Simulators

[birdog[_2_]]

A bit of neophite comment on simulators.

Some years ago I bought a Microsoft simulator, played with it a while and
relegated it to a young friend. I'll say this - I wish I had this when I
first started chasing instruments for certification. The first major hurdle,
at least in my case, was continuously scanning the instruments and
automatically making control adjustments. I tended to concentrate and adjust
on one reading too long. Attention deficit disorder? The first hours were
agony. With the simulator, I believe I could have shortened dual flight time
considerably, and I know I could have suffered less punishment.

Don't know the present reality status of top line simulaters, but recovery
from unusual attitudes involves more than just manipulating the controls.
How one reacts psycologically to suddenly looking straight at the ground, or
the sudden appearence of the inverted treeline is a big factor. We lost a
pilot and his passenger some years ago when he let a 150 stall out on
takeoff, and spun into the ground. The instructor who taught him to fly
quietly suggested that he tended to panic if the plane did not act as he
anticipated. This, of course, was not in the official report. And it was
speculation on his part.

I can't see simulators preparing a pilot for instant and automatic recovery
from unanticipated emergencies - the adrenilin factor just ain't the same.
Unless convinced otherwise, I can't see pilots EVER stepping directly from a
sim into the left seat.

[Mxsmanic]

birdog writes:

> Don't know the present reality status of top line simulaters, but recovery
> from unusual attitudes involves more than just manipulating the controls.

If you use top-quality add-on aircraft in MSFS, you can get extremely accurate
simulation of instrument behavior.

Because of the high cost of visuals (both in processing time and in the size
of the database required), visuals are still the weakest part of desktop
simulation, although they are good enough to use for pilotage. It's often more
a question of not being pretty rather than not being accurate.

MSFS is not designed to simulate unusual attitudes with high accuracy. X-Plane
is supposedly better, but the flip side is that it is potentially less
accurate with respect to normal flight in specific aircraft, since it spends
more time calculating and less time looking things up in comparison to MSFS.

> How one reacts psycologically to suddenly looking straight at the ground, or
> the sudden appearence of the inverted treeline is a big factor.

The key is avoidance, not recovery. A pilot who is competent and stays ahead
of the airplane is less likely to find himself in situations that may panic
him. Minimizing accidents means avoiding the situations that lead to them;
trying to recover from those situations after falling into them is much less
effective.

> I can't see simulators preparing a pilot for instant and automatic recovery
> from unanticipated emergencies - the adrenilin factor just ain't the same.

Simulators normally aren't used that way. Like flight in a real airplane, a
simulator teaches pilots to avoid problems in the first place. Being expert
at recovering from a spin isn't nearly as useful for safety as being expert at
avoiding spins.

> Unless convinced otherwise, I can't see pilots EVER stepping directly from a
> sim into the left seat.

The day will come. Economics and technology virtually guarantee it. The role
of simulation in all types of training, especially training for operation of
vehicles, has been in constant expansion ever since the first simulators were
built.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> birdog writes:
>
>> Don't know the present reality status of top line simulaters, but recovery
>> from unusual attitudes involves more than just manipulating the controls.
>
> If you use top-quality add-on aircraft in MSFS, you can get extremely accurate
> simulation of instrument behavior.
>
> Because of the high cost of visuals (both in processing time and in the size
> of the database required), visuals are still the weakest part of desktop
> simulation, although they are good enough to use for pilotage. It's often more
> a question of not being pretty rather than not being accurate.

The visuals are nothing like reality unless you have at least three screens
so when you look out the side window you see the view on that side of the
aircraft. And the screens need to be bigger than 21 inch.

The weakest part of desktop simulation is the total absense of any of the
physical forces you will feel flying a real airplane.

<snip>

>> Unless convinced otherwise, I can't see pilots EVER stepping directly from a
>> sim into the left seat.
>
> The day will come. Economics and technology virtually guarantee it.

Technically possible maybe, economically not likely as the best of the
simulators, which still don't totally simulate actual flight, cost tens of
millions of dollars and a basic trainer can be had for much less than $100K.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[vaughn[_3_]]

"birdog" > wrote in message
...
> I can't see pilots EVER stepping directly from a sim into the left seat.

One relevant sim test that I have been proposing for years is to simply do it
the other way around; go from the left seat to the sim! As an initial test of
any sim, simply have a real pilot (but one who does not fly sims) who is fully
qualified and current on the plane being simulated, sit down and attempt a
takeoff, pattern, and landing. If the "real" pilot can't do that simple task on
the first try, (as the pilot surely could in the real airplane) then the sim
fails .

Vaughn

[a[_3_]]

On May 14, 8:19*pm, "vaughn" > wrote:
> "birdog" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > I can't see pilots EVER stepping directly from a *sim into the left seat.
>
> One relevant sim test that I have been proposing for years is to simply do it
> the other way around; go from the left seat to the sim! *As an initial test of
> any sim, simply have a real pilot (but one who does not fly sims) who is fully
> qualified and current on the plane being simulated, sit down and attempt a
> takeoff, pattern, and landing. *If the "real" pilot can't do that simple task on
> the first try, (as the pilot surely could in the real airplane) then the sim
> fails .
>
> Vaughn

I did exactly that. I have several thousand hours in an M20J, flew the
sim version. The thrill was gone! To be fair, I know the control
positions in the real Mooney, the keyboard and joystick crap in the
sim didn't work well for me. For that matter, d r in the sim -- no
nav for a while -- was awful. I couldn't easily find my home airport!

I did loop the sim, something I'd not do in the real thing. Having
flown some aerobatics, the sim loop didn't work well for me. No
lightening of the shoulder harness going over the top, no increased Gs
on the bottom half.

I fly enough actual IMC so don't need the sim to learn how to keep
needles where they should be, and unusual attitude recovery practice
is much more real with a safety pilot than in a sim. (My safety pilot
friend is a fiend. When he says "It's your airplane" you can be sure
things are pretty much at limits and your inner ear has no idea which
way is up. Of course I do the same thing to him.)

I sold my MSFS to a guy who bought it for his kid.

[Brian Whatcott]

vaughn wrote:
> "birdog" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I can't see pilots EVER stepping directly from a sim into the left seat.
>
> One relevant sim test that I have been proposing for years is to simply do it
> the other way around; go from the left seat to the sim! As an initial test of
> any sim, simply have a real pilot (but one who does not fly sims) who is fully
> qualified and current on the plane being simulated, sit down and attempt a
> takeoff, pattern, and landing. If the "real" pilot can't do that simple task on
> the first try, (as the pilot surely could in the real airplane) then the sim
> fails .
>
> Vaughn
>
>
>
The FAA requires something more elaborate on the big (even small) jets.
The control forces in representative phases of flight must match
DYNAMICALLY the records taken on a representative aircraft. The
aerodynamic behavior at the usual points on the envelope is reviewed,
i.e. for a static pitch stability demonstration, a dynamic pitch
stability demonstration and many others. These are arranged by a step
input in pitch then a release, to watch the overshoot behavior when trim
attitude is regained. These can amount to several hundred verification
maneuvers, all set up automatically and plotted against aircraft data.
This is repeated in three axes, for yaw and roll too...
Pilot subjective evaluations are avoided so far as possible, because
succeeding pilots will offer somewhat contradictory views. Give us the
facts, Ma'am.

Brian W

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The visuals are nothing like reality unless you have at least three screens
> so when you look out the side window you see the view on that side of the
> aircraft. And the screens need to be bigger than 21 inch.

All visuals are _something_ like reality; it's only a matter of degree.

MSFS actually has better visuals than some more expensive simulators, because
visuals are costly to generate and not all simulation applications require a
realistic rendering of the world through the windows.

> The weakest part of desktop simulation is the total absense of any of the
> physical forces you will feel flying a real airplane.

Yes. But for many types of flying, the physical forces are irrelevant. MSFS
is a poor choice for aerobatics, though.

> Technically possible maybe, economically not likely as the best of the
> simulators, which still don't totally simulate actual flight, cost tens of
> millions of dollars and a basic trainer can be had for much less than $100K.

I'm not sure what you mean by "totally simulate actual flight." Fighter pilots
(and occasionally airline pilots) leave simulators soaked with sweat, so it
would seem that they get a pretty good simulation.

People who aren't told otherwise sometimes believe they are actually going
somewhere on rides like Star Tours, even though they never leave the room
(this particular attraction uses full-motion simulators).

[Mxsmanic]

vaughn writes:

> One relevant sim test that I have been proposing for years is to simply do it
> the other way around; go from the left seat to the sim! As an initial test of
> any sim, simply have a real pilot (but one who does not fly sims) who is fully
> qualified and current on the plane being simulated, sit down and attempt a
> takeoff, pattern, and landing. If the "real" pilot can't do that simple task on
> the first try, (as the pilot surely could in the real airplane) then the sim
> fails .

Even a properly configured desktop simulator can often pass this test.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> The visuals are nothing like reality unless you have at least three screens
>> so when you look out the side window you see the view on that side of the
>> aircraft. And the screens need to be bigger than 21 inch.
>
> All visuals are _something_ like reality; it's only a matter of degree.
>
> MSFS actually has better visuals than some more expensive simulators, because
> visuals are costly to generate and not all simulation applications require a
> realistic rendering of the world through the windows.

What part of the visuals are nothing like reality unless you have at least
three screens so when you look out the side window you see the view on that
side of the aircraft did you not understand?

This has nothing to do with generated "visuals".

>> The weakest part of desktop simulation is the total absense of any of the
>> physical forces you will feel flying a real airplane.
>
> Yes. But for many types of flying, the physical forces are irrelevant. MSFS
> is a poor choice for aerobatics, though.

Yeah, physical forces are mostly irrelevant for teaching procedures, but
that doesn't change the fact that the weakest part of desktop simulation
is the total absense of any of the physical forces you will feel flying a
real airplane.


>> Technically possible maybe, economically not likely as the best of the
>> simulators, which still don't totally simulate actual flight, cost tens of
>> millions of dollars and a basic trainer can be had for much less than $100K.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "totally simulate actual flight." Fighter pilots
> (and occasionally airline pilots) leave simulators soaked with sweat, so it
> would seem that they get a pretty good simulation.

People leave The Taco Hut soaked with sweat.

Nice try at dodging the issue.

> People who aren't told otherwise sometimes believe they are actually going
> somewhere on rides like Star Tours, even though they never leave the room
> (this particular attraction uses full-motion simulators).

Some people, like you, are easily deluded.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> vaughn writes:
>
>> One relevant sim test that I have been proposing for years is to simply do it
>> the other way around; go from the left seat to the sim! As an initial test of
>> any sim, simply have a real pilot (but one who does not fly sims) who is fully
>> qualified and current on the plane being simulated, sit down and attempt a
>> takeoff, pattern, and landing. If the "real" pilot can't do that simple task on
>> the first try, (as the pilot surely could in the real airplane) then the sim
>> fails .
>
> Even a properly configured desktop simulator can often pass this test.

Only if previously briefed on things like which buttons to push if you
want to see out of the side window.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Only if previously briefed on things like which buttons to push if you
> want to see out of the side window.

If necessary, but that's trivial.

[Ed]

On Sat, 15 May 2010 04:27:25 -0000, wrote:

>Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> vaughn writes:
>>
>>> One relevant sim test that I have been proposing for years is to simply do it
>>> the other way around; go from the left seat to the sim! As an initial test of
>>> any sim, simply have a real pilot (but one who does not fly sims) who is fully
>>> qualified and current on the plane being simulated, sit down and attempt a
>>> takeoff, pattern, and landing. If the "real" pilot can't do that simple task on
>>> the first try, (as the pilot surely could in the real airplane) then the sim
>>> fails .
>>
>> Even a properly configured desktop simulator can often pass this test.
>
>Only if previously briefed on things like which buttons to push if you
>want to see out of the side window.

I recently had the opportunity to try an F-16 simulator at a Guard
base. The cockpit is entirely accurate and the view surrounds you to
the rear of the cockpit and accurately represents the surrounding
landscape. It is pretty spooky, and pretty touchy, but still lacks a
little of the real feel. You are, however about 15 miles behind the
damn thing from the moment you hit afterburner. I really enjoyed the
experience nevertheless.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Only if previously briefed on things like which buttons to push if you
>> want to see out of the side window.
>
> If necessary, but that's trivial.

No, it is not.

The posters point was a simulator could be deemed realistic if a real
pilot could sit down and "fly" it.

Real pilots in real airplanes often look out the side windows and they
don't have to push any buttons to be able to do it.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> No, it is not.

Things like pushing a button can be learned in seconds and don't significantly
impact a simulation. Perhaps if these requirements existed in great profusion,
they would make a difference, but not when their number is limited.

> The posters point was a simulator could be deemed realistic if a real
> pilot could sit down and "fly" it.
>
> Real pilots in real airplanes often look out the side windows and they
> don't have to push any buttons to be able to do it.

You can set MSFS up that way, too, with things like TrackIR. You turn your
head, the image moves. Or you can do it the way I do it, with the twist axis
on the joy stick set to turn the view.

I will admit that flying patterns can be frustrating in MSFS because of the
limited view, but you can find workarounds. Sometimes I'll "turn my head"
(twist the joystick) to see where the runway is, then note some landmark on
the extended centerline, and when I reach that, I turn to final. That would
not be necessary in real life, but it's a very minor difference, something
that I'd instinctively discard if I had a full view out the windows.

The alternative is TrackIR, as I've said, but I haven't decided to spring for
that, yet, as the current set-up works well enough for VFR with the few
differences I've mentioned.

One thing that surprised me, when I actually first tried to navigate by
pilotage alone, is that it actually works in the sim. The terrain often
doesn't have much detail, but the developers (some of whom were pilots) put in
many of the details you see marked on sectionals. The roads don't religiously
follow their paths on the charts but they follow them closely enough to permit
navigation with them. It works well enough to be enjoyable.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> No, it is not.
>
> Things like pushing a button can be learned in seconds and don't significantly
> impact a simulation. Perhaps if these requirements existed in great profusion,
> they would make a difference, but not when their number is limited.
>
>> The posters point was a simulator could be deemed realistic if a real
>> pilot could sit down and "fly" it.

Nope, not without being briefed on MSFS's button usage for things like
which button to push to look right, which button to push to look left,
which button to push to look ahead, which button to pust to turn on the
transponder, which button to push to ...

>> Real pilots in real airplanes often look out the side windows and they
>> don't have to push any buttons to be able to do it.
>
> You can set MSFS up that way, too, with things like TrackIR. You turn your
> head, the image moves. Or you can do it the way I do it, with the twist axis
> on the joy stick set to turn the view.

The way you do it in a real airplane is turn your eyes.

And TrackIR sounds even more unrealistic. If you turn your head full left,
does the monitor more to your left?

> I will admit that flying patterns can be frustrating in MSFS because of the
> limited view, but you can find workarounds.

Which makes it VERY unrealistic.

> One thing that surprised me, when I actually first tried to navigate by
> pilotage alone, is that it actually works in the sim. The terrain often
> doesn't have much detail, but the developers (some of whom were pilots) put in
> many of the details you see marked on sectionals. The roads don't religiously
> follow their paths on the charts but they follow them closely enough to permit
> navigation with them. It works well enough to be enjoyable.

Yeah, it sorta works for ground referenced navigation as long as the landmarks
are in front of you.

I do not find MSFS to be enjoyable other than for doing things like buzzing
the Vegas strip.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Nope, not without being briefed on MSFS's button usage for things like
> which button to push to look right, which button to push to look left,
> which button to push to look ahead, which button to pust to turn on the
> transponder, which button to push to ...

A lot can be done by clicking with the mouse, and you just click on the things
that look like the controls you use in real life.

> The way you do it in a real airplane is turn your eyes.

So?

> And TrackIR sounds even more unrealistic. If you turn your head full left,
> does the monitor more to your left?

You don't know how TrackIR works, do you? How do you know that it's
unrealistic, then?

> Which makes it VERY unrealistic.

Field of view is only one tiny part of flying.

> Yeah, it sorta works for ground referenced navigation as long as the landmarks
> are in front of you.

Or anywhere, actually.

In fact, you can cheat in some aircraft with a 360-degree, unobstructed view
of your surroundings, which is not possible in real life.

When I fly by pilotage, typically the landmarks I'm looking for are in front
of me, or nearly so. If they are behind me, I'm going the wrong way (and I
wouldn't be able to see them in a real airplane, either).

> I do not find MSFS to be enjoyable other than for doing things like buzzing
> the Vegas strip.

Children who try out MSFS love to do that. Zooming around, crashing and
bouncing, and so on. They can't be bothered to learn how to fly.

Gamers are much the same way.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Nope, not without being briefed on MSFS's button usage for things like
>> which button to push to look right, which button to push to look left,
>> which button to push to look ahead, which button to pust to turn on the
>> transponder, which button to push to ...
>
> A lot can be done by clicking with the mouse, and you just click on the things
> that look like the controls you use in real life.

A real airplane doesn't have a mouse to click.

