0000 (UTC)
> Organization: Your Company
> Lines: 14
> Message-ID: <Xns99C452A6CF11B****upropeeh 207.14.116.130>
> References: <jR0Oi.2629$y21.1720 newssvr19.news.prodigy.net> <Xns99C26C55FF7E7****upropeeh 207.14.116.130> <2ihhg352tv685bhgp5pq5ll0eo80n6vj8s 4ax.com> <kO3Oi.6639$H22.728 news-server.bigpond.net.au> <ps2ig31us01d15lm10n404bklokjg255tk 4ax.com> <Xns99C2B4E5EEF75****upropeeh 207.14.116.130> <l05ig3tjr2srdv81evoq2j2vhibla8mp0v 4ax.com> <470a1845$0$4997$4c368faf roadrunner.com> <1191850631.730651.292350 o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <%qBOi.5273$4V6.3325 newssvr14.news.prodigy.net> <QNOdnT81fqCoepfanZ2dnUVZ_rmjnZ2d rcn.net> <onCOi.58273$YL5.56041 newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <_vqdnS0Jq_FrZZfanZ2dnUVZ_s-pnZ2d rcn.net> <9UEOi.58301$YL5.31880 newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>
> User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
> Xref: prodigy.net rec.aviation.piloting:603563
>

John Doe > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip <Sn rt.1> wrote:
>
>> John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote in
>> news:9UEOi.58301$YL5.31880
>> newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> You appear to be thinking in black-and-white again Mr. Henriques.
>>> What a poster posts and the ID he (or she) is using are both
>>> useful. If you're good at it, you can usually tell whether the
>>> poster is legit.
>>
>> But you , apparently, can't.
>
> I can and I do. And I don't persistently make an ass out of myself
> by posting ineffectual control freak garbage after every message
> from someone I don't like. You are a garbage spewing asshole, Bertie
> the Bunyip.

So, what's your point/


>
> Take your own advice, take a good look at (free.usenet). Learn a
> lesson and stop spamming the groups you frequent. Most people would
> rather you don't, but you do because you're just an intentionally
> disruptive troll who couldn't care less about anybody else.
>
>

Spamming?


Now you're just being mean.

Bertie

Intersting wallpaper, BTW



>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
>> Path:
>> newssvr27.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm04.news.prodigy. net!
newsdst01.news.p
>> rodigy.net!prodigy.com!newscon04.news.prodigy.net! prodigy.net!
pd7cy1no
>> !shaw.ca!news.alt.net From: Bertie the Bunyip <Sn rt.1>
>> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
>> Subject: Re: Force feedback versus real piloting?
>> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2007 07:25:45 +0000 (UTC)
>> Organization: Your Company
>> Lines: 14
>> Message-ID: <Xns99C452A6CF11B****upropeeh 207.14.116.130>
>> References: <jR0Oi.2629$y21.1720 newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>
>> <Xns99C26C55FF7E7****upropeeh 207.14.116.130>
>> <2ihhg352tv685bhgp5pq5ll0eo80n6vj8s 4ax.com> <kO3Oi.6639$H22.728
>> news-server.bigpond.net.au> <ps2ig31us01d15lm10n404bklokjg255tk
>> 4ax.com> <Xns99C2B4E5EEF75****upropeeh 207.14.116.130>
>> <l05ig3tjr2srdv81evoq2j2vhibla8mp0v 4ax.com>
>> <470a1845$0$4997$4c368faf roadrunner.com> <1191850631.730651.292350
>> o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <%qBOi.5273$4V6.3325
>> newssvr14.news.prodigy.net> <QNOdnT81fqCoepfanZ2dnUVZ_rmjnZ2d
>> rcn.net> <onCOi.58273$YL5.56041 newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>
>> <_vqdnS0Jq_FrZZfanZ2dnUVZ_s-pnZ2d rcn.net> <9UEOi.58301$YL5.31880
>> newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
>> Xref: prodigy.net rec.aviation.piloting:603563
>>
>
>
>

On Oct 9, 4:47 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> george wrote:
> > On Oct 9, 11:08 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
> >>> You couldn't start my airplane, let alone get it to the end of the runway,
> >>> fjukkwit.
> >> Some aircraft I know how to start, others not.
>
> > My aeroplane would not fit in your bedroom
>
> It might if you flew a Pitts.
>
If I flew a Pitts do you really think I'd be here laughing at mixedup?