>> The way you do it in a real airplane is turn your eyes.
>
> So?

So it isn't realistic.

>> And TrackIR sounds even more unrealistic. If you turn your head full left,
>> does the monitor more to your left?
>
> You don't know how TrackIR works, do you? How do you know that it's
> unrealistic, then?

If I turn my head full left in a real airplane I have a left hand view
directly in front of my face.

TrackIR moves the image on the monitor in front of you. To simulate reality,
TrackIR would have to physically move the monitor to my left to track my
head turning. TrackIR does not do that.

>> Which makes it VERY unrealistic.
>
> Field of view is only one tiny part of flying.

The above has nothting to do with field of view and field of view is very
important to VFR flying, especially in operations on and around an airport.

>
>> Yeah, it sorta works for ground referenced navigation as long as the landmarks
>> are in front of you.
>
> Or anywhere, actually.

No, because seeing things to your side and to your side and below is a
big pain in the ass pushing buttons to change the view.

> In fact, you can cheat in some aircraft with a 360-degree, unobstructed view
> of your surroundings, which is not possible in real life.

Not in MFSF and not anything else unless you have a 360 degree screen.

> When I fly by pilotage, typically the landmarks I'm looking for are in front
> of me, or nearly so. If they are behind me, I'm going the wrong way (and I
> wouldn't be able to see them in a real airplane, either).

A lot of landmarks in real flying will be beside you.

>> I do not find MSFS to be enjoyable other than for doing things like buzzing
>> the Vegas strip.
>
> Children who try out MSFS love to do that. Zooming around, crashing and
> bouncing, and so on. They can't be bothered to learn how to fly.

I have a real airplane and already know how to fly.

MSFS is nothing like flying my airplane.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> A real airplane doesn't have a mouse to click.

So? A person would have to be quite impaired cognitively in order to be unable
to adapt between a mouse click and the turn of a knob or the flip of a switch.

> So it isn't realistic.

Realism isn't a binary value. There are many degrees of realism. Every
simulation is realistic to some degree. No simulation is completely realistic
or unrealistic. The limits of realism can be a good thing or a bad thing,
depending on which aspects of realism are affected and the objectives of the
simulation.

> If I turn my head full left in a real airplane I have a left hand view
> directly in front of my face.
>
> TrackIR moves the image on the monitor in front of you. To simulate reality,
> TrackIR would have to physically move the monitor to my left to track my
> head turning. TrackIR does not do that.

So?

> The above has nothting to do with field of view and field of view is very
> important to VFR flying, especially in operations on and around an airport.

Not everyone chooses to fly VFR.

> No, because seeing things to your side and to your side and below is a
> big pain in the ass pushing buttons to change the view.

I don't find it so.

> Not in MFSF and not anything else unless you have a 360 degree screen.

The twist axis on my control stick allows me to look directly behind the
aircraft if I feel so inclined. I only use this capability on rare occasions
because it's not very realistic.

> A lot of landmarks in real flying will be beside you.

If they are beside me, I look to the side.

> I have a real airplane and already know how to fly.
>
> MSFS is nothing like flying my airplane.

If you only use MSFS to buzz the Las Vegas strip, I can understand why you
might feel that way. But some people are serious about simulation.

[[email protected]]

On May 15, 9:43*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> But some people are serious about simulation.

Yep, while some people are serious about simulation, there is nothing
serious about simulation as you would think it would relate to the
real world of flying.

I know since I have real world experience AND MSFS experience. You
don't since you don't fly a real plane. .

So, why not post into the sim groups and say you fly a baron then
rec.aviatoin.piloting. You don't fly a baron, you simulate flying a
baron.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> A real airplane doesn't have a mouse to click.
>
> So? A person would have to be quite impaired cognitively in order to be unable
> to adapt between a mouse click and the turn of a knob or the flip of a switch.

A real airplane doesn't have a mouse to click or keyboard sequences to look
out the side windows.

>> So it isn't realistic.
>
> Realism isn't a binary value. There are many degrees of realism. Every
> simulation is realistic to some degree. No simulation is completely realistic
> or unrealistic. The limits of realism can be a good thing or a bad thing,
> depending on which aspects of realism are affected and the objectives of the
> simulation.
>
>> If I turn my head full left in a real airplane I have a left hand view
>> directly in front of my face.
>>
>> TrackIR moves the image on the monitor in front of you. To simulate reality,
>> TrackIR would have to physically move the monitor to my left to track my
>> head turning. TrackIR does not do that.
>
> So?

So it is nowhere near a realistic simulation of flying a real airplane.

>> The above has nothting to do with field of view and field of view is very
>> important to VFR flying, especially in operations on and around an airport.
>
> Not everyone chooses to fly VFR.

That comment has even less to do with the subject at hand than your previous
comment about field of view.

>> No, because seeing things to your side and to your side and below is a
>> big pain in the ass pushing buttons to change the view.
>
> I don't find it so.

Of course not because you are playing a game, not flying a real airplane
with no clue how important side vision is in some phases of flight.

>> Not in MFSF and not anything else unless you have a 360 degree screen.
>
> The twist axis on my control stick allows me to look directly behind the
> aircraft if I feel so inclined. I only use this capability on rare occasions
> because it's not very realistic.

Yet another comment that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

>> A lot of landmarks in real flying will be beside you.
>
> If they are beside me, I look to the side.

After pushing some buttons to look to the side than pushing buttons again
to look ahead again.

>> I have a real airplane and already know how to fly.
>>
>> MSFS is nothing like flying my airplane.
>
> If you only use MSFS to buzz the Las Vegas strip, I can understand why you
> might feel that way. But some people are serious about simulation.

I feel that way because MSFS controls, even the expensive ones, feel nothing
like a real airplane, MSFS does not taxi like a real airplane, none of the
physical forces feel like a real airplane, none of the panel controls work
like a real airplane, and having a monitor in front of me looks nothing
like the view in a real airplane.

The people that are truely serious about simulation, like the Air Force and
airlines, don't use MSFS.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Yep, while some people are serious about simulation, there is nothing
> serious about simulation as you would think it would relate to the
> real world of flying.

I don't understand.

> I know since I have real world experience AND MSFS experience. You
> don't since you don't fly a real plane.

From what you've said in the past, it doesn't sound like you have any serious
simulation experience, although I suppose you've toyed with MSFS from time to
time.

There's quite a broad spectrum of MSFS users, from kiddie gamers to people who
spend more on their simulators than they would have to spend to get their
ATPLs.

> So, why not post into the sim groups and say you fly a baron then
> rec.aviatoin.piloting. You don't fly a baron, you simulate flying a
> baron.

Flight is flight. Most of the differences between simulation and the real
world tend to be insignificant in the wide world of aviation.

Since my last post, I've flown three times: a round trip of only nine miles
each way (which taught me that nine miles isn't far enough for a Bonanza), and
a 48-minute trip from Phoenix to Palm Springs, which went well until SoCal
Approach dragged its feet getting me below 11000 and forced me to go around.
At least I got some hand-flying practice in the Citation from that latter
flight.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> A real airplane doesn't have a mouse to click or keyboard sequences to look
> out the side windows.

So?

Things change from one aircraft to another. Lots and lots of things. Things
also change between a sim and a real aircraft. The adaptation process is the
same for both cases. Press a button, click a mouse, turn a lever--it's easy to
change.

> So it is nowhere near a realistic simulation of flying a real airplane.

How do you quantify "nowhere near"?

> That comment has even less to do with the subject at hand than your previous
> comment about field of view.

Not really. Some people like to fly IFR. Some people like systems and
procedures, or navigation, or all sorts of other things besides bouncing
around or looking out the window. Aviation has many attractions.

> Of course not because you are playing a game, not flying a real airplane
> with no clue how important side vision is in some phases of flight.

No, it's just that I adapt easily.

> > The twist axis on my control stick allows me to look directly behind the
> > aircraft if I feel so inclined. I only use this capability on rare occasions
> > because it's not very realistic.
>
> Yet another comment that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

You just said that side vision is important, and now you're dismissing it in
the sim. You can't have it both ways. Is it important or not?

> After pushing some buttons to look to the side than pushing buttons again
> to look ahead again.

I just twist the control stick, which I already have in my hand if I'm flying
by hand.

> I feel that way because MSFS controls, even the expensive ones, feel nothing
> like a real airplane ...

The controls of a real airplane feel nothing like the controls of other real
airplanes. Every airplane is different. You're attaching far too much
importance to this.

It seems that flying for you is mostly a visceral experience. It isn't for me.
Motion and wind and control feel are mostly distractions. I operate other
vehicles in the same way.

> MSFS does not taxi like a real airplane, none of the
> physical forces feel like a real airplane, none of the panel controls work
> like a real airplane, and having a monitor in front of me looks nothing
> like the view in a real airplane.

Real airplanes do not taxi alike, either.

> The people that are truely serious about simulation, like the Air Force and
> airlines, don't use MSFS.

Actually, some organizations in the military do use MSFS. Perhaps they are
more open-minded than some pilots here.

[VOR-DME[_3_]]

I am dubitative of the pertinence of one’s expertise in simulation having
never experienced the genuine activity being simulated. However, we’ve
explored the possibility that mitigating factors, be they medical, pecuniary
or other could make this the only real option. This is fine, however to
profess any sort of expertise in the matter this shortfall would have to be
compensated by an even greater study of the subject. This does not appear to
be the case with MX.


>
>Flight is flight. Most of the differences between simulation and the real
>world tend to be insignificant in the wide world of aviation.
>


This statement is an open gate to a vast sea of ignorance. The topic of
transfer of experience from simulation to real flight, the role of _realism_
and its subset of components (visual, motion, audio, cockpit resource
management, I could go on and on) are the subject of a large number of
published scholarly works and an even greater number of doctoral theses. All
of this ongoing study is tacitly predicated on the assumption that the above
statement is impertinent at best, and probably patently false.


>Things change from one aircraft to another. Lots and lots of things. Things
>also change between a sim and a real aircraft. The adaptation process is the
>same for both cases.

Another statement that reveals a very shallow depth of inquiry and a
superficial understanding of simulation, aside the fact that it is simply
untrue.

I do not contest the right of any enthusiast to delve into simulation to
extract whatever pleasure and learning they may. It is a low-cost, zero-risk
way of learning a lot about aviation and getting a lot of enjoyment out of it.
This is perfectly legitimate, and I have no criticism of MX or any contributor
her to put in and get out whatever they wish from these desktop simulators.
There is a serious side to simulation though, and is clear that MX is not well
versed in the subject. So while he is free to post his observations, based on
his many hours of experience, we cannot consider his view to be that of one
knowledgeable about simulation.

[a[_3_]]

On May 16, 12:17*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Yep, while some people are serious about simulation, there is nothing
> > serious about simulation as you would think it would relate to the
> > real world of flying.
>
> I don't understand.
>
> > I know since I have real world experience AND MSFS experience. You
> > don't since you don't fly a real plane.
>
> From what you've said in the past, it doesn't sound like you have any serious
> simulation experience, although I suppose you've toyed with MSFS from time to
> time.
>
> There's quite a broad spectrum of MSFS users, from kiddie gamers to people who
> spend more on their simulators than they would have to spend to get their
> ATPLs.
>
> > So, why not post into the sim groups and say you fly a baron then
> > rec.aviatoin.piloting. *You don't fly a baron, you simulate flying a
> > baron.
>
> Flight is flight. Most of the differences between simulation and the real
> world tend to be insignificant in the wide world of aviation.
>
> Since my last post, I've flown three times: a round trip of only nine miles
> each way (which taught me that nine miles isn't far enough for a Bonanza), and
> a 48-minute trip from Phoenix to Palm Springs, which went well until SoCal
> Approach dragged its feet getting me below 11000 and forced me to go around.
> At least I got some hand-flying practice in the Citation from that latter
> flight.

MX wrote

Flight is flight. Most of the differences between simulation and the
real
world tend to be insignificant in the wide world of aviation.

When my most important customer is having some difficulties, I do NOT
simulate a flight to Rochester NY. I file an IFR flight plan, and go
there. That is, at least to my pragmatic way of thinking, a
significant difference.

My guess is a significant number of us use are ability to fly to
enhance our quality of life by going to interesting places, others do
that by enjoying the aesthetics of soaring.

And some play computer games.

Perhaps to some the pleasures are equivalent. To some of us, they are
not. For some of us, there's not an important overlap in learning
opportunity, To be lectured by one who has experienced only one side
as to its relevance is, well, you can fill in whatever word or phrase
you choose.

[Mxsmanic]

VOR-DME writes:

> I am dubitative of the pertinence of one’s expertise in simulation having
> never experienced the genuine activity being simulated. However, we’ve
> explored the possibility that mitigating factors, be they medical, pecuniary
> or other could make this the only real option. This is fine, however to
> profess any sort of expertise in the matter this shortfall would have to be
> compensated by an even greater study of the subject. This does not appear to
> be the case with MX.

My posts are too few on USENET to make any assessment possible. I've been
interested in aviation and have studied it since childhood, and I recall
reading my first ground-school textbook at the age of around six (it belonged
to my father).

> This statement is an open gate to a vast sea of ignorance. The topic of
> transfer of experience from simulation to real flight, the role of _realism_
> and its subset of components (visual, motion, audio, cockpit resource
> management, I could go on and on) are the subject of a large number of
> published scholarly works and an even greater number of doctoral theses. All
> of this ongoing study is tacitly predicated on the assumption that the above
> statement is impertinent at best, and probably patently false.

The role of simulation in training and research continues to increase. If it
were not realistic, this would not be the case.

Some pilots have a great deal of their self-esteem invested in their pilot
licenses. These pilots tend to reject simulation summarily because it dilutes
the prestige they imagine to be associated with their licensing and thus dents
their egos. Not all pilots have this type of mental block against simulation,
however, and those who do not may enjoy simulation greatly (albeit not as much
as flying in a real airplane). Most pilots cannot afford to fly a real
airplane during all of their waking hours, so those who reject simulation are
denying themselves considerable aviation-related enjoyment.

> Another statement that reveals a very shallow depth of inquiry and a
> superficial understanding of simulation, aside the fact that it is simply
> untrue.

Some people adapt better than others.

I note that those who refuse to take simulation seriously never enjoy it,
whereas those who do take it seriously find it great fun and sometimes useful
in practical ways that apply to their flights in real aircraft.

> There is a serious side to simulation though, and is clear that MX is not well
> versed in the subject.

How so?

[Mxsmanic]

a writes:

> When my most important customer is having some difficulties, I do NOT
> simulate a flight to Rochester NY. I file an IFR flight plan, and go
> there. That is, at least to my pragmatic way of thinking, a
> significant difference.

If you regard flight as only transportation, then I agree. But if all you want
is transportation, simulation is irrelevant. In fact, you can drive a car and
avoid aviation entirely.

> My guess is a significant number of us use are ability to fly to
> enhance our quality of life by going to interesting places, others do
> that by enjoying the aesthetics of soaring.

I don't think that someone who simply wants to get somewhere would decide to
become a pilot and fly there himself. That's an incredibly awkward, expensive
way to travel. People who become pilots usually have some intrinsic interest
in flying. On rare occasions, a person might become a pilot because he has
some extremely specific need for transportation that only an airplane can
provide (as when he must travel to rural areas of Alaska, for example).

For me, travel is a downside to real-world aviation. I hate travel. I don't
want to go anywhere. In fact, having to actually go somewhere is an excellent
reason to avoid flying for real in my book. A huge advantage of simulation for
me is that I can fly without the need to step outside my room.

> Perhaps to some the pleasures are equivalent. To some of us, they are
> not. For some of us, there's not an important overlap in learning
> opportunity, To be lectured by one who has experienced only one side
> as to its relevance is, well, you can fill in whatever word or phrase
> you choose.

I note that people who are hostile towards me here always resent being told
anything by anyone else. They are very conscious of a semi-imaginary
hierarchy, like a treehouse club. They lord it over people whom they consider
inferior, and they grovel before people whom they consider superior (if any).
And they worry a lot about what other people think of them in general.

[[email protected]]

On May 15, 11:17*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Yep, while some people are serious about simulation, there is nothing
> > serious about simulation as you would think it would relate to the
> > real world of flying.
>
> I don't understand.

FINALLY YOU ADMIT SOMETHING I AGREE WITH.