george wrote:
> On Oct 9, 4:47 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> george wrote:
>>> On Oct 9, 11:08 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>>>> You couldn't start my airplane, let alone get it to the end of the runway,
>>>>> fjukkwit.
>>>> Some aircraft I know how to start, others not.
>>> My aeroplane would not fit in your bedroom
>> It might if you flew a Pitts.
>>
> If I flew a Pitts do you really think I'd be here laughing at mixedup?
>
>

What in God's name is a "mixedup"? :-))))))

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques writes:

> That's part of it, but not the main reason for it with instructors who
> are any good at all.

What percentage of instructors are good?

From what I understand, most instructors are just pilots trying to obtain
additional credentials, and they aren't intrinsically interested in teaching
at all. That's a pretty poor environment for producing good instructors; I'm
surprised it works that way.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> That's part of it, but not the main reason for it with instructors
>> who are any good at all.
>
> What percentage of instructors are good?


Well, whatever it is , the worst is still right a hell of a lot more than
you are.



>
> From what I understand, most instructors are just pilots trying to
> obtain additional credentials, and they aren't intrinsically
> interested in teaching at all. That's a pretty poor environment for
> producing good instructors; I'm surprised it works that way.



Nope.


bertie

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote

> What in God's name is a "mixedup"? :-))))))

What is about right ! <g> I have a feeling that is his pet name for MX.
Kinda funny!
--
Jim in NC

On Oct 10, 8:53 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> george wrote:
> > On Oct 9, 4:47 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> george wrote:
> >>> On Oct 9, 11:08 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >>>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
> >>>>> You couldn't start my airplane, let alone get it to the end of the runway,
> >>>>> fjukkwit.
> >>>> Some aircraft I know how to start, others not.
> >>> My aeroplane would not fit in your bedroom
> >> It might if you flew a Pitts.
>
> > If I flew a Pitts do you really think I'd be here laughing at mixedup?
>
> What in God's name is a "mixedup"? :-))))))

Mxsmanic and he wants you to stop taking his AKA in vain :-)

On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 11:07:46 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>>
>> I'm simultaneously looking forward to and loathing the day when the
>> electric airplane becomes a reality.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
>
>Kind of gives new meaning to driving out to the airport in a new Prius,
>then climbing into a P51 and firing up the ole' Merlin!

I'd even settle for a Bonanza. Conspicuous consumer and all that.

But really, we should be firing up the Sukoi 39 for a few trips around
the patch. <:-)) Max effort TO with short filed landings.

Which reminds me, when we had the Falcon 900 do a short field take off
on 06 he burned off most of the grass all the way to the airport
fence. I sure wouldn't have wanted to be driving by in an "econo box"
on the other side of the fence while he was standing on the brakes.
<:-))

Roger (K8RI)

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 23:47:20 -0400, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

>george wrote:
>> On Oct 9, 11:08 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> Bertie the Bunyip writes:
>>>> You couldn't start my airplane, let alone get it to the end of the runway,
>>>> fjukkwit.
>>> Some aircraft I know how to start, others not.
>>
>> My aeroplane would not fit in your bedroom
>>
>
>It might if you flew a Pitts.

We have a Baby Great Lakes out at 3BS that would fit into my den and
still leave room for me to operate the computers.

Roger (K8RI) Suffering from withdrawl...sure wish they'd get that
annual done.

Nomen Nescio > wrote in
:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: John Doe >
>
>>All you need is to include a very brief summary of your past and
>>present flying experience in your posts when discrediting someone
>>for lack of flying experience.
>
> You mean like this..................
>
> I FLY A REAL PLANE AND MX COULDN'T GET HIS FAT ASS INTO A
> REAL PLANE.
>
> That says it all. Does it not?
>
>

I got it anyway.


Bertie

> > From what I understand, most instructors are just pilots trying to
> > obtain additional credentials, and they aren't intrinsically
> > interested in teaching at all. That's a pretty poor environment for
> > producing good instructors; I'm surprised it works that way.
>
> Nope.

"Nope" what?

In my experience, MX's assessment is right on the money. Most CFIs in
America are kids trying to get into the airlines. Many of them are
acceptable teachers, but they are not intrinsically interested in
teaching. They merely see teaching as their path to the many flight
hours necessary to get hired.

I was very lucky to find a CFI who was not interested in the majors.
I've searched long and hard to find a similar CFI for my son.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:1192023502.223442.107040@
22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:

>> > From what I understand, most instructors are just pilots trying to
>> > obtain additional credentials, and they aren't intrinsically
>> > interested in teaching at all. That's a pretty poor environment for
>> > producing good instructors; I'm surprised it works that way.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> "Nope" what?
>
> In my experience, MX's assessment is right on the money. Most CFIs in
> America are kids trying to get into the airlines. Many of them are
> acceptable teachers, but they are not intrinsically interested in
> teaching. They merely see teaching as their path to the many flight
> hours necessary to get hired.
>
> I was very lucky to find a CFI who was not interested in the majors.
> I've searched long and hard to find a similar CFI for my son.
> --


Well, he's saying they don;t know what they are doing. I disagree.

While i avoid Piper Pilot centers or whatever they are called these days
like the plague, they al know a lot more about flying than fjukkwit ever
will.


Bertie

Jay Honeck writes:

> I was very lucky to find a CFI who was not interested in the majors.
> I've searched long and hard to find a similar CFI for my son.

I've already decided that, were I to consider flight instruction, I'd look for
a CFI with a good reputation who has been in the business for at least a few
decades. That way there's a reasonable chance that he enjoys teaching and is
good at it, and isn't simply trying to scramble towards an airline job.

In teaching, it isn't sufficient to have the knowledge that must be conveyed;
you also have to be willing and able to convey it. A good pilot with good
teaching skills is vastly preferable to a superlative pilot with rotten
teaching skills. Indeed, even an excellent non-pilot teacher might be
preferable to the latter.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> I was very lucky to find a CFI who was not interested in the majors.
>> I've searched long and hard to find a similar CFI for my son.
>
> I've already decided that, were I to consider flight instruction, I'd
> look for a CFI with a good reputation who has been in the business for
> at least a few decades. That way there's a reasonable chance that he
> enjoys teaching and is good at it, and isn't simply trying to scramble
> towards an airline job.
>
> In teaching, it isn't sufficient to have the knowledge that must be
> conveyed; you also have to be willing and able to convey it. A good
> pilot with good teaching skills is vastly preferable to a superlative
> pilot with rotten teaching skills. Indeed, even an excellent
> non-pilot teacher might be preferable to the latter.
>

Yes, of course, a non-pilot teacher to teach you to fly.

What else would you go for?


Bertie

Hi,

In article >,
Dudley > wrote:
> The fine line you want to walk as the instructor on that first flight is
> to achieve a dual purpose with the flight.
> You want to take them into this new world carefully. You want to give
> them tasks simple enough that they can achieve a degree of success with
> those tasks and at the same time take them just enough into the unknown
> where the flight leaves them feeling good about themselves and at the
> same time looking forward to what's coming next.

I couldn't put this better myself. As usual Dudley, you've hit the nail on
the head.

(Apologies, but) I've been a flight simmer for a while. About 6 years ago I
got to the point where I could seriously consider taking my simming to the
next level, and was ready to start lessons towards my PPL in the UK.

My girlfriend (at the time, she's now my wife) and my parents bought me a
Trial Lesson at a local airfield. For one reason and another, I left this
flight feeling decidedly underwhelmed. Perhaps the instructor thought I was
just on the usual 'flight for my birthday and she'd never see me again',
which was perhaps my fault for not making clear that while this lesson was a
gift, it was (in my eyes) the first step towards a PPL.

During the lesson, I had very little input. My instructor handled all the
take off and manoevres out of the circuit to the training area. Then I got
to fly up and down a bit, and do some turns (but was told not to worry
myself about the rudder pedals just yet) and that was about it really. Then
the instructor took the controls again, and we headed back to the airfield
and she handled the landing. I then got to do a bit of the taxying back to
parking.