[a[_3_]]

On May 16, 8:47*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> a writes:
> > When my most important customer is having some difficulties, I do NOT
> > simulate a flight to Rochester NY. I file an IFR flight plan, and go
> > there. That is, at least to my pragmatic way of thinking, a
> > significant difference.
>
> If you regard flight as only transportation, then I agree. But if all you want
> is transportation, simulation is irrelevant. In fact, you can drive a car and
> avoid aviation entirely.
>
> > My guess is a significant number of us use are ability to fly to
> > enhance our quality of life by going to interesting places, others do
> > that by enjoying the aesthetics of soaring.
>
> I don't think that someone who simply wants to get somewhere would decide to
> become a pilot and fly there himself. That's an incredibly awkward, expensive
> way to travel. People who become pilots usually have some intrinsic interest
> in flying. On rare occasions, a person might become a pilot because he has
> some extremely specific need for transportation that only an airplane can
> provide (as when he must travel to rural areas of Alaska, for example).
>
> For me, travel is a downside to real-world aviation. I hate travel. I don't
> want to go anywhere. In fact, having to actually go somewhere is an excellent
> reason to avoid flying for real in my book. A huge advantage of simulation for
> me is that I can fly without the need to step outside my room.
>
> > Perhaps to some the pleasures are equivalent. To some of us, they are
> > not. For some of us, there's not an important overlap in learning
> > opportunity, *To be lectured by one who has experienced only one side
> > as to its relevance is, well, you can fill in whatever word or phrase
> > you choose.
>
> I note that people who are hostile towards me here always resent being told
> anything by anyone else. They are very conscious of a semi-imaginary
> hierarchy, like a treehouse club. They lord it over people whom they consider
> inferior, and they grovel before people whom they consider superior (if any).
> And they worry a lot about what other people think of them in general.

MX wrote


I note that people who are hostile towards me here always resent being
told
anything by anyone else. They are very conscious of a semi-imaginary
hierarchy, like a treehouse club. They lord it over people whom they
consider
inferior, and they grovel before people whom they consider superior
(if any).
And they worry a lot about what other people think of them in
general.

Rather defensive, aren't you? I take pleasure in flying, and in
driving. You, having no PIC (actual) have little real world aviation
experience to draw on. "I read" or "I simulated" does not carry much
credibility, and to those ignorant but eager to learn of the realities
of general aviation would be prudent to consider the source of advice
and/or teachings. Your pontifications are sometimes right, other times
wrong. The reactions those statements draw help the inexperienced
reader evaluate them.

I've gotten useful ideas from this newsgroup, but not from you. Some
suggestions I've posted have become part of other aviator's
checklists, and that's a nice form of payback. I suspect it's a reward
you don't often get, but I could be wrong.

[Mxsmanic]

a writes:

> Rather defensive, aren't you?

Not at all. Just making an observation.

> You, having no PIC (actual) have little real world aviation
> experience to draw on. "I read" or "I simulated" does not carry much
> credibility, and to those ignorant but eager to learn of the realities
> of general aviation would be prudent to consider the source of advice
> and/or teachings.

There are instructors who have never flown. You can become an instructor
without flying, as I recall. Do you dismiss them as well?

> Your pontifications are sometimes right, other times
> wrong.

How often right, and how often wrong?

> The reactions those statements draw help the inexperienced
> reader evaluate them.

The smart reader always verifies everything he sees on USENET by some other
means.

> I've gotten useful ideas from this newsgroup, but not from you. Some
> suggestions I've posted have become part of other aviator's
> checklists, and that's a nice form of payback. I suspect it's a reward
> you don't often get, but I could be wrong.

Actually, I provide instruction in other venues, and that seems to work quite
well. There are far fewer dorks when there's no anonymity.

[VOR-DME[_3_]]

In article >,
says...

>I don't think that someone who simply wants to get somewhere would decide to
>become a pilot and fly there himself. That's an incredibly awkward, expensive
>way to travel. People who become pilots usually have some intrinsic interest
>in flying. On rare occasions, a person might become a pilot because he has
>some extremely specific need for transportation that only an airplane can
>provide (as when he must travel to rural areas of Alaska, for example).
>


It’s not really the topic of this thread, but I fully agree with that. Anyone
who is tempted to get into aviation in a pragmatic desire to solve a specific
transportation need (outside of Alaska or the Outback of Australia or
something) is probably going to come up short on the goods, and the initial
expressed need will not suffice to get him/her through the whole process of
getting and maintaining all the proficiency needed to do this successfully.
And if they do slug it out, still focused on that travel need and never
developing a passion for aviation, they are likely to make poor pilots. Their
initial decision was probably a poor one, and others are likely to follow.
However, someone passionate about aviation, motivated enough to go through the
whole thing, and who flies regularly. Someone to whom filing an IFR flight
plan and flying off somewhere is completely a non-event, is likely to procure
a huge amount of flexibility, a greatly widened operational footprint and the
satisfaction of being spared the grind of long drives and the belittling
aggravation that airline travel has become.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Flight is flight.

Nope, flight means leaving the ground.

> Since my last post, I've flown three times:

Nope, you sat in a chair in front of a PC running MSFS.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> The role of simulation in training and research continues to increase. If it
> were not realistic, this would not be the case.

Bull****.

While realism in training using simulation is desirable, simulation is used
because it is either cheaper than the real thing or too dangerous to do the
real thing.

You are delusional.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Brian Whatcott]

VOR-DME wrote:
> I am dubitative of the pertinence of one’s expertise
in simulation ... /snip/

In Snooker playing circles, I believe this is called
"putting on the English..." :-)

Brian W

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

>> A real airplane doesn't have a mouse to click or keyboard sequences to look
>> out the side windows.
>
> So?

So it invalidates your contention that a pilot trained to fly a real C-172
could just sit down and fly a MSFS C-172 because the simulation is so
realistic.

The simulation is not realistic for many reasons and the pilot would need
MSFS specific training to make a lot of stuff work.

>> MSFS does not taxi like a real airplane, none of the
>> physical forces feel like a real airplane, none of the panel controls work
>> like a real airplane, and having a monitor in front of me looks nothing
>> like the view in a real airplane.
>
> Real airplanes do not taxi alike, either.

MSFS does not taxit like any real airplane.

A MSFS C-172 does not taxi like a real C-172, nor do any of the other
MSFS airplanes I've tryed.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> There are instructors who have never flown. You can become an instructor
> without flying, as I recall. Do you dismiss them as well?

Only for a subset of things that do not require actual flight to teach,
such as how to do real flight planning.

You might want to look up such a person.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[a[_3_]]

On May 16, 12:21*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> a writes:
> > Rather defensive, aren't you?
>
> Not at all. Just making an observation.
>
> > You, having no PIC (actual) have little real world aviation
> > experience to draw on. "I read" or "I simulated" does not carry much
> > credibility, and to those ignorant but eager to learn of the realities
> > of general aviation would be prudent to consider the source of advice
> > and/or teachings.
>
> There are instructors who have never flown. You can become an instructor
> without flying, as I recall. Do you dismiss them as well?
>
> > Your pontifications are sometimes right, other times
> > wrong.
>
> How often right, and how often wrong?
>
> > The reactions those statements draw help the inexperienced
> > reader evaluate them.
>
> The smart reader always verifies everything he sees on USENET by some other
> means.
>
> > I've gotten useful ideas from this newsgroup, but not from you. Some
> > suggestions I've posted have become part of other aviator's
> > checklists, and that's a nice form of payback. I suspect it's a reward
> > you don't often get, but I could be wrong.
>
> Actually, I provide instruction in other venues, and that seems to work quite
> well. There are far fewer dorks when there's no anonymity.

MXwrote


There are instructors who have never flown. You can become an
instructor
without flying, as I recall. Do you dismiss them as well?

I would dismiss as laughable anyone who presented themselves as a
certified flight instructor who had never flown as PIC. That is not
the sort of person I'd like instructing in spin recovery. There may
be areas in aviation where in instructor is not required to be
certified as a pilot, this pilot has found no need in some 3245 hours
TT for such 'instruction'.

It is the rare 800 mile trip where an M20J does not offer better door
to door time than does an airliner, and in the return trip, where on
leaves when ready rather than on an airliner's schedule the difference
is even greater. The only down side is a concluding dinner will not
include wine for me..

By the way, here's a question for other executives who might be
reading this: who does not agree with "18 holes of golf will tell you
more about a man's character than a 6 hour interview"? If I am
interviewing a mid to high level executive who is otherwise competent
and he mentions he plays golf, we're off to my club.

[birdog[_2_]]

To MX: Son, you're way too defensive. And (in my humble opinion) taking this
MS simulator much too seriously. There's absolutely nothing wrong with
sim-flying as a harmless hobby. But you're trying to interlace it with the
real thing too rigidly, and thin out the dividing line. Real pilots get lost
and lose their planes, and sometimes their ass, in a farmer's cornfield.
Flatlanders too frequently fly into mountain sides in setting up IFR
approaches too low in mountainous country ( we once had three that flew into
the same mountain in a fairly short period). Pilots die as a result of major
lapses in judgement. I'm not saying that's part of the appeal, but it tends
to sharpen attention, and increase the heart rate. I think that difference
is why you attract some criticism. You do, however, stir up conversation
with some of your comments.

As to "avoiding" having to recover from unusual attitudes, etc., that is
what learning to fly is all about. Every pilot that has ever solo'd has
balooned on round-out, or had a puff of wind baloon you at near stall speed
on landing. You're expected to recover instantly and without a drop of sweat
or a seconds thought. How about you inadvertently come in too close behind a
big transport, and wing tip vortex rolls you upside down 30 feet off the
runway? Something I have experienced many times during training sessions -
you're doing a climbing turn, say to the right, air speed in marginal and
coordination is sloppy. Suddenly the top wing looses lift and the plane
whips violently to the left, and you find yourself nearly vertical and
inverted? (I never could intentionally duplicate this, but I didn't try too
hard, anyone want to explain?). Don't tell me these things never happen to a
seasoned pilot. With proper training, these things become incidents, not
disasters. And panic creates disasters.

I have entered two posts, and am delighted at the responses. Just goes to
show - post something of aeronotical interest and you wake up the pilots
here. Let's keep it up!

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Only for a subset of things that do not require actual flight to teach,
> such as how to do real flight planning.

Hardly anything requires actual flight to teach.

> You might want to look up such a person.

Or maybe I should become one.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> So it invalidates your contention that a pilot trained to fly a real C-172
> could just sit down and fly a MSFS C-172 because the simulation is so
> realistic.

A lot of pilots manage to do this. What's their secret?

> The simulation is not realistic for many reasons and the pilot would need
> MSFS specific training to make a lot of stuff work.

Hardly. A lot of pilots can just sit in front of it and fly it.

> MSFS does not taxit like any real airplane.

That depends on the aircraft.

> A MSFS C-172 does not taxi like a real C-172, nor do any of the other
> MSFS airplanes I've tryed.

Exactly which aircraft have you tried?

[Mxsmanic]

birdog writes:

> To MX: Son, you're way too defensive.

I don't have to be defensive, since I'm not offended.

> Pilots die as a result of major lapses in judgement. I'm not saying
> that's part of the appeal, but it tends to sharpen attention, and
> increase the heart rate.

If a pilot needs fear of death to fly correctly and safely, he has a serious
psychological problem. And if the risk of death is part of the appeal of
flying for him, he also has a serious problem. Both of these are highly
correlated with poor piloting.

> Don't tell me these things never happen to a
> seasoned pilot. With proper training, these things become incidents, not
> disasters. And panic creates disasters.

How do you train for things that are inherently very dangerous?

[george]

On May 17, 8:19*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> How do you train for things that are inherently very dangerous?

By flying and training with instructors who actually fly..

[[email protected]]

On May 16, 3:19*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> If a pilot needs fear of death to fly correctly and safely, he has a serious
> psychological problem. And if the risk of death is part of the appeal of
> flying for him, he also has a serious problem. Both of these are highly
> correlated with poor piloting.

WRONG.

[Mxsmanic]

george writes:

> By flying and training with instructors who actually fly..

If the instructor or student makes a mistake, then what?

In a real aircraft, training for emergency situations may be more hazardous
than not training for them, particularly if the emergency is rare in normal
operation or is difficult to recover from.

In simulators, the cost of training for recovery from a specific emergency
must be balanced against the cost of training to avoid it, or training for
some other situation. Another consideration for simulation is whether or not
the simulator correctly simulates unusual situations--the most accurate
simulators are driven by databases built from actual test flights, and if
there is no data for a specific flight regime, the simulation cannot be relied
upon. At the same time, however, the regime in question might be so dangerous
in real life that using a real aircraft is out of the question.

Do airline pilots train for spin recovery in their airliners?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> WRONG.

I'm sure the NTSB will mention this in its report.

They say the last words of many private pilots before an accident are often
"Watch this!"

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Only for a subset of things that do not require actual flight to teach,
>> such as how to do real flight planning.
>
> Hardly anything requires actual flight to teach.

If that nonsense were true the US Air Force wouldn't have a fleet of
primary trainers.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

>> MSFS does not taxit like any real airplane.
>
> That depends on the aircraft.

Nope.

>> A MSFS C-172 does not taxi like a real C-172, nor do any of the other
>> MSFS airplanes I've tryed.
>
> Exactly which aircraft have you tried?

Irrelevant; that the C-172 doesn't is sufficient to prove the point.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> birdog writes:

>> Pilots die as a result of major lapses in judgement. I'm not saying
>> that's part of the appeal, but it tends to sharpen attention, and
>> increase the heart rate.
>
> If a pilot needs fear of death to fly correctly and safely, he has a serious
> psychological problem. And if the risk of death is part of the appeal of
> flying for him, he also has a serious problem. Both of these are highly
> correlated with poor piloting.

What part of "tends to sharpen attention, and increase the heart rate" do
you not understand?

>> Don't tell me these things never happen to a
>> seasoned pilot. With proper training, these things become incidents, not
>> disasters. And panic creates disasters.
>
> How do you train for things that are inherently very dangerous?

Very carefully, obviously.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> If that nonsense were true the US Air Force wouldn't have a fleet of
> primary trainers.

How much time do their students spend learning things in classrooms, and how
much time do they spend learning things in the air?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Nope.

Yup. Different aircraft taxi in different ways, and this is simulated,
particularly by add-on aircraft.

> Irrelevant; that the C-172 doesn't is sufficient to prove the point.

I'm afraid not. You would know this if you had flown a large selection of
aircraft in the sim.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> What part of "tends to sharpen attention, and increase the heart rate" do
> you not understand?

As I've explaind, if you need a risk of death to sharpen your attention,
there's something wrong. A disciplined pilot pays careful attention whether
his life is on the line or not, and he does it without tachycardia.

> Very carefully, obviously.

How do you determine which is riskier: actually doing a dangerous maneuver in
order to learn how to recover from it, or learning to avoid it and/or learning
something else in its place?

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>>
>>> Only for a subset of things that do not require actual flight to teach,
>>> such as how to do real flight planning.
>>
>> Hardly anything requires actual flight to teach.
>
> If that nonsense were true the US Air Force wouldn't have a fleet of
> primary trainers.

Irrelevant to your contention that hardly anything requires actual flight
to teach.

Teaching actual flight obviously requires actual flight to teach or the
US Air Force wouldn't be using actual flight to teach actual flight.

The leaders of the Air Force aren't delusional like you are.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Nope.
>
> Yup. Different aircraft taxi in different ways, and this is simulated,
> particularly by add-on aircraft.

That wasn't what the nope was about.

The nope was nope, MSFS doesn't taxi in any airplane like a real airplane.

>> Irrelevant; that the C-172 doesn't is sufficient to prove the point.
>
> I'm afraid not. You would know this if you had flown a large selection of
> aircraft in the sim.

I'm afraid so. You would know this if you had ever actually done anything
at the controls of a real airplane.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> What part of "tends to sharpen attention, and increase the heart rate" do
>> you not understand?
>
> As I've explaind, if you need a risk of death to sharpen your attention,
> there's something wrong. A disciplined pilot pays careful attention whether
> his life is on the line or not, and he does it without tachycardia.

As usual the point goes right over your delusional head, much like a real
airplane.

>> Very carefully, obviously.
>
> How do you determine which is riskier: actually doing a dangerous maneuver in
> order to learn how to recover from it, or learning to avoid it and/or learning
> something else in its place?

Statistics from real life, obviously, though you are starting from the
false premise that there is such a thing as "a dangerous maneuver" that
requires training to perform.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On May 16, 8:29*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > WRONG.
>
> I'm sure the NTSB will mention this in its report.
>
> They say the last words of many private pilots before an accident are often
> "Watch this!"

It is unfortunate that even when you have something of value to
contribute to these endless argumentative threads involving you, your
glaringly obvious bias against pilots takes control over your comment.
Some of what you have said concerning the value of simulation in
teaching emergency procedures holds truth but your argument is
weakened by your bias.
Dudley Henriques

[Morgans[_2_]]

"birdog" > wrote

> To MX: Son, you're way too defensive. And (in my humble opinion) taking
> this MS simulator much too seriously. There's absolutely nothing wrong
> with sim-flying as a harmless hobby. But you're trying to interlace it
> with the real thing too rigidly, and thin out the dividing line.

That's nothing, but the tip of the "reality is lost" iceberg.

Ever hear about all the planes he pretends to own, or all of the flights he
takes for his customers?
How about how he waits at the airport for his customers to show up, and
sometimes he has to wait for the customer to arrive late?
How about bloging about all of this stuff, and about how he flies the entire
trip in real time, even in hours long flights?
Think I'm making all of this up? Not at all. It is out there in e world.
What I have put down here is just a couple of many things that show the loss
of reality. Perhaps 2% of it. It goes on and on.

How about how he always ends up a thread telling a pilot how the pilot had
handled a situation wrongly, and that his way was the correct way. Wait and
see. Every thread ends up going that way, eventually.

Your response to him was a waste of your time. He will not take any of
your advice, admit that you may be correct, or learn anything. After all,
his intellect is superior to yours, and to anyone else's intellect falls
short of his. If you don't believe him, just ask him. He will be glad to
tell you how much better he is, and how much smarter he is than you, or
anyone else that posts here, or that doesn't post here. That really narrows
it down, doesn't it?

Now I have wasted way too much time. I hope you go look up some of what I
have sent here, to confirm it for yourself. Perhaps then you will agree
that responding to him is a waste of time, any you and others will spend
your energy on other posters and other endeavors.

Have a good one!
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Irrelevant to your contention that hardly anything requires actual flight
> to teach.
>
> Teaching actual flight obviously requires actual flight to teach or the
> US Air Force wouldn't be using actual flight to teach actual flight.

Hardly anything isn't the same as not at all.

So how much time do they spend in class, and how much time do they spend in
the air?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The nope was nope, MSFS doesn't taxi in any airplane like a real airplane.

You've tried every single airplane available for MSFS to verify this?

> I'm afraid so. You would know this if you had ever actually done anything
> at the controls of a real airplane.

Real pilots disagree with you, at least a number of them whom I've talked to.
Sometimes having a large and heavy chip on the shoulder can distort the
perception of simulated realism.

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> It is unfortunate that even when you have something of value to
> contribute to these endless argumentative threads involving you, your
> glaringly obvious bias against pilots takes control over your comment.

I have no bias against pilots. I just know that many of them aren't nearly as
expert in aviation as they'd like to believe, especially the low-time PPLs
that seem to haunt this group (or at least seem to be the most prolific
posters).

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Statistics from real life, obviously, though you are starting from the
> false premise that there is such a thing as "a dangerous maneuver" that
> requires training to perform.

What would you call a spin?

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> Ever hear about all the planes he pretends to own, or all of the flights he
> takes for his customers?
> How about how he waits at the airport for his customers to show up, and
> sometimes he has to wait for the customer to arrive late?
> How about bloging about all of this stuff, and about how he flies the entire
> trip in real time, even in hours long flights?

You seem surprised. What do you think simulation is all about, exactly?

> How about how he always ends up a thread telling a pilot how the pilot had
> handled a situation wrongly, and that his way was the correct way. Wait and
> see. Every thread ends up going that way, eventually.

That is not true.

> Your response to him was a waste of your time. He will not take any of
> your advice, admit that you may be correct, or learn anything. After all,
> his intellect is superior to yours, and to anyone else's intellect falls
> short of his. If you don't believe him, just ask him. He will be glad to
> tell you how much better he is, and how much smarter he is than you, or
> anyone else that posts here, or that doesn't post here.

That isn't true, either.

> Now I have wasted way too much time.

How many times will you say that before you stop "wasting your time"?

> I hope you go look up some of what I
> have sent here, to confirm it for yourself. Perhaps then you will agree
> that responding to him is a waste of time, any you and others will spend
> your energy on other posters and other endeavors.

You've wasted a staggering amount of time, by your own definition.

[[email protected]]

On May 16, 10:01*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

>, especially the low-time PPLs
> that seem to haunt this group (or at least seem to be the most prolific
> posters).

Pray tell, just how much time have you spent in a real plane behind
the yoke? Lets see just how much PIC time you can stack up against
the majority of the posters in the group.

Let me guess.

A. You wont answer
B. Your PIC time by FAA standards are far less then 99.99999 percent
of the posters in this group.
C. My guess your PIC time is zero.

All your sim time don't even stack up the reality of flying a real
plane because MSFS is not an FAA endorsed simulator is it?

Let me guess, you are not even a CGI either are you?

You single handedly are the haunt of this group pretending you pilot
C152, barons, Lears cross country and PRESENTING it as if you are in a
real plane.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Pray tell, just how much time have you spent in a real plane behind
> the yoke?

None--at least none in flight. So what?

> Lets see just how much PIC time you can stack up against
> the majority of the posters in the group.

Why?

> All your sim time don't even stack up the reality of flying a real
> plane because MSFS is not an FAA endorsed simulator is it?

Even if it were a FAA-certified simulator, it would not necessarily qualify as
PIC time.

However, certified simulators are overrated. A certified simulator isn't
necessarily a good simulator ... it's just a certified simulator. That means
that the FAA lets you log time on the sim for certain purposes under certain
conditions--and nothing more. Many simulators are specialized for a certain
purpose: they simulate one aspect of flying with perfect or near-perfect
fidelity, but they hardly simulate anything else at all. And if it's
certified, it's always overpriced.

> Let me guess, you are not even a CGI either are you?

No. So what?

> You single handedly are the haunt of this group pretending you pilot
> C152, barons, Lears cross country and PRESENTING it as if you are in a
> real plane.

I don't fly Learjets; I fly a Citation X instead. I use that aircraft for
flights suited to bizjets.

Anyway, if I talk about my simulation and people think I'm flying a real
airplane, then my simulation must be pretty good (it fooled the FAA once). On
the other hand, if it's obvious that I'm simulating, then it doesn't matter if
I don't mention the fact, does it?

I know a lot about a number of different aircraft because I've flown them in
simulation. Many PPLs don't know anything about any airplane except the one
they usually fly. I see examples of the latter regularly here.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On May 16, 11:01*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
> > It is unfortunate that even when you have something of value to
> > contribute to these endless argumentative threads involving you, your
> > glaringly obvious bias against pilots takes control over your comment.
>
> I have no bias against pilots. I just know that many of them aren't nearly as
> expert in aviation as they'd like to believe, especially the low-time PPLs
> that seem to haunt this group (or at least seem to be the most prolific
> posters).

I'm sure you see it this way, and there might even be some degree of
truth in what you're saying but after watching your posting on these
groups for a long time I unfortunately can't agree.
If, for example, you put forth in comment what you have said here in
this post about pilots as an isolated and pertinent comment and that
comment was backed up by enough experience flying to make your comment
viable, I could see that.
But you instead make these negative comments about pilots incessantly.
In fact, your negativity about pilots stands out to me and others I'm
fairly certain as a constant.
This unfortunately constitutes a bias that as I have said, weakens
what you have to say.
Anyone can put forth a generalization such as "there are pilots who
aren't as expert in aviation as they'd like to believe". Of course
there are, as there are as well pilots in aviation who are a great
deal MORE expert in aviation than they like to convey to others.
AS a simulator user, you are of course entitled to an opinion of
pilots as is anyone else for that matter. You state a negative
generality about pilots as you do once and it's an opinion. You do it
constantly as you do and it's a bias, and unfortunately, due to your
lack of actual aviation experience, an uneducated bias as well. You
are even entitled to an uneducated opinion about pilots, but as I say,
you do it as often as you do and it constitutes a bias that weakens
any truth in your accompanying comment.
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Irrelevant to your contention that hardly anything requires actual flight
>> to teach.
>>
>> Teaching actual flight obviously requires actual flight to teach or the
>> US Air Force wouldn't be using actual flight to teach actual flight.
>
> Hardly anything isn't the same as not at all.

So you are changing your mind that your contention that flying an aircraft
can be totally taught in a simulator?

> So how much time do they spend in class, and how much time do they spend in
> the air?

Look it up.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> The nope was nope, MSFS doesn't taxi in any airplane like a real airplane.
>
> You've tried every single airplane available for MSFS to verify this?

Nope, just most of the GA aircraft.

However the fact that they don't throws your contention that MSFS is realistic
out the window.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
>
>> It is unfortunate that even when you have something of value to
>> contribute to these endless argumentative threads involving you, your
>> glaringly obvious bias against pilots takes control over your comment.
>
> I have no bias against pilots. I just know that many of them aren't nearly as
> expert in aviation as they'd like to believe, especially the low-time PPLs
> that seem to haunt this group (or at least seem to be the most prolific
> posters).

Says the MSFS game player that has no clue what is involved in flight
planning, one of the most basic and first tasks learned by real pilots,
by his own admission.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> However, certified simulators are overrated. A certified simulator isn't
> necessarily a good simulator ... it's just a certified simulator. That means
> that the FAA lets you log time on the sim for certain purposes under certain
> conditions--and nothing more. Many simulators are specialized for a certain
> purpose: they simulate one aspect of flying with perfect or near-perfect
> fidelity, but they hardly simulate anything else at all. And if it's
> certified, it's always overpriced.

Delusional babble.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Statistics from real life, obviously, though you are starting from the
>> false premise that there is such a thing as "a dangerous maneuver" that
>> requires training to perform.
>
> What would you call a spin?

An acrobatic maneuver; nothing more, nothing less.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Morgans writes:
>
>> Ever hear about all the planes he pretends to own, or all of the flights he
>> takes for his customers?
>> How about how he waits at the airport for his customers to show up, and
>> sometimes he has to wait for the customer to arrive late?
>> How about bloging about all of this stuff, and about how he flies the entire
>> trip in real time, even in hours long flights?
>
> You seem surprised. What do you think simulation is all about, exactly?

For sane people it is a diversion from life like watching a movie or playing
checkers.

For you it is a delusion that you are actually doing something you can never
actually do.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[VOR-DME[_3_]]

In article >,
says...

>
>Anyway, if I talk about my simulation and people think I'm flying a real
>airplane, then my simulation must be pretty good (it fooled the FAA once). On
>the other hand, if it's obvious that I'm simulating, then it doesn't matter
if
>I don't mention the fact, does it?


That is a very revealing statement. If you talk about simulated flying
experience and you do not inform the listener your experience was simulated it
simply means you are faking. If some people do not call you on it immediately,
it is only because most of us are charitable enough not to assume we're being
lied to until it becomes obvious.

It will not take long, based on your contributions here, for any real pilot to
understand you know far less than you imagine and have a poor grasp of the
fundamentals of flying.

You statement here indicates clearly you do not use simulation in its own
right, for edification and enjoyment, but that you spend your time trying to
fool people (including the FAA) into believing you are a pilot.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> So you are changing your mind that your contention that flying an aircraft
> can be totally taught in a simulator?

It can still be taught entirely in a simulator if the simulator is designed to
simulate everything that the aircraft will be called upon to do, as in the
case of large transport aircraft and small private aircraft flown for
transportation. Teaching aerobatics entirely in a simulator would be a
challenge, although I suppose a simulator suited to that purpose could be
built (NASA has built some very expensive simulators along these lines).

It is not being done very much now, but it could be done. The differences
between a full-motion simulator and normal flight in a real aircraft are small
enough to not worry about.

> Look it up.

Because you don't know?

From what I understand, USAF training starts with about 25 hours of flying and
60 hours on the ground in class or in physical activities. That's the highest
flying ratio. Subsequent phases typically spend about 90% of time in class and
10% flying.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Nope, just most of the GA aircraft.

Which ones? And were they default or add-on aircraft? Which add-on vendors?

> However the fact that they don't throws your contention that MSFS is realistic
> out the window.

Answer the above questions first.

[Mxsmanic]

VOR-DME writes:

> That is a very revealing statement. If you talk about simulated flying
> experience and you do not inform the listener your experience was simulated it
> simply means you are faking.

Not really. The fact that I simulate isn't necessarily relevant to the
conversation. Remember, virtually all aspects of simulation work just as the
real world does ... that's the point. Pull back on the yoke and pitch
increases. Extend the gear and drag increases. It doesn't really matter if
it's simulated or real.

However, if the Yeager-wannabe cannot tell that I'm talking about simulation,
either the simulation is very good or the Real Pilot is pretty bad. Usually I
think it's the former.

> If some people do not call you on it immediately,
> it is only because most of us are charitable enough not to assume we're being
> lied to until it becomes obvious.

I never say that I fly a real airplane; I simply don't mention that it's
simulation. As I've said, it's usually irrelevant. IFR procedures are executed
in exactly the same way in simulation as they are in real life--so why mention
that it is simulation when discussing it? Especially when the treehouse club
starts hooting like a pack of apes every time they hear the word simulation.

> It will not take long, based on your contributions here, for any real pilot to
> understand you know far less than you imagine and have a poor grasp of the
> fundamentals of flying.

Except that I do not have a poor grasp of the fundamentals of flying. That's
what irritates a lot of the junior pilots here who apparently got their PPLs
just to boost their egos, rather than for the purpose of flying.

> You statement here indicates clearly you do not use simulation in its own
> right, for edification and enjoyment, but that you spend your time trying to
> fool people (including the FAA) into believing you are a pilot.

No, my statement indicates that I consider aviation to be the same subject
whether people simulate or fly a real airplane. As for the FAA, I never talked
to them at all.

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> I'm sure you see it this way, and there might even be some degree of
> truth in what you're saying but after watching your posting on these
> groups for a long time I unfortunately can't agree.

I'm sure you see it that way, and there might even be some degree of truth in
what you're saying, but after watching your posting on these groups for a long
time, I unfortunately cannot agree.

> If, for example, you put forth in comment what you have said here in
> this post about pilots as an isolated and pertinent comment and that
> comment was backed up by enough experience flying to make your comment
> viable, I could see that.

Maybe it's time to stop worrying about pilots and start talking about
aviation.

> But you instead make these negative comments about pilots incessantly.

I see self-proclaimed pilots making negative comments about me all the time;
you don't seem too worried about that.

And I don't make negative comments about pilots in general, although I do make
unflattering observations about some of the losers who continually whine in
these aviation groups.

> Anyone can put forth a generalization such as "there are pilots who
> aren't as expert in aviation as they'd like to believe". Of course
> there are, as there are as well pilots in aviation who are a great
> deal MORE expert in aviation than they like to convey to others.

It seems that the ones who are less proficient tend to talk a lot louder and
longer than the ones who are more proficient. Unfortunately for them, I'm not
impressed or swayed by loud, long talkers.

I verify everything people tell me here. If other sources back up a poster, I
add points to his reputation in my book. If he's way off the mark, I scratch
him off the list. A lot of people here are consistently off the mark. They are
far more interested in shouting me down than in actually looking things up to
make sure they are right. But that's the way it usually goes in cyberspace.
It's always the low end of the curve that makes the most noise.

You seem a bit on the irritable side yourself. You get upset if people
disagree with you, although you are civil otherwise. Maybe you need to work on
anger management. I never get upset.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Says the MSFS game player that has no clue what is involved in flight
> planning, one of the most basic and first tasks learned by real pilots,
> by his own admission.

I'm not the one who plans to use a navaid with a chart without ever noticing
that the one he wants to use is missing a frequency.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Mxsmanic > wrote:
> > writes:
> >
> >> Statistics from real life, obviously, though you are starting from the
> >> false premise that there is such a thing as "a dangerous maneuver" that
> >> requires training to perform.
> >
> > What would you call a spin?
>
> An acrobatic maneuver; nothing more, nothing less.

Is it a dangerous maneuver? Does it require training?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> For sane people it is a diversion from life like watching a movie or playing
> checkers.

Yes.

> For you it is a delusion that you are actually doing something you can never
> actually do.

What leads you to believe that I am deluded? And what makes you think I could
never fly a real airplane?

[Mark]

On May 17, 5:29*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> "I never say that I fly a real airplane; I simply don't mention that it's
> simulation."

LOL!

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On May 17, 5:35*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
> > I'm sure you see it this way, and there might even be some degree of
> > truth in what you're saying but after watching your posting on these
> > groups for a long time I unfortunately can't agree.
>
> I'm sure you see it that way, and there might even be some degree of truth in
> what you're saying, but after watching your posting on these groups for a long
> time, I unfortunately cannot agree.
>
> > If, for example, you put forth in comment what you have said here in
> > this post about pilots as an isolated and pertinent comment and that
> > comment was backed up by enough experience flying to make your comment
> > viable, I could see that.
>
> Maybe it's time to stop worrying about pilots and start talking about
> aviation.
>
> > But you instead make these negative comments about pilots incessantly.
>
> I see self-proclaimed pilots making negative comments about me all the time;
> you don't seem too worried about that.
>
> And I don't make negative comments about pilots in general, although I do make
> unflattering observations about some of the losers who continually whine in
> these aviation groups.
>
> > Anyone can put forth a generalization such as "there are pilots who
> > aren't as expert in aviation as they'd like to believe". *Of course
> > there are, as there are as well pilots in aviation who are a great
> > deal MORE expert in aviation than they like to convey to others.
>
> It seems that the ones who are less proficient tend to talk a lot louder and
> longer than the ones who are more proficient. Unfortunately for them, I'm not
> impressed or swayed by loud, long talkers.
>
> I verify everything people tell me here. If other sources back up a poster, I
> add points to his reputation in my book. If he's way off the mark, I scratch
> him off the list. A lot of people here are consistently off the mark. They are
> far more interested in shouting me down than in actually looking things up to
> make sure they are right. But that's the way it usually goes in cyberspace.
> It's always the low end of the curve that makes the most noise.
>
> You seem a bit on the irritable side yourself. You get upset if people
> disagree with you, although you are civil otherwise. Maybe you need to work on
> anger management. I never get upset.