I'd made sure to let her know that I had some previous flight simulator
experience, and as such I knew the basics about which controls did what. I
didn't expect this would mean I would instantly be able to control the plane
(I'm not bad on the F1 simulators on my PC, but I'm sure that doesn't mean I
could drive an F1 car from the moment I sat in it), but I did think that I
would have a 'head start' in terms of not having to work out that the
ailerons, elevator and rudder did.

As I said, I left the flight feeling very disappointed. I had been building
up to it for several months (my birthday was in July, and the flight in
mid-October) and all the things I had been hoping for completely failed to
materialise.

As a direct result of this flight, I decided not to proceed with the PPL,
and instead bought a Westfield and went down that route for 5 years, even
competing in some grass roots motorsport for a couple of years.

Then, the Westfield bug was gone. I managed about 250 miles in the car in a
year or so, whereas previously I had been easily doing 6000 or 7000 miles in
it, using it whenever I had the chance.

So, my thoughts turned back to the PPL, and I again looked around for a
school and went for another trial lesson. This time, I made sure I recounted
my experiences of the previous lesson, and ensured that the instructor knew
that I was serious in continuing.

On this second trial lesson, I had control from the time we entered the
training area, to about 300 feet or so on the approach to landing (barring
demonstrations by the instructor obviously). I felt *much* more involved in
the flight, and it gave me a real sense of what was to come. The first
flight left me feeling that I already knew everything I had covered on that
lesson, and to a point left me wondering just how much more there was? In
contrast, the second flight *showed* me just how much more there was to
flying that you can't experience on the simulator, and gave me just enough
of a taste of this to know that I wanted more.

About 3 months later, I'm 15 hours in, and have just gone solo. I can't wait
to continue back out of the circuit, despite being a little worried about
the whole Navigation thing. However, knowing how much further I've come
since that second 'trial' lesson, I'm sure that with good instruction I'll
continue to progress, and things that seem out of my capabilities now, will
almost certainly be within them in a few lessons.

> Trust me; this is something that marks an instructor as being
> exceptional or just doing the job.
>
> Walking the fine line that defines superior flight instruction is
> perhaps the single most difficult aspect of flight instruction.

Amen to that. My wife is a teacher, and although I like to think I'm pretty
good in my field (I'm a software engineer) I know that there's no way I
would have the patience or the ability to pass on my knowledge to others.
Good teachers, lecturers, instructors and the like have my utmost respect
for the work they do.

Cheers

Andy

In article om>,
Jay Honeck > wrote:

> Most CFIs in
> America are kids trying to get into the airlines. Many of them are
> acceptable teachers, but they are not intrinsically interested in
> teaching. They merely see teaching as their path to the many flight
> hours necessary to get hired.
>
> I was very lucky to find a CFI who was not interested in the majors.
> I've searched long and hard to find a similar CFI for my son.

hmmm, nearly every CFI I know isn't interested in the majors.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

> In teaching, it isn't sufficient to have the knowledge that must be conveyed;
> you also have to be willing and able to convey it. A good pilot with good
> teaching skills is vastly preferable to a superlative pilot with rotten
> teaching skills. Indeed, even an excellent non-pilot teacher might be
> preferable to the latter.

Good luck finding a non-pilot who can teach you to fly.

Unless by "preferable" you mean you'd rather not learn at all from a
bad CFI. In this regard, I'd agree -- although I've never found a CFI
so bad that I wouldn't fly with him.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> hmmm, nearly every CFI I know isn't interested in the majors.

Really? That's a pretty amazing statement, IMHO.

I can only name a couple of current CFIs around here who are not
angling for that golden jet job...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Congratulations on what you're doing with your flying; and for getting
the girl as well :-)

I don't blame you for being discouraged after an initial flight like the
one you had.
The right way for these "intro" flights to be handled can be very
closely linked to a first hour of dual; just a bit shorter.
The instructor should take a few minutes to talk to the newbie and get a
basic handle on where the person is emotionally as well as background
wise. With these two factors in tow, the instructor can do the flight
plan on the fly (so to speak) and gear how far to take the person into
the actual flying of the airplane.
Generally this fits into two distinct areas. If the newbie shows
apprehension or fear, the instructor should take this into serious
consideration and spend time gently explaining things WELL BEFORE THEY
HAPPEN to ease any tensions. Even the degree of bank used is a
consideration when apprehension is present.
On the other hand, if the newbie is keen and excited and shows some
degree of anticipation, I've been known to take a complete newcomer and
turn the airplane completely over to them using only verbal instruction
coupled with very carefully planned physical help in flying the airplane.
A good CFI should be able to take someone who has never been inside a
light airplane before and given a solid emotional base from which to
work that newbie, allow full control of the aircraft to the newbie using
the method I have described above.
It's nothing for a good instructor to "help" a newbie through a landing
on one of these initial intro flights. In fact, I would say that is how
the greater percentage of my intro flights were handled.
Sorry we missed each other :-)))
I'm pleased that you managed to overcome the negatives encountered on
that first flight and are now enjoying flying as well you should.
All the best
DH