PLEASE! I wasn't born yesterday, and I didn't just fall off the end of
an apple cart :-))))))))))))))
Never getting upset with you is a tool not a positive trait. In my
opinion it's simply part and parcel of your carefully chosen Usenet
"persona". I've watched this coming from you now for a long enough
period to more than get a positive read on you. By not "getting
upset", you simply wade through the virtual tons of negative responses
you carefully generate and achieve what you apparently view as a
"victory" against your antagonists. By doing this you obviously
believe you are in your mind anyway demonstrating to the world your
complete superiority over your adversaries; the pilots you so
obviously believe are your intellectual inferiors. :-)

As I said, you are entitled to your opinions on Usenet. I pop up from
time to time here and give you a shot of my own opinion, but I'm
completely aware of it's uselessness.
In a few more posts, I'll tire of you as I always have done in the
past and move on, simply one more "pilot" who has your number has had
enough of you for one day.ionso
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

On May 17, 5:35*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Dudley Henriques writes:
> > I'm sure you see it this way, and there might even be some degree of
> > truth in what you're saying but after watching your posting on these
> > groups for a long time I unfortunately can't agree.
>
> I'm sure you see it that way, and there might even be some degree of truth in
> what you're saying, but after watching your posting on these groups for a long
> time, I unfortunately cannot agree.
>
> > If, for example, you put forth in comment what you have said here in
> > this post about pilots as an isolated and pertinent comment and that
> > comment was backed up by enough experience flying to make your comment
> > viable, I could see that.
>
> Maybe it's time to stop worrying about pilots and start talking about
> aviation.
>
> > But you instead make these negative comments about pilots incessantly.
>
> I see self-proclaimed pilots making negative comments about me all the time;
> you don't seem too worried about that.
>
> And I don't make negative comments about pilots in general, although I do make
> unflattering observations about some of the losers who continually whine in
> these aviation groups.
>
> > Anyone can put forth a generalization such as "there are pilots who
> > aren't as expert in aviation as they'd like to believe". *Of course
> > there are, as there are as well pilots in aviation who are a great
> > deal MORE expert in aviation than they like to convey to others.
>
> It seems that the ones who are less proficient tend to talk a lot louder and
> longer than the ones who are more proficient. Unfortunately for them, I'm not
> impressed or swayed by loud, long talkers.
>
> I verify everything people tell me here. If other sources back up a poster, I
> add points to his reputation in my book. If he's way off the mark, I scratch
> him off the list. A lot of people here are consistently off the mark. They are
> far more interested in shouting me down than in actually looking things up to
> make sure they are right. But that's the way it usually goes in cyberspace.
> It's always the low end of the curve that makes the most noise.
>
> You seem a bit on the irritable side yourself. You get upset if people
> disagree with you, although you are civil otherwise. Maybe you need to work on
> anger management. I never get upset.

PLEASE! I wasn't born yesterday, and I didn't just fall off the end of
an apple cart :-))))))))))))))
Never getting upset with you is a tool not a positive trait. In my
opinion it's simply part and parcel of your carefully chosen Usenet
"persona". I've watched this coming from you now for a long enough
period to more than get a positive read on you. By not "getting
upset", you simply wade through the virtual tons of negative responses
you carefully generate and achieve what you apparently view as a
"victory" against your antagonists. By doing this you obviously
believe you are in your mind anyway demonstrating to the world your
complete superiority over your adversaries; the pilots you so
obviously believe are your intellectual inferiors. :-)

As I said, you are entitled to your opinions on Usenet. I pop up from
time to time here and give you a shot of my own opinion, but I'm
completely aware of it's uselessness.
In a few more posts, I'll tire of you as I always have done in the
past and move on, simply one more "pilot" who has your number has had
enough of you for one day.
:-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

On May 17, 4:29*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Not really. The fact that I simulate isn't necessarily relevant to the
> conversation.

YES IT IS.

>Remember, virtually all aspects of simulation work just as the
> real world does ... that's the point. *Pull back on the yoke and pitch
> increases. Extend the gear and drag increases. It doesn't really matter if
> it's simulated or real.

WRONG. Much to your chagrin, there is MUCH more to flying a real
plane then MSFS. As stated before, ONLY one example is inner ear
balance. I never got leans in front of my computer. I never reached
over to tune a radio in IMC on MSFS. I have never had anything bad
happened to me when I crashed in MSFS. I won't test that in real
life.

I talk from experience in both the sim and real world. What is your
experience in a REAL plane (NOT MSFS or desktop computer) on an IFR
flight plan in IMC????

Let me guess, you won't answer the last question above.

[[email protected]]

On May 16, 10:27*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Lets see just how much PIC time you can stack up against
> > the majority of the posters in the group.
>
> Why?

Demonstrates you are not proficient in flying real planes. In fact,
you can't even say you are a proficient pilot. Maybe a proficient
MSFS pilot, but not a pilot of a real plane. As stated in another
thread, the two are not the same (MSFS and real life piloting an
airplane)

> > Let me guess, you are not even a CGI either are you?
>
> No. So what?

Demonstrates you are not a credible source for flying real airplanes.

> Anyway, if I talk about my simulation and people think I'm flying a real
> airplane, then my simulation must be pretty good (it fooled the FAA once).. On
> the other hand, if it's obvious that I'm simulating, then it doesn't matter if
> I don't mention the fact, does it?

Demonstrates you are not a credible source for flying real airplanes.
Demonstrates you are not an honest person
Demonstrates you pretend you are something you are not.

> Many PPLs don't know anything about any airplane except the one
> they usually fly. *

Which is more then what you know. You don't fly a real airplane do
you?

I flew a Beech Sundowner. I don't need to know anything about Beech
Barons, Sieras, Lears, Citations do I? All I need to know is what a
Beech Sundowner does in the real world.

Nothing bad happens to me with my Beech Sundowner add in on MSFS.
Worst thing that happens is I restart MSFS.

I can't say the same in my real life Beech Sundowner or something
really bad will happen. What part of that do you not
understand???????????

[Ari[_2_]]

On Mon, 17 May 2010 05:20:47 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:

> Never getting upset with you is a tool not a positive trait. In my
> opinion it's simply part and parcel of your carefully chosen Usenet
> "persona". I've watched this coming from you now for a long enough
> period to more than get a positive read on you. By not "getting
> upset", you simply wade through the virtual tons of negative responses
> you carefully generate and achieve what you apparently view as a
> "victory" against your antagonists.

At least one of many /gets it/.

The rest of you are either bored ****less or total fools...or both.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[VOR-DME[_3_]]

In article
>In a few more posts, I'll tire of you as I always have done in the
>past and move on, simply one more "pilot" who has your number has had
>enough of you for one day.
> :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))
>Dudley Henriques



You are correct. The only thing that could be a greater waste of time than
getting into a tit-for-tat semantic thumb-twiddling competition with this
contributor is to try to have a serious conversation with him. Did you ever
try agreeing with him? I am the first to recognize the things he does know
about aviation, and to post agreement when I actually do agree, but these
posts never elicit a response, and never go further, because he is not here to
share. He is here to pick at people, to belittle others who have far greater
experience than he. If you make an argument he cannot counter, he hides behind
an insipid ruse, _Explain what you mean by_... trying to get something else to
dig into. He understands that pilots have worked hard to achieve what they
have, and they have far greater motivation than he could ever muster, so he
sees them as easy targets for belittlement, and takes a truly perverse
pleasure in the outrage he is able to inspire by insulting unsuspecting
targets.

It is a safe bet that this contributor is playing similar vindictive games on
other sites where professionals congregate, telling doctors, lawyers,
investors or other experts they do not know what they are talking about.

[VOR-DME[_3_]]

In article >,
says...

>
>Not really. The fact that I simulate isn't necessarily relevant to the
>conversation. Remember, virtually all aspects of simulation work just as the
>real world does ... that's the point. Pull back on the yoke and pitch
>increases. Extend the gear and drag increases. It doesn't really matter if
>it's simulated or real.
>
>However, if the Yeager-wannabe cannot tell that I'm talking about simulation,
>either the simulation is very good or the Real Pilot is pretty bad. Usually
I
>think it's the former.
>

Let's just try; Most people are not as dishonest as yourself. You can fool
someone for a short time, but it won't last long.

If you tell a real pilot you fly a Citation X, he has no reason to doubt it.
Lots of people fly this airplane. But when you tell him you fly it alone, and
you are "not interested" in CRM or flying with others, he will understand you
are full of it. By the time it gets to where you REALLY don't know whether a
Beech Baron has an ejection seat, well then he's the one having fun at your
expense. Not that you would notice.

[a[_3_]]

On May 17, 1:10*pm, VOR-DME > wrote:
> In article
>
> >In a few more posts, I'll tire of you as I always have done in the
> >past and move on, simply one more "pilot" who has your number has had
> >enough of you for one day.
> > :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> >Dudley Henriques
>
> You are correct. The only thing that could be a greater waste of time than
> getting into a tit-for-tat *semantic thumb-twiddling competition with this
> contributor is to try to have a serious conversation with him. Did you ever
> try agreeing with him? I am the first to recognize the things he does know
> about aviation, and to post agreement when I actually do agree, but these
> posts never elicit a response, and never go further, because he is not here to
> share. He is here to pick at people, to belittle others who have far greater
> experience than he. If you make an argument he cannot counter, he hides behind
> an insipid ruse, _Explain what you mean by_... trying to get something else to
> dig into. He understands that pilots have worked hard to achieve what they
> have, and they have far greater motivation than he could ever muster, so he
> sees them as easy targets for belittlement, and takes a truly perverse
> pleasure in the outrage he is able to inspire by insulting unsuspecting
> targets.
>
> It is a safe bet that this contributor is playing similar vindictive games on
> other sites where professionals congregate, telling doctors, lawyers,
> investors or other experts they do not know what they are talking about.

If you examine the history of MX, you'll learn in real life he seems
to be a 40 something year old scraping together a living in Paris. He
some time ago indicated he spent something the order of a kilohour
using MSFS in a year.

The picture that develops is of an ex-patriot American living in a not
very attractive part part of Paris, spending much of his time seeking
to establish himself as a peer or better here. I doubt exchanging text
with him will alter his on-line persona.

This is unlikely, but funny to think about. "MX" could be a precocious
(by now an older) teenager who gets off on successfully getting
attention, or quite an accomplished pilot playing at being this
character. The reality is probably the one mentioned earlier. I don't
know any real life pilot who denies enjoying the visceral sensations
of flight: those are not felt in a desk chair.

[[email protected]]

On May 17, 12:10*pm, VOR-DME > wrote:

> It is a safe bet that this contributor is playing similar vindictive games on
> other sites where professionals congregate, telling doctors, lawyers,
> investors or other experts they do not know what they are talking about.

http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=rWoQDRIAAACS528F_rb394iEdxnFF1zX8 rhlH0Pnl47z4AZhN98BFg
should fill the bill in supporting what you say above..

And these are what hit google groups, can't imagine what's floating
out there in Usenet land.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> So you are changing your mind that your contention that flying an aircraft
>> can be totally taught in a simulator?
>
> It can still be taught entirely in a simulator

Since it isn't being done, it seems the entire world disagrees with you.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Nope, just most of the GA aircraft.
>
> Which ones? And were they default or add-on aircraft? Which add-on vendors?
>
>> However the fact that they don't throws your contention that MSFS is realistic
>> out the window.
>
> Answer the above questions first.

You are grasping at straws and I have answered the question several times now.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I never say that I fly a real airplane; I simply don't mention that it's
> simulation.

The term for that is lying through ommision.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Says the MSFS game player that has no clue what is involved in flight
>> planning, one of the most basic and first tasks learned by real pilots,
>> by his own admission.
>
> I'm not the one who plans to use a navaid with a chart without ever noticing
> that the one he wants to use is missing a frequency.

If you actually knew anything about real flight planning you would know
what you just said is babbling drivel.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> > writes:
>> >
>> >> Statistics from real life, obviously, though you are starting from the
>> >> false premise that there is such a thing as "a dangerous maneuver" that
>> >> requires training to perform.
>> >
>> > What would you call a spin?
>>
>> An acrobatic maneuver; nothing more, nothing less.
>
> Is it a dangerous maneuver? Does it require training?

All maneuvers require training.

No maneuver (in the civilian world) when done in an aircraft certified for
the maneuver, performed by a pilot trained to do the maneuver, and done
under accepted conditions, is dangerous.

And before you ask, the accepted conditions are formed from the real
experience of real pilots flying real airplanes for about a hundred years.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> For sane people it is a diversion from life like watching a movie or playing
>> checkers.
>
> Yes.
>
>> For you it is a delusion that you are actually doing something you can never
>> actually do.
>
> What leads you to believe that I am deluded? And what makes you think I could
> never fly a real airplane?

Your words.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Since it isn't being done, it seems the entire world disagrees with you.

Wait and see.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> YES IT IS.

Perhaps to you, but not to everyone.

> WRONG. Much to your chagrin, there is MUCH more to flying a real
> plane then MSFS. As stated before, ONLY one example is inner ear
> balance. I never got leans in front of my computer. I never reached
> over to tune a radio in IMC on MSFS. I have never had anything bad
> happened to me when I crashed in MSFS. I won't test that in real
> life.

What type of aircraft was this?

> I talk from experience in both the sim and real world. What is your
> experience in a REAL plane (NOT MSFS or desktop computer) on an IFR
> flight plan in IMC????

Well, I've certainly been a passenger on such flights, and I've never
developed the leans or spatial disorientation to an extent that would have
interfered with flying.

[Mxsmanic]

VOR-DME writes:

> Let's just try; Most people are not as dishonest as yourself.

I have a reputation for being honest to a fault.

> If you tell a real pilot you fly a Citation X, he has no reason to doubt it.
> Lots of people fly this airplane. But when you tell him you fly it alone, and
> you are "not interested" in CRM or flying with others, he will understand you
> are full of it.

He will understand that I don't actually fly the real airplane. So what?

> By the time it gets to where you REALLY don't know whether a
> Beech Baron has an ejection seat, well then he's the one having fun at your
> expense. Not that you would notice.

If he finds that fun, he is easily amused.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> The term for that is lying through ommision.

Omission isn't lying.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Demonstrates you are not proficient in flying real planes.

A total lack of PIC time demonstrates nothing at all. I might be proficient
the first time I flew. Conversely, there are many pilots with hours of PIC
time who are not proficient.

> In fact, you can't even say you are a proficient pilot. Maybe a
> proficient MSFS pilot, but not a pilot of a real plane.

Practically the same thing.

> As stated in another
> thread, the two are not the same (MSFS and real life piloting an
> airplane)

Not identical, but very close.

> Demonstrates you are not a credible source for flying real airplanes.

See above.

> Which is more then what you know.

No, it's not. Sometimes they know less about their flying than I do, which is
a bit worrisome.

> You don't fly a real airplane do you?

Not currently.

> I flew a Beech Sundowner. I don't need to know anything about Beech
> Barons, Sieras, Lears, Citations do I? All I need to know is what a
> Beech Sundowner does in the real world.

True. So I apparently know a lot more than you do about Barons and Citations,
since I fly those regularly in simulation.

> Nothing bad happens to me with my Beech Sundowner add in on MSFS.
> Worst thing that happens is I restart MSFS.

That's one of the advantages to simulation.

> I can't say the same in my real life Beech Sundowner or something
> really bad will happen.

Yes, that time may come. Probably in IMC.

[Mxsmanic]

Dudley Henriques writes:

> Never getting upset with you is a tool not a positive trait.

Get upset is a positive trait, then? I have to disagree about that, too.

> In my opinion it's simply part and parcel of your carefully
> chosen Usenet "persona".

Actually, I'm not easily upset in real life, either. I often have to
exaggerate or invent emotion in order to get people to take me seriously, as
they assume I cannot be serious about something unless I'm emotional about it.

> I've watched this coming from you now for a long enough
> period to more than get a positive read on you. By not "getting
> upset", you simply wade through the virtual tons of negative responses
> you carefully generate and achieve what you apparently view as a
> "victory" against your antagonists.

I think that keeping a cool head is a victory in just about any situation. If
you are carried away by your emotions, bad things tend to happen ...
especially when you are flying a plane (just to try to keep the discussion
connected to aviation).

> By doing this you obviously
> believe you are in your mind anyway demonstrating to the world your
> complete superiority over your adversaries; the pilots you so
> obviously believe are your intellectual inferiors. :-)

They are not necessarily my intellectual inferiors. But if they panic in an
airplane the way they fly off the handle here, they are accidents waiting to
happen. And if I had no conscience, people like them would make me a
billionaire.

[VOR-DME[_3_]]

In article >,
says...
As for the FAA, I never talked
>to them at all.

That assertion was your own.
I might have guessed it had no basis in fact.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Since it isn't being done, it seems the entire world disagrees with you.
>
> Wait and see.

Yep, along with cold fusion, the cure for the common cold, artificial
intelligence, and world peace.

All of which are going to happen any day now...


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

VOR-DME writes:

> You are correct. The only thing that could be a greater waste of time than
> getting into a tit-for-tat semantic thumb-twiddling competition with this
> contributor is to try to have a serious conversation with him.

So why do several people here constantly "waste their time" talking about me?

> I am the first to recognize the things he does know
> about aviation, and to post agreement when I actually do agree, but these
> posts never elicit a response, and never go further, because he is not here to
> share.

Typically, if I agree with someone, there's nothing to post ... since I agree.

> It is a safe bet that this contributor is playing similar vindictive games on
> other sites where professionals congregate, telling doctors, lawyers,
> investors or other experts they do not know what they are talking about.

Vindictive games? I have no ax to grind. I just like aviation.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> VOR-DME writes:
>
>> Let's just try; Most people are not as dishonest as yourself.
>
> I have a reputation for being honest to a fault.

Delusional nonsense.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

a writes:

> I don't know any real life pilot who denies enjoying the visceral
> sensations of flight: those are not felt in a desk chair.

I know airline pilots and some other pilots who enjoy mainly the precision and
procedures of flying. For example, they feel a strong sense of accomplishment
when breaking out of the clouds after a long flight in zero visibility to
discover the runway perfectly aligned in front of them. The physical
sensations are irrelevant; what is relevant is that they successfully flew
perfectly from departure to arrival without ever once being able to look out
the window.

Other airline pilots seem to get great satisfaction from being reliable in
their jobs as they transport people to and fro. For them, the greatest
compliment from a passenger would be that he forgot he was in an airplane.

Not everyone wants a roller-coaster ride.

This isn't limited to airplanes, either. I like precision and perfection in
both flying and driving. A nice side effect of this is that it makes me very
safe at both activities.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> All maneuvers require training.
>
> No maneuver (in the civilian world) when done in an aircraft certified for
> the maneuver, performed by a pilot trained to do the maneuver, and done
> under accepted conditions, is dangerous.

Why isn't spin training part of the PPL?

> And before you ask, the accepted conditions are formed from the real
> experience of real pilots flying real airplanes for about a hundred years.

That's why spin training isn't part of the PPL.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> The term for that is lying through ommision.
>
> Omission isn't lying.

That's a lie.


http://www.choice101.com/19-lies.html#LiesOfOmission

"To lie by omission is to remain silent and thereby withhold from someone
else a vital piece (or pieces) of information. The silence is deceptive
in that it gives a false impression to the person from whom the information
was withheld. It subverts the truth; it is a way to manipulate someone
into altering their behavior to suit the desire of the person who
intentionally withheld the vital information; and, most importantly, it's
a gross violation of another person's right of self-determination."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Lying_by_omission

"One lies by omission by omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving
another person with a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to
correct pre-existing misconceptions."



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> This isn't limited to airplanes, either. I like precision and perfection in
> both flying and driving. A nice side effect of this is that it makes me very
> safe at both activities.

About the only unsafe thing you can do while playing with MSFS is to lean
your chair too far back and fall over.

You are delusional.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> All maneuvers require training.
>>
>> No maneuver (in the civilian world) when done in an aircraft certified for
>> the maneuver, performed by a pilot trained to do the maneuver, and done
>> under accepted conditions, is dangerous.
>
> Why isn't spin training part of the PPL?

Because it is no longer concidered necessary for the type of flying done
by someone with a PPL in modern airplanes, just like chandelles and lazy
eights.

>> And before you ask, the accepted conditions are formed from the real
>> experience of real pilots flying real airplanes for about a hundred years.
>
> That's why spin training isn't part of the PPL.

Yep, but not because they are dangerous.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On May 17, 1:16*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > In fact, you can't even say you are a proficient pilot. *Maybe a
> > proficient MSFS pilot, but not a pilot of a real plane.
>
> Practically the same thing.

And what experience do you have to support this opinion?????? :YOUR
experience please in flying real airplanes. Or are you going to
continue to demonstrate you are not a credible source for flying real
airplanes

> > As stated in another
> > thread, the two are not the same (MSFS and real life piloting an
> > airplane)
>
> Not identical, but very close.

And what experience do you have to support this opinion?????? :YOUR
experience please in flying real airplanes. Or are you going to
continue to demonstrate you are not a credible source for flying real
airplanes

> > Demonstrates you are not a credible source for flying real airplanes.
>
> See above.

See above.

Above demonstrates you are not a credible source for flying real
airplanes

> > You don't fly a real airplane do you?
>
> Not currently.

Above demonstrates you are not a credible source for flying real
airplanes

[[email protected]]

On May 17, 1:13*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I have a reputation for being honest to a fault.

SINCE WHEN IS WITHHOLDING INFORMATION such as experience HONEST???????

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> SINCE WHEN IS WITHHOLDING INFORMATION such as experience HONEST???????

Since always.

Or do you believe that everyone with a security clearance is a liar?

[Mxsmanic]

VOR-DME writes:

> In article >,
> says...
> As for the FAA, I never talked
> >to them at all.
>
> That assertion was your own.

That wasn't my assertion. I said that the FAA was fooled. I didn't say that I
talked to them.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> And what experience do you have to support this opinion?????? :YOUR
> experience please in flying real airplanes.

What experience do you have to support your opinion. Your experience in
simulation?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Because it is no longer concidered necessary for the type of flying done
> by someone with a PPL in modern airplanes, just like chandelles and lazy
> eights.

Because it is more dangerous to train for it than it is to not train for it.

> Yep, but not because they are dangerous.

They were dangerous enough to kill people attempting to recover from them in
training.

[[email protected]]

On May 17, 3:16*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > And what experience do you have to support this opinion?????? *:YOUR
> > experience please in flying real airplanes.
>
> What experience do you have to support your opinion. Your experience in
> simulation?

I have MSFS 10. I fly a Beech Sundowner and now will be going back to
Cessnas (sold my plane).

I ASKED A VERY DIRECT QUESTION that you FAILED TO ANSWER.

What REAL plane do you fly to support your opionion. I can support
point by point the difference between MSFS and a real plane (I have
already mentioned one). What can you provide????

You answering with questions doesn't show credibility that you know
what you are talking about does it? It only shows you diverting the
problem at hand that you do not know what it takes to fly a real plane.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Because it is no longer concidered necessary for the type of flying done
>> by someone with a PPL in modern airplanes, just like chandelles and lazy
>> eights.
>
> Because it is more dangerous to train for it than it is to not train for it.

Nonsense.

There is also the small problem of a lot of modern airplanes not being
certified to do spins.

>> Yep, but not because they are dangerous.
>
> They were dangerous enough to kill people attempting to recover from them in
> training.

Just about anything in life can become "dangerous" if someone screws up.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[a[_3_]]

On May 17, 4:20*pm, " > wrote:
> On May 17, 3:16*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > writes:
> > > And what experience do you have to support this opinion?????? *:YOUR
> > > experience please in flying real airplanes.
>
> > What experience do you have to support your opinion. Your experience in
> > simulation?
>
> I have MSFS 10. *I fly a Beech Sundowner and now will be going back to
> Cessnas (sold my plane).
>
> I ASKED A VERY DIRECT QUESTION that you FAILED TO ANSWER.
>
> What REAL plane do you fly to support your opionion. *I can support
> point by point the difference between MSFS and a real plane (I have
> already mentioned one). *What can you provide????
>
> You answering with questions doesn't show credibility that you know
> what you are talking about does it? *It only shows you diverting the
> problem at hand that you do not know what it takes to fly a real plane.

There are several different 'models' of the world here. Many here,
including you, experienced something like this

"Outer Marker Inbound"

"Contact tower now, on nnn.m"

"Going to nnn.m, thanks"

tower says visibility a half mile, ceiling 250 feet, winds 20 gusts 30
at 140 degrees, and you're inbound to runway 10. That's a serious
crosswind.

hand fly down, needles pretty much where they should be, very bumpy,
very dark. The missed approach is memorized, a decision already made
that the alternate, 150 miles away, is what'll happen if the airport
environment isn't in sight at minimums

Through 230 feet agl, big bounces, and there are the lead in strobes,
15 degrees from where the airplane is pointing, exactly where I
thought they'd appear.

Transition to visual, carry an extra 8 knots into the flare, only 20
degrees of flaps, and I start sucking them up going into the flare,
because I want this thing to be done flying when it's on the runway.
The upwind wheel makes contact, then the other main. Flaps retracted
(I know my airplane well enough, and verify time and again my finger
is on the flap control.

Roll out turn off, get to my tiedown, shut down, tie that baby down
in driving rain, get soaked, get into the car, as high on.Maslow's
hierarchy as one can get, and drive home to a loving wife and a glass
of wine.

Then there's MSFS:

Coming up on a simulated 400 feet agl, no buffeting, not feeling the
yoke alive in your hands, not having the sensation of a wing lifting
in a gust, the only evidence of a wind shear being what? change in
indicated airspeed, change in indicated pitch, with no physical
sensations to play with your senses?

To my mind, and I am sure yours, there is a significant difference in
the physiological and psychological rewards between the two models. It
is not easily explained to someone who has experienced our real
world.

It's his loss.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> I have MSFS 10. I fly a Beech Sundowner and now will be going back to
> Cessnas (sold my plane).

Which aircraft do you fly in MSFS, and where did they come from?

> What REAL plane do you fly to support your opionion.

I don't fly a real airplane. But I don't need a real airplane to support my
opinion.

> I can support
> point by point the difference between MSFS and a real plane (I have
> already mentioned one).

So? Obviously there will be differences.

> You answering with questions doesn't show credibility that you know
> what you are talking about does it?

You're entitled to your opinion, which I'm sure I cannot change.

> It only shows you diverting the problem at hand that you do not
> know what it takes to fly a real plane.

Which things does it take that I don't know?

[Mxsmanic]

a writes:

> There are several different 'models' of the world here. Many here,
> including you, experienced something like this
>
> "Outer Marker Inbound"
>
> "Contact tower now, on nnn.m"
>
> "Going to nnn.m, thanks"
>
> tower says visibility a half mile, ceiling 250 feet, winds 20 gusts 30
> at 140 degrees, and you're inbound to runway 10. That's a serious
> crosswind.
>
> hand fly down, needles pretty much where they should be, very bumpy,
> very dark. The missed approach is memorized, a decision already made
> that the alternate, 150 miles away, is what'll happen if the airport
> environment isn't in sight at minimums
>
> Through 230 feet agl, big bounces, and there are the lead in strobes,
> 15 degrees from where the airplane is pointing, exactly where I
> thought they'd appear.
>
> Transition to visual, carry an extra 8 knots into the flare, only 20
> degrees of flaps, and I start sucking them up going into the flare,
> because I want this thing to be done flying when it's on the runway.
> The upwind wheel makes contact, then the other main. Flaps retracted
> (I know my airplane well enough, and verify time and again my finger
> is on the flap control.

I did this, too, a few flights ago. What's different?

> Roll out turn off, get to my tiedown, shut down, tie that baby down
> in driving rain, get soaked, get into the car, as high on.Maslow's
> hierarchy as one can get, and drive home to a loving wife and a glass
> of wine.

My simulation stops with the tiedown, which is exactly where I prefer it to
stop.

> Coming up on a simulated 400 feet agl, no buffeting, not feeling the
> yoke alive in your hands, not having the sensation of a wing lifting
> in a gust, the only evidence of a wind shear being what? change in
> indicated airspeed, change in indicated pitch, with no physical
> sensations to play with your senses?

Which version of MSFS are you using? I get most of that except for the
physical sensations.

> To my mind, and I am sure yours, there is a significant difference in
> the physiological and psychological rewards between the two models. It
> is not easily explained to someone who has experienced our real
> world.

It depends on what you get out of flying.

[Mxsmanic]

VOR-DME writes:

> You don't know any airline pilots.

Actually I do. Not zillions, but a few.

> And please don't bother to ask me "How do you know that?"
> The very fact that you say you do proves that you do not.

Whatever you say.

> YEAH! If you drive the way you fly, that makes you very safe!

I agree.

> If someone could go to your house while you are practicing either of these
> armchair activities, lock the door and lose the key, this would make the rest
> of society much safer!!

How so?

[[email protected]]

On May 17, 4:09*pm, a > wrote:

> There are several different 'models' of the world here. Many here,
> including you, experienced something like this
>
> "Outer Marker Inbound"
>
> "Contact tower now, on nnn.m"
>
> "Going to nnn.m, thanks"
>
> tower says visibility a half mile, ceiling 250 feet, winds 20 gusts 30
> at 140 degrees, and you're inbound to runway 10. That's a serious
> crosswind.
>
> hand fly down, needles pretty much where they should be, very bumpy,
> very dark. The missed approach is memorized, a decision already made
> that the alternate, 150 miles away, is what'll happen if the airport
> environment isn't in sight at minimums
>
> Through 230 feet agl, big bounces, and there are the lead in strobes,
> 15 degrees from where the airplane is pointing, exactly where I
> thought they'd appear.
>
> Transition to visual, carry an extra 8 knots into the flare, only 20
> degrees of flaps, and I start sucking them up going into the flare,
> because I want this thing to be done flying when it's on the runway.
> The upwind wheel makes contact, then the other main. Flaps retracted
> (I know my airplane well enough, and verify time and again my finger
> is on the flap control.
>
> Roll out *turn off, get to my tiedown, shut down, tie that baby down
> in driving rain, get soaked, get into the car, as high on.Maslow's
> hierarchy as one can get, and drive home to a loving wife and a glass
> of wine.

'nuf said...... Just reading it brings back the feelings that I have
been there and done it.

And I have.....

> It's his loss.

Amen fellow PILOT.

[[email protected]]

On May 17, 5:10*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > It only shows you diverting the problem at hand that you do not
> > know what it takes to fly a real plane.
>
> Which things does it take that I don't know?

Yet another question answering a question.

Your answer is above. Detail must not be your forte.

[[email protected]]

On May 17, 5:14*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> > If someone could go to your house while you are practicing either of these
> > armchair activities, lock the door and lose the key, this would make the rest
> > of society much safer!!
>
> How so?

Another answer with a question. Detail must not be your forte. The
answer is above.

[Richard[_11_]]

On May 17, 11:40*am, Ari > wrote:
> On Mon, 17 May 2010 05:20:47 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > Never getting upset with you is a tool not a positive trait. In my
> > opinion it's simply part and parcel of your carefully chosen Usenet
> > "persona". I've watched this coming from you now for a long enough
> > period to more than get a positive read on you. By not "getting
> > upset", you simply wade through the virtual tons of negative responses
> > you carefully generate and achieve what you apparently view as a
> > "victory" against your antagonists.
>
> At least one of many /gets it/.
>
> The rest of you are either bored ****less or total fools...or both.
> --
> A fireside chat not with Ari!http://tr.im/holj
> Motto: Live To Spooge It!

True dat.

Makes me miss the happy days when the Bunyip was delivering
smackdowns. *sigh*.

[Mark]

On May 17, 6:10*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Which aircraft do you fly in MSFS, and where did they come from?

Toys-R-Us.

---
Mark

[a[_3_]]

On May 18, 8:01*am, Richard > wrote:
> On May 17, 11:40*am, Ari > wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 17 May 2010 05:20:47 -0700 (PDT), Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > > Never getting upset with you is a tool not a positive trait. In my
> > > opinion it's simply part and parcel of your carefully chosen Usenet
> > > "persona". I've watched this coming from you now for a long enough
> > > period to more than get a positive read on you. By not "getting
> > > upset", you simply wade through the virtual tons of negative responses
> > > you carefully generate and achieve what you apparently view as a
> > > "victory" against your antagonists.
>
> > At least one of many /gets it/.
>
> > The rest of you are either bored ****less or total fools...or both.
> > --
> > A fireside chat not with Ari!http://tr.im/holj
> > Motto: Live To Spooge It!
>
Richard wrote
>
> Makes me miss the happy days when the Bunyip was delivering
> smackdowns. **sigh*.


What killed this group was not the MX related stuff, but the ****ing
contest bynyip et al had started and others with their sock puppets
enthusiastically continued. An objective reader would find far greater
aviation content in the 'pilots ****ed off at MX' days than those that
followed.

Take a look at the history -- it speaks (or prints) for itself.
'

[Alpha Propellerhead]

On May 16, 5:41*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Some pilots have a great deal of their self-esteem invested in their pilot
> licenses. These pilots tend to reject simulation summarily because it dilutes
> the prestige

Actually, like I said, I teach in both simulators AND in airplanes,
and you're full of ****.

>Not all pilots have this type of mental block against simulation, however, and those who do not may enjoy simulation greatly

Exactly, but that doesn't make you any less full of ****.

> Most pilots cannot afford to fly a real airplane during all of their waking hours,

I get paid to fly airplanes but you're still full of ****.