Andy Hawkins wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In article >,
> Dudley > wrote:
>> The fine line you want to walk as the instructor on that first flight is
>> to achieve a dual purpose with the flight.
>> You want to take them into this new world carefully. You want to give
>> them tasks simple enough that they can achieve a degree of success with
>> those tasks and at the same time take them just enough into the unknown
>> where the flight leaves them feeling good about themselves and at the
>> same time looking forward to what's coming next.
>
> I couldn't put this better myself. As usual Dudley, you've hit the nail on
> the head.
>
> (Apologies, but) I've been a flight simmer for a while. About 6 years ago I
> got to the point where I could seriously consider taking my simming to the
> next level, and was ready to start lessons towards my PPL in the UK.
>
> My girlfriend (at the time, she's now my wife) and my parents bought me a
> Trial Lesson at a local airfield. For one reason and another, I left this
> flight feeling decidedly underwhelmed. Perhaps the instructor thought I was
> just on the usual 'flight for my birthday and she'd never see me again',
> which was perhaps my fault for not making clear that while this lesson was a
> gift, it was (in my eyes) the first step towards a PPL.
>
> During the lesson, I had very little input. My instructor handled all the
> take off and manoevres out of the circuit to the training area. Then I got
> to fly up and down a bit, and do some turns (but was told not to worry
> myself about the rudder pedals just yet) and that was about it really. Then
> the instructor took the controls again, and we headed back to the airfield
> and she handled the landing. I then got to do a bit of the taxying back to
> parking.
>
> I'd made sure to let her know that I had some previous flight simulator
> experience, and as such I knew the basics about which controls did what. I
> didn't expect this would mean I would instantly be able to control the plane
> (I'm not bad on the F1 simulators on my PC, but I'm sure that doesn't mean I
> could drive an F1 car from the moment I sat in it), but I did think that I
> would have a 'head start' in terms of not having to work out that the
> ailerons, elevator and rudder did.
>
> As I said, I left the flight feeling very disappointed. I had been building
> up to it for several months (my birthday was in July, and the flight in
> mid-October) and all the things I had been hoping for completely failed to
> materialise.
>
> As a direct result of this flight, I decided not to proceed with the PPL,
> and instead bought a Westfield and went down that route for 5 years, even
> competing in some grass roots motorsport for a couple of years.
>
> Then, the Westfield bug was gone. I managed about 250 miles in the car in a
> year or so, whereas previously I had been easily doing 6000 or 7000 miles in
> it, using it whenever I had the chance.
>
> So, my thoughts turned back to the PPL, and I again looked around for a
> school and went for another trial lesson. This time, I made sure I recounted
> my experiences of the previous lesson, and ensured that the instructor knew
> that I was serious in continuing.
>
> On this second trial lesson, I had control from the time we entered the
> training area, to about 300 feet or so on the approach to landing (barring
> demonstrations by the instructor obviously). I felt *much* more involved in
> the flight, and it gave me a real sense of what was to come. The first
> flight left me feeling that I already knew everything I had covered on that
> lesson, and to a point left me wondering just how much more there was? In
> contrast, the second flight *showed* me just how much more there was to
> flying that you can't experience on the simulator, and gave me just enough
> of a taste of this to know that I wanted more.
>
> About 3 months later, I'm 15 hours in, and have just gone solo. I can't wait
> to continue back out of the circuit, despite being a little worried about
> the whole Navigation thing. However, knowing how much further I've come
> since that second 'trial' lesson, I'm sure that with good instruction I'll
> continue to progress, and things that seem out of my capabilities now, will
> almost certainly be within them in a few lessons.
>
>> Trust me; this is something that marks an instructor as being
>> exceptional or just doing the job.
>>
>> Walking the fine line that defines superior flight instruction is
>> perhaps the single most difficult aspect of flight instruction.
>
> Amen to that. My wife is a teacher, and although I like to think I'm pretty
> good in my field (I'm a software engineer) I know that there's no way I
> would have the patience or the ability to pass on my knowledge to others.
> Good teachers, lecturers, instructors and the like have my utmost respect
> for the work they do.
>
> Cheers
>
> Andy