> I note that those who refuse to take simulation seriously never enjoy it,
> whereas those who do take it seriously find it great fun

Actually people who take simulation seriously sweat profusely.
Occasionally they become "airsick" which is why there's a barf bag
within arm's reach. One time, a guy took it so seriously he freaked
out and yanked the throttle control right out of the simulator
cockpit.

> > There is a serious side to simulation though, and is clear that MX is not well versed in the subject. *
>
> How so?

Go hop in a Cessna or a Piper and learn for yourself. Until then, you
remain full of ****.

-c
CFI/CP-ASEL-IA

[Alpha Propellerhead]

On May 16, 5:47*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I note that people who are hostile towards me here always resent being told
> anything by anyone else. They are very conscious of a semi-imaginary
> hierarchy, like a treehouse club.


Actually, they're pilots and you're a fraud with a mental/social
disorder. That's all.

I don't mind being told things by others. They're hostile to you
because you're a fake. You talk about things with which you have no
experience as if you're an expert, and argue with literally ANYBODY
who disagrees with you, regardless of their experience. And yet you
continue to have no relevant experience in an actual airplane.

So it's kind of like walking into a doctor's conference with some
journal you read or a printout of something you found on the internet,
and telling the surgeon and staff that you're right and that if they
disagree, they're simply being hostile toward you.

Like playing a video game and then arguing with combat veterans about
what it's like to fight a war.

It's really that simple. Believe it or not, you actually ARE that
screwed in the head. Go out and log a few hours with an instructor and
people's opinions of you will change radically here. Not only that,
but you'll be able to demonstrate that you've flown a plane without
being a liar.

[[email protected]]

On May 18, 1:15*pm, Alpha Propellerhead > wrote:

> Which is like playing Call of Duty and then claiming you fought in
> World War II.

WOW, great "plain English" analogy.

Shame it's being wasted on whom you replied to as Mx won't get
it......

[Alpha Propellerhead]

On May 16, 11:57*am, "birdog" > wrote:
>. Pilots die as a result of major lapses in judgement.

(Pilots die as a result of minor lapses in judgement as well.)


> As to "avoiding" *having to recover from unusual attitudes, etc., that is
> what learning to fly is all about. Every pilot that has ever solo'd has
> balooned on round-out,

One of our students who is about to solo had to contact tower and
report that there was a coyote on the taxiway that wouldn't get out of
her way.

I have a student who is 16 and very eager, wanted to take off and land
on his second flight. He plays MSFS so I have to do a lot of
deprogramming of dangerous habits, and required that he explain,
demonstrate and recover from approach and departure stalls, full, at
5000 ft, and then hold a falling-leaf stall until he could keep the
ball centered. The concept of stalls and stall recovery terrified him
on hsi first and second flights. It took him a couple of times, but,
he NAILED it.

On his first turn to final, a Navion cut us off (towered airport)
reporting engine problems, so we had to go around, circle right and
reenter in a right traffic pattern, with birds and student helicopters
in the vicinity. On final, a flock of Canadian geese flew in front of
us and the kid had to keep it together. When he touched down, he got
excited and stiffened his legs... big 6'1" teenager feet on the brake
pedals...

I too love flight simulators, but, sitting in the right seat of a
C-152 on short final with a teenage novice at the controls for the
first time... that'll put gray hairs on your head, but watching him
explaining stalls to his terrorized grandmother, and then seeing her
pride when I told her how well he'd done... That was cathartic. I get
the same feeling when I fly people around Mt. St. Helens, or fly a
brand new Cirrus with NWPilot (for those of you who remember him, he's
in Tarawa now, by the way, taking a new SR-20 from California to
Japan) or riding in a B-17.

-c
CFI/CP-ASEL-IA

[Alpha Propellerhead]

On May 16, 5:28*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> george writes:
> > By flying and training with instructors who actually fly..
>
> If the instructor or student makes a mistake, then what?

They die. They don't reboot the computer and try again. That's the
difference. If I teach somebody incorrectly they may die, and I may
die with them. My life and my family's well-being is on the line every
time I go to work, which is why when some non-flying twit who's never
actually flown an airplane starts contradicting pilots and instructors
in a flying forum, it's worthy contempt, ridicule and exposure as a
perfect example of willful ignorance. Go fly around a few circuits
around a traffic pattern sometime like all students do on Training Day
One and you'll begin to have the capacity to understand. But you have
a stated lack of willingness to do even -that-.

Flying is safe if you do it masterfully and deadly if you do not. The
aviators out here, student or ATP, have demonstrated their mettle by
the fact that they're alive to tell about it.

That's why instructors and pilots out here keep telling you that
you're full of ****. You have no idea where your lack of understanding
even begins and you don't listen when people try to tell you civilly.
I used to defend you and try to explain it to you, but, all of us have
learned that you're not interested in learning, you're interested in
telling everybody how much you know about everything.

> Do airline pilots train for spin recovery in their airliners?

Just about every living airline pilot has demonstrated spin recovery
in one aircraft or another. Your options in a spin are to do nothing
and die, or do something and try to recover. Some airplanes do not
recover from spins predictably or without the potential for structural
damage, so, pilots don't spin every airplane the fly.

[Ari[_2_]]

On Tue, 18 May 2010 06:14:55 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> On May 17, 6:10*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> Which aircraft do you fly in MSFS, and where did they come from?
>
> Toys-R-Us.
>
> ---
> Mark

*TIC, TOC, Tic..*
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Ari[_2_]]

On Mon, 17 May 2010 10:23:47 -0700 (PDT), a wrote:

> If you examine the history of MX,

*PLONK*

Enough of you, Idiot.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Ari[_2_]]

On Mon, 17 May 2010 17:10:15 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

> On May 17, 5:14*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>>> If someone could go to your house while you are practicing either of these
>>> armchair activities, lock the door and lose the key, this would make the rest
>>> of society much safer!!
>>
>> How so?
>
> Another answer with a question.

Another idiot stating the obvious. No wonder you got kicked out of the
powered air.

Glide on, Fool.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Mxsmanic]

Alpha Propellerhead writes:

> Actually people who take simulation seriously sweat profusely.
> Occasionally they become "airsick" which is why there's a barf bag
> within arm's reach. One time, a guy took it so seriously he freaked
> out and yanked the throttle control right out of the simulator
> cockpit.

These would be unusual reactions to normal flight regimes.

[george]

On May 19, 6:33*am, " > wrote:
> On May 18, 1:15*pm, Alpha Propellerhead > wrote:
>
> > Which is like playing Call of Duty and then claiming you fought in
> > World War II.
>
> WOW, great "plain English" analogy.
>
> Shame it's being wasted on whom you replied to as Mx won't get
> it......

But the rest of us did and appreciated the point

[george]

On May 19, 7:06*am, Alpha Propellerhead > wrote:
> On May 16, 5:28*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > george writes:
> > > By flying and training with instructors who actually fly..
>
> > If the instructor or student makes a mistake, then what?
>
> They die. They don't reboot the computer and try again. That's the
> difference. If I teach somebody incorrectly they may die, and I may
> die with them. My life and my family's well-being is on the line every
> time I go to work, which is why when some non-flying twit who's never
> actually flown an airplane starts contradicting pilots and instructors
> in a flying forum, it's worthy contempt, ridicule and exposure as a
> perfect example of willful ignorance. *Go fly around a few circuits
> around a traffic pattern sometime like all students do on Training Day
> One and you'll begin to have the capacity to understand. But you have
> a stated lack of willingness to do even -that-.
>
> Flying is safe if you do it masterfully and deadly if you do not. The
> aviators out here, student or ATP, have demonstrated their mettle by
> the fact that they're alive to tell about it.
>
> That's why instructors and pilots out here keep telling you that
> you're full of ****. You have no idea where your lack of understanding
> even begins and you don't listen when people try to tell you civilly.
> I used to defend you and try to explain it to you, but, all of us have
> learned that you're not interested in learning, you're interested in
> telling everybody how much you know about everything.
>
> > Do airline pilots train for spin recovery in their airliners?
>
> Just about every living airline pilot has demonstrated spin recovery
> in one aircraft or another. Your options in a spin are to do nothing
> and die, or do something and try to recover. Some airplanes do not
> recover from spins predictably or without the potential for structural
> damage, so, pilots don't spin every airplane the fly.

I let that one go as I have a life outside the Internet.
Well answered.
Fully developed stall recovery is in the PPL/CPL training regime.
I suppose to mixedup that doesn't count

[[email protected]]

On May 18, 4:11*pm, george > wrote:

> > Shame it's being wasted on whom you replied to as Mx won't get
> > it......
>
> But the rest of us did and appreciated the point

I probably worded that badly as interestingly enough, the rest of us
wouldn't have needed that analogy :-)))

[Alpha Propellerhead]

On May 17, 11:26*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> > I don't know any real life pilot who denies enjoying the visceral
> > sensations of flight: those are not felt in a desk chair.
>
> I know airline pilots and some other pilots who

Really? You know pilots! Wow! That's truly remarkable.

>I like precision and perfection in both flying and driving.

You don't drive, and you don't fly.

[Alpha Propellerhead]

On May 17, 1:20*pm, " > wrote:

> I ASKED A VERY DIRECT QUESTION that you FAILED TO ANSWER.
>
> What REAL plane do you fly to support your opionion. *I can support
> point by point the difference between MSFS and a real plane (I have
> already mentioned one). *What can you provide????


We're waiting, MX.

[Alpha Propellerhead]

On May 18, 1:20*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Alpha Propellerhead writes:
> > Actually people who take simulation seriously sweat profusely.
> > Occasionally they become "airsick" which is why there's a barf bag
> > within arm's reach. One time, a guy took it so seriously he freaked
> > out and yanked the throttle control right out of the simulator
> > cockpit.
>
> These would be unusual reactions to normal flight regimes.

They're not normal flight regimes, tard. We teach stalls and spin
recovery, zero-visibility, turbulence and every simulated system
failure we can think of so that REAL pilots know how to keep cool if
REAL problems happen in REAL AIRPLANES when they're REALLY flying.

That all flew right over your head, but, don't worry. I understand
perfectly. You play video games and think it equates to the real
thing even when people who play the same games AND do the real thing
tell you otherwise. You played Battlefield 1942 and you think you're
George freakin' Patton. *shrug*

[Loverly Vagina]

On Wed, 19 May 2010 10:08:42 -0700 (PDT), Alpha Propellerhead wrote:

> On May 17, 11:26*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>>> I don't know any real life pilot who denies enjoying the visceral
>>> sensations of flight: those are not felt in a desk chair.
>>
>> I know airline pilots and some other pilots who
>
> Really? You know pilots! Wow! That's truly remarkable.
>
>>I like precision and perfection in both flying and driving.
>
> You don't drive, and you don't fly.

No but he can yank an assclown's leg like you until the sun goes down.
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV7agoTb5Ak

[Mark]

On May 19, 1:58*pm, Loverly Vagina > wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 2010 10:08:42 -0700 (PDT), Alpha Propellerhead wrote:
> > On May 17, 11:26*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> >>> I don't know any real life pilot who denies enjoying the visceral
> >>> sensations of flight: those are not felt in a desk chair.
>
> >> I know airline pilots and some other pilots who
>
> > Really? *You know pilots! * Wow! *That's truly remarkable.
>
> >>I like precision and perfection in both flying and driving.
>
> > You don't drive, and you don't fly.
>
> No but he can yank an assclown's leg like you until the sun goes down.
> --http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV7agoTb5Ak

Wrong. Actually msxmanic is being publicly embarassed and
exposed as a knucklehead. Just like you Jeffrey, just like you.
(I'm thinking one and the same)

Tell us about your Velocity. Bet it goes real fast! LOL!

---
Mark

[Ari[_2_]]

On Wed, 19 May 2010 13:06:42 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> Mark

*TIC, TOC, TIc...*
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Alpha Propellerhead]

On May 17, 2:29*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> VOR-DME writes:
> > That is a very revealing statement. If you talk about simulated flying
> > experience and you do not inform the listener your experience was simulated it
> > simply means you are faking.
>
> Not really. The fact that I simulate isn't necessarily relevant to the
> conversation.

Nope. You're a fraud. That's what we're telling you. Over on
rec.aviation.student, the average low-time student might have NO IDEA
that you've never actually flown an aircraft, so you have no idea how
close simulation actually is to the real thing.

Furthermore, it would be trivially easy for you to go down to the
local airport and catch an intro flight around the pattern and maybe
log a little flight time, but, you don't even do that. Yet you
continue to challenge the experience and expertise of pilots, ground
instructors, flight instructors, simulator instructors, the FAA and
anybody else who contradicts your argument which, again, is based
SOLELY on what you've read somewhere or simulated.

>Remember, virtually all aspects of simulation work just as the real world does ... that's the point. *Pull back on the yoke and pitch
> increases. Extend the gear and drag increases. It doesn't really matter if it's simulated or real.

WRONG, AND DEADLY-WRONG. You have no idea, and to purport that you do
is dishonest. For perspective, since you dodge me: I fly C-172s in
MSFS. I fly and teach in a full-cockpit C-172 sim with a 180-
wraparound display. I fly and teach in a Cessna 172. For under $100
somebody like me--there are thousands--could show you the differences
between the three, but you choose not to do so.

Rather, you choose to insist that "virtually all aspects of simulation
work just as the real world does" even when pilots and instructors
explain otherwise. In that case, you just refute the credibility of
those people. You refer to them as "Yeager-wannabes," low time PPLs or
people who got their license to stroke their ego. You don't
acknowledge or respect guys like Dudley...you REFUTE THEM.

>IFR procedures are executed in exactly the same way in simulation as they are in real life--so why mention
> that it is simulation

Once again, you're profoundly wrong and you have no idea what I'm
talking about. Every IFR pilot who has ever used a flight simulator
does.

Recently I flew three people in a C-182 around Mt. St. Helens. One of
them was a geologist who had studied the mountain before the eruptions
and hadn't seen it since. We saw steam coming from the lava dome and a
herd of elk on the vast landscape of devastation.You can't simulate
that.

Last Saturday I rode backseat observing an IFR student hold a dead-on
ILS approach down to the minimums, under the hood and with the AI and
DG covered up and felt the joy of knowing that a fellow instructor's
student was a good pilot who was ready for his checkride. When we
returned we stood on the tarmac while a gleaming DC-3 rumbled past,
took off, circled the pattern and landed again. We felt the breeze
from its propwash and listened to a veteran tell us what it was like
taxiing such a large taildragger, and what it felt like to ride across
the United States, to see St. Elmo's fire on the wings, to . You can't
simulate that.

One time, a jet taxiied up, shut down, and Morgan Freeman jumped out
and chocked it himself. He flew in solo. On Sunday, a jet flew in and
within an hour, sparrows were trying to get into the downwind turbine.
I'm extremely familiar with MSFS, and you don't check belts for
tension or cowls for nests.

A B-17 comes to town and people behold it in awe, with actual tears in
their eyes. An as Pancho Barnes said it, "Some peckerwood's gotta fly
that sonofabitch, and that peckerwood is called a PILOT" And having
flown in and ridden in every position of a B-17, I can tell you with
100% authority, you CANNOT simulate that.

Joe Public comes into our FBO seeking rides in planes, not simulators.

There is a 100% probability that you will refute, discredit or dodge
my experience and perspective as both a simulator pilot and flight
instructor, and THAT is what everybody has been talking about and why
you have no allies here.

[Alpha Propellerhead]

On May 17, 2:35*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Maybe it's time to stop worrying about pilots and start talking about
> aviation.

Maybe this isn't rec.aviation.PILOTING.

Oh, wait. It is. That sucking sound is your battleship sinking.

[george]

On May 21, 8:15*am, Alpha Propellerhead > wrote:
> On May 17, 2:35*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > Maybe it's time to stop worrying about pilots and start talking about
> > aviation.
>
> Maybe this isn't rec.aviation.PILOTING.
>
> Oh, wait. It is. *That sucking sound is your battleship sinking.

It must be the sharp witticisms that cut through his cardboard
armour :-)

[Martin Hotze[_3_]]

Am 18.05.2010 23:11, schrieb george:

> But the rest of us did and appreciated the point

the "rest" ignores MX ... and the "rest" is tending to filter those
responding to this wacko.

#m
--
"What would I do with 72 virgins? That's not a reward,
that's a punishment. Give me two seasoned whores any day."
(Billy Connolly)

[Mxsmanic]

Alpha Propellerhead writes:

> Over on rec.aviation.student, the average low-time student might
> have NO IDEA that you've never actually flown an aircraft ...

So?

The object of these groups is discussion of aviation, not discussion of
people. So my background is irrelevant.

> Furthermore, it would be trivially easy for you to go down to the
> local airport and catch an intro flight around the pattern and maybe
> log a little flight time, but, you don't even do that.

Actually, no, it's not trivially easy. In fact, it would be extremely
difficult, both logistically and financially.

> Yet you continue to challenge the experience and expertise of pilots,
> ground instructors, flight instructors, simulator instructors, the
> FAA and anybody else who contradicts your argument which, again,
> is based SOLELY on what you've read somewhere or simulated.