--
Dudley Henriques

Jay Honeck > wrote:

> I was very lucky to find a CFI who was not interested in the
> majors. I've searched long and hard to find a similar CFI for my
> son.
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993

Is that your plane?
That's cool.

I enjoy simulation flying small passenger jets like the Learjet, but
if I had a plane in real life it would probably be a glider or some
other extremely efficient aircraft (I'm not arguing for gliders, of
course your choice depends on your own personal needs/preferences).

Good luck and have fun.











> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

John Doe > wrote in news:StfPi.4106$y21.3391
@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net:

> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>> I was very lucky to find a CFI who was not interested in the
>> majors. I've searched long and hard to find a similar CFI for my
>> son.
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993
>
> Is that your plane?
> That's cool.
>
> I enjoy simulation flying small passenger jets like the Learjet, but
> if I had a plane in real life it would probably be a glider or some
> other extremely efficient aircraft (I'm not arguing for gliders, of
> course your choice depends on your own personal needs/preferences).
>
> Good luck and have fun.
>

WTF needs a glider?


Bertie
>
>

Hi,

In article >,
Dudley > wrote:
>
> Congratulations on what you're doing with your flying; and for getting
> the girl as well :-)

:)

Both of these have been among my better decisions in life!

> On the other hand, if the newbie is keen and excited and shows some
> degree of anticipation, I've been known to take a complete newcomer and
> turn the airplane completely over to them using only verbal instruction
> coupled with very carefully planned physical help in flying the airplane.
> A good CFI should be able to take someone who has never been inside a
> light airplane before and given a solid emotional base from which to
> work that newbie, allow full control of the aircraft to the newbie using
> the method I have described above.

That's pretty much what I was hoping for. Ok, I didn't expect to be able to
do everything, but on that first flight I felt I did next to nothing, and
the little bits I *did* do, weren't particularly challenging to me. That
left me (obviously incorrectly) with the feeling that 'well, if it's this
easy maybe I shouldn't bother'.

> It's nothing for a good instructor to "help" a newbie through a landing
> on one of these initial intro flights. In fact, I would say that is how
> the greater percentage of my intro flights were handled.

And that's pretty much what happened on my second 'trial' lesson. I was a
lot more involved in the whole experience, although in fairness I probably
did explain things to the second instructor better beforehand.

> Sorry we missed each other :-)))

Indeed. Any chance of you popping over to the UK every weekend? :D

> I'm pleased that you managed to overcome the negatives encountered on
> that first flight and are now enjoying flying as well you should.

Indeed. I still look forward to every flight, which is as it should be. I
know there are more challenges to be confronted, but this just adds to the
anticipation.

Andy

Jay Honeck writes:

> Good luck finding a non-pilot who can teach you to fly.

There are regulatory barriers to that, since most people who learn to fly want
to obtain a license.

> Unless by "preferable" you mean you'd rather not learn at all from a
> bad CFI.

Yes. Bad habits are hard to eliminate once acquired.

> In this regard, I'd agree -- although I've never found a CFI
> so bad that I wouldn't fly with him.

Jessica Dubroff wasn't so lucky.

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> Good luck finding a non-pilot who can teach you to fly.
>
> There are regulatory barriers to that, since most people who learn to
> fly want to obtain a license.
>
>> Unless by "preferable" you mean you'd rather not learn at all from a
>> bad CFI.
>
> Yes. Bad habits are hard to eliminate once acquired.


How would you know?

Oh wait, sorry.

Bob Noel wrote:
>
> hmmm, nearly every CFI I know isn't interested in the majors.
>

I agree, regarding the folks I've worked with. Some of the local CFI's
in my area are employed full-time as FAA controllers.