Apparently you are unaware that what I read was written by pilots, ground
instructors, flight instructors, simulator instructors, and the FAA. My
arguments are often taken directly from what they've written. Thus, there can
be no contradiction.

> WRONG, AND DEADLY-WRONG. You have no idea, and to purport that you do
> is dishonest. For perspective, since you dodge me: I fly C-172s in
> MSFS. I fly and teach in a full-cockpit C-172 sim with a 180-
> wraparound display. I fly and teach in a Cessna 172. For under $100
> somebody like me--there are thousands--could show you the differences
> between the three, but you choose not to do so.

I'm interested in more than just Cessna 172s, and in any case there aren't
likely to be any Cessnas near me. And, as I've said, what you suggest is
logistically and financially impossible right now.

As if that were not enough, I'm not at all convinced that a bumpy ride in a
noisy little airplane with my ears constantly popping would reinforce my
interest in aviation. And even if it did, since it could not be repeated, it
would still be a waste of time.

> Rather, you choose to insist that "virtually all aspects of simulation
> work just as the real world does" even when pilots and instructors
> explain otherwise.

But pilots and instructors do not explain otherwise. You may be saying that,
but they don't. The only places where I see disagreements are in cyberspace
venues haunted by angry young men who would like me to believe that they are
experts in everything, despite evidence to the contrary.

> In that case, you just refute the credibility of
> those people. You refer to them as "Yeager-wannabes," low time PPLs or
> people who got their license to stroke their ego.

Well, there has to be some reason why they obstinately insist that they are
right even when every other source I have says that they are wrong. It's
unlikely that the rest of the world is wrong, and the treehouse club is right.

> You don't acknowledge or respect guys like Dudley...you REFUTE THEM.

I give everyone the same amount of respect. I acknowledge answers that appear
to be right. I argue with answers that appear to be wrong. I don't recall
Dudley being wrong as long as he talks about aviation in an objective way. Of
course, he has often been wrong about me, but if he refrained from talking
about me, that wouldn't be a problem.

> Recently I flew three people in a C-182 around Mt. St. Helens. One of
> them was a geologist who had studied the mountain before the eruptions
> and hadn't seen it since. We saw steam coming from the lava dome and a
> herd of elk on the vast landscape of devastation.You can't simulate
> that.

Why would I want to? It has nothing to do with IFR procedures. Why do you
even mention it?

> Last Saturday I rode backseat observing an IFR student hold a dead-on
> ILS approach down to the minimums, under the hood and with the AI and
> DG covered up and felt the joy of knowing that a fellow instructor's
> student was a good pilot who was ready for his checkride. When we
> returned we stood on the tarmac while a gleaming DC-3 rumbled past,
> took off, circled the pattern and landed again. We felt the breeze
> from its propwash and listened to a veteran tell us what it was like
> taxiing such a large taildragger, and what it felt like to ride across
> the United States, to see St. Elmo's fire on the wings, to . You can't
> simulate that.

Why would I want to? I'm not interested in physical sensations. I don't
necessarily like wind in my hair.

> One time, a jet taxiied up, shut down, and Morgan Freeman jumped out
> and chocked it himself. He flew in solo.

And who is Morgan Freeman?

> On Sunday, a jet flew in and within an hour, sparrows were trying
> to get into the downwind turbine.

So? Why are you telling me these things? What does this have to do with
aviation?

> I'm extremely familiar with MSFS, and you don't check belts for
> tension or cowls for nests.

Not in the current version, no. It doesn't sound very enjoyable.

> A B-17 comes to town and people behold it in awe, with actual tears in
> their eyes.

Sheesh. Are these the same people that play One Six Right in a loop all day
long?

> An as Pancho Barnes said it, "Some peckerwood's gotta fly
> that sonofabitch, and that peckerwood is called a PILOT"

The name sounds vaguely familiar, but I can't place it.

> And having
> flown in and ridden in every position of a B-17, I can tell you with
> 100% authority, you CANNOT simulate that.

I don't fly a B-17, nor do I have any desire to.

> Joe Public comes into our FBO seeking rides in planes, not simulators.

So?

> There is a 100% probability that you will refute, discredit or dodge
> my experience and perspective as both a simulator pilot and flight
> instructor, and THAT is what everybody has been talking about and why
> you have no allies here.

Why do I need allies? My concern is being right, not making friends.

[Mark]

On May 20, 3:05*pm, Ari > wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 2010 13:06:42 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
> > Mark
>
> *TIC, TOC, TIc...*
> --

tick tock? what the **** is that? you some little
prick with a nervous "tick"? Haaa haaa.

where's your velocity? LOL!

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

On May 20, 4:53*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Alpha Propellerhead writes:
> > Over on rec.aviation.student, the average low-time student might
> > have NO IDEA that you've never actually flown an aircraft ...
>
> So?

As I have PROVEN, your background is everything.

You are NOT a credible source to even comment on flying in the real
world.

Why?? You are not a CGI. You NEVER FLEW in a real plane as PIC.

Therefore your lying AND MISREPRESENTATION needs to be brought out
front and center.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote

> the "rest" ignores MX ... and the "rest" is tending to filter those
> responding to this wacko.

Exactly. A couple more are going into my bin, if things continue as they
have as of late.
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> As I have PROVEN, your background is everything.

No, only the content of the post matters, which you can verify independently
of me. That's what I do.

[[email protected]]

On May 21, 3:44*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > As I have PROVEN, your background is everything.
>
> No, only the content of the post matters, which you can verify independently
> of me. That's what I do.

And as stated before, the contents of your post are WRONG in the real
world of flying. I along with many, many others responding to you
have independently VERIFIED it.

WHAT PART OF THIS DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND.

I will re-iterate since you seem to be in complete denial of the real
world

You are NOT a credible source to even comment on flying in the real
world.

Why?? You are not a CGI. You NEVER FLEW in a real plane as PIC.

Therefore your lying AND MISREPRESENTATION needs to be brought out
front and center.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> And as stated before, the contents of your post are WRONG in the real
> world of flying.

List and correct the errors.

> I along with many, many others responding to you
> have independently VERIFIED it.

Then doing the above should not be difficult.

[[email protected]]

On May 21, 8:39*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > And as stated before, the contents of your post are WRONG in the real
> > world of flying.
>
> List and correct the errors.

ALREADY HAVE IN THIS THREAD

I will re-iterate since you seem to be in complete denial of the real
world

You are NOT a credible source to even comment on flying in the real
world.

Why?? You are not a CGI. You NEVER FLEW in a real plane as PIC.

Therefore your lying AND MISREPRESENTATION will be brought out
front and center.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> And as stated before, the contents of your post are WRONG in the real
>> world of flying.
>
> List and correct the errors.

For starters, you have no clue how to do flight planning and believe
that all that is required is some abbreviated entries on a FAA flight
plan form.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> ALREADY HAVE IN THIS THREAD

No, you have not. Most "corrections" I see in this group are in fact
expressions of conflicting opinions. Since my facts are almost invariably on
the money, corrections of those are neither necessary nor forthcoming,
although on some occasions I've had people "correct" things that weren't
wrong, despite overwhelming evidence that they were right. Emotion is a
powerful distorter of reason and judgment.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> For starters, you have no clue how to do flight planning and believe
> that all that is required is some abbreviated entries on a FAA flight
> plan form.

No. List the specific, factual errors, and correct them. Expressing an opinion
is not correcting an error.

[Martin Hotze[_3_]]

Am 17.05.2010 22:46, schrieb :
> > wrote:
>> writes:

> Nonsense.

Will you PLEASE move your private discussion with MX to email or
elsewhere but RAP?

Thanks!

#m
--
"What would I do with 72 virgins? That's not a reward,
that's a punishment. Give me two seasoned whores any day."
(Billy Connolly)

[[email protected]]

On May 22, 4:44*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> No, you have not. Most "corrections" I see in this group are in fact
> expressions of conflicting opinions.

You are NOT a credible source to even comment on flying in the real
world.

Why?? You are not a CGI. You NEVER FLEW in a real plane as PIC.

Therefore your lying AND MISREPRESENTATION will be brought out
front and center.

Sooo, with this behind me, show me where I give conflicting opinions
IN THIS THREAD that stray from the truth of real world flying.

THIS IS A VERY DIRECT REQUEST.

LET ME GUESS YOU CAN'T (or won't) because the above applies.

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

> Therefore your lying AND MISREPRESENTATION will be brought
> out front and center.

Sigh. Why bother. Nothing will change until he is shunned, and totally
ignored. You will get no answers. Nobody with a brain would believe him,
or think he was a pilot for more than a couple posts.
--
Jim in NC

[Ari[_2_]]

On Sat, 22 May 2010 14:46:57 +0200, Martin Hotze wrote:

> Am 17.05.2010 22:46, schrieb :
>> > wrote:
>>> writes:
>
>> Nonsense.
>
> Will you PLEASE move your private discussion with MX to email or
> elsewhere but RAP?
>
> Thanks!
>
> #m

Not a chance.

Pennino and Liebmann are in this for all the attention they can get.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Ari[_2_]]

On Sat, 22 May 2010 11:03:39 -0400, Morgans wrote:

> > wrote
>
>> Therefore your lying AND MISREPRESENTATION will be brought
>> out front and center.
>
> Sigh. Why bother. Nothing will change until he is shunned, and totally
> ignored. You will get no answers. Nobody with a brain would believe him,
> or think he was a pilot for more than a couple posts.

So let me get this straight.

All of you who play this imbecilic post-troll-respond game with this
idiot are idiots?

Ok, carry on.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> For starters, you have no clue how to do flight planning and believe
>> that all that is required is some abbreviated entries on a FAA flight
>> plan form.
>
> No. List the specific, factual errors, and correct them. Expressing an opinion
> is not correcting an error.

When I asked you if you had ever filled out a flight planning sheet, you
replied that you had not because there would be no one to file it with
anyway.

That means you have no clue that "flight plan" refers to two things:

1. A detailed plan for the flight.

2. An abbreviated summary of the detailed plan filed with the FAA.

All real pilots do number 1 for all flights (other than the obvious such
as practice in the pattern) including VFR flights.

It is one of the first things you learn to do in real pilot training,
part of the written test.

I even posted a link to PDF planning forms typical of what is used, but
you obviously didn't even bother to look at them, and if you did, had no
clue on how to fill one out.

These days most people use a computer based flight planning program and
generate the sheets automattically, but all real pilots know how to fill
one out by hand with pencil, paper, and real charts.

When you are done with number 1, you use that to fill out the FAA flight
plan form to (optionally for VFR) file with the FAA and you put number 1 on
your kneeboard and update it as you fly.

That's what real pilots are REQUIRED to do to meet the requiements of 91.103.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Ari > wrote:
> On Sat, 22 May 2010 14:46:57 +0200, Martin Hotze wrote:
>
>> Am 17.05.2010 22:46, schrieb :
>>> > wrote:
>>>> writes:
>>
>>> Nonsense.
>>
>> Will you PLEASE move your private discussion with MX to email or
>> elsewhere but RAP?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> #m
>
> Not a chance.
>
> Pennino and Liebmann are in this for all the attention they can get.

The mentally deranged like MX will not leave a USENET group if ignored,
nor is it practically possible they will be ignored as there will always
be new people who will respond to their drooling delusions.

If anything they will get more determined.

That has been my experience with about 25 years of posting to USENET.

Yeah, about 25 years starting with when it was UUCP transfers over 1200 baud
dial up and there was no "Internet".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On May 22, 12:01*pm, Ari > wrote:

> So let me get this straight.
>
> All of you who play this imbecilic post-troll-respond game with this
> idiot are idiots?

No, you're the only bonafide idiot here.

---
Mark

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Sooo, with this behind me, show me where I give conflicting opinions
> IN THIS THREAD that stray from the truth of real world flying.

Your opinions don't conflict with themselves, as far as I can recall, but they
conflict with mine. A conflict of opinion is not the same as a factual error.

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> Sigh. Why bother. Nothing will change until he is shunned, and totally
> ignored. You will get no answers. Nobody with a brain would believe him,
> or think he was a pilot for more than a couple posts.

You've been counseling this for years, and yet you have yet to practice it.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> When I asked you if you had ever filled out a flight planning sheet, you
> replied that you had not because there would be no one to file it with
> anyway.

And there isn't (apart from a basic flight plan for VATSIM flights), for
flight simulation. So there is no error in this.

> That means you have no clue that "flight plan" refers to two things:
>
> 1. A detailed plan for the flight.
>
> 2. An abbreviated summary of the detailed plan filed with the FAA.

I'm aware of both, but the facts above remain correct.

> All real pilots do number 1 for all flights (other than the obvious such
> as practice in the pattern) including VFR flights.

Not true. Many private pilots are exceedingly casual about flight planning.
This doesn't necessarily lead to accidents, but in many accidents, a lack of
proper planning is a contributing factor.

> These days most people use a computer based flight planning program and
> generate the sheets automattically, but all real pilots know how to fill
> one out by hand with pencil, paper, and real charts.

What they know how to do when tested, and what they do in the real world when
flying, are not always the same things.

> That's what real pilots are REQUIRED to do to meet the requiements
> of 91.103.

There are a lot of things that private pilots are required to do that some of
them don't actually do in practice. The FAA has no way of enforcing these
requirements unless something happens during a flight.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> When I asked you if you had ever filled out a flight planning sheet, you
>> replied that you had not because there would be no one to file it with
>> anyway.
>
> And there isn't (apart from a basic flight plan for VATSIM flights), for
> flight simulation. So there is no error in this.

Correct, there is no "error", just a total lack of understanding of the
subject on your part because you have no real world training or experience.

>> That means you have no clue that "flight plan" refers to two things:
>>
>> 1. A detailed plan for the flight.
>>
>> 2. An abbreviated summary of the detailed plan filed with the FAA.
>
> I'm aware of both, but the facts above remain correct.
>
>> All real pilots do number 1 for all flights (other than the obvious such
>> as practice in the pattern) including VFR flights.
>
> Not true. Many private pilots are exceedingly casual about flight planning.
> This doesn't necessarily lead to accidents, but in many accidents, a lack of
> proper planning is a contributing factor.

And you know this to be true how, by your hundreds of hours of actual
flight experience and contact with hundreds of real pilots?

The reality is most pilots these days are "casual" about flight planning
because the use of computer based flight planners make it a trivial task and
not the onerous task you seem to think it is.

>> These days most people use a computer based flight planning program and
>> generate the sheets automattically, but all real pilots know how to fill
>> one out by hand with pencil, paper, and real charts.
>
> What they know how to do when tested, and what they do in the real world when
> flying, are not always the same things.

True, but an irrelevant red herring in an attempt to change the direction
of the discussion from your inadequacies.

>> That's what real pilots are REQUIRED to do to meet the requiements
>> of 91.103.
>
> There are a lot of things that private pilots are required to do that some of
> them don't actually do in practice. The FAA has no way of enforcing these
> requirements unless something happens during a flight.

True, but irrelevant.

The fact that real pilots are people and not always 100% perfect in their
every action is irrelevant to the original point of what YOU know and
what YOU do.

Given you don't know a thing about how to do flight planning, anything
you have to say about the topic, such as the "best" route from point A
to point B, is worthless.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ari[_2_]]

On Sat, 22 May 2010 13:49:42 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> On May 22, 12:01*pm, Ari > wrote:
>
>> So let me get this straight.
>>
>> All of you who play this imbecilic post-troll-respond game with this
>> idiot are idiots?
>
> No, you're the only bonafide idiot here.
>
> ---
> Mark

*TIC, TOC, TIC...Game's over*
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Correct, there is no "error" ...

I agree.

> And you know this to be true how, by your hundreds of hours of actual
> flight experience and contact with hundreds of real pilots?

Pilots don't often admit doing stupid things, unless they are so stupid that
they don't realize that they are doing stupid things. However, people around
them notice, and sometimes accident reports mention it.

The relatively high accident statistics of private pilots demonstrate that
they are doing lots of stupid things as a group, although obviously there are
both stupid and smart private pilots out there.

> The reality is most pilots these days are "casual" about flight planning
> because the use of computer based flight planners make it a trivial task and
> not the onerous task you seem to think it is.

Even with computers available, a significant number of pilots will not bother
to plan. Fuel exhaustion, for example, is still a very common cause of
incidents and accidents, and it's trivial to avoid with a bit of planning.

> The fact that real pilots are people and not always 100% perfect in their
> every action is irrelevant to the original point of what YOU know and
> what YOU do.

You've already acknowledged that I'm correct.

> Given you don't know a thing about how to do flight planning, anything
> you have to say about the topic, such as the "best" route from point A
> to point B, is worthless.

See above. There are facts, which in this case are generally correct when I
relate them, and there are opinions, which aren't worth much.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Correct, there is no "error" ...
>
> I agree.

I notice you ignored the quote marks around the word error and snipped the
rest, i.e. that you have no clue and anything you have to say on the subject
is just pulled out of your ass.

> You've already acknowledged that I'm correct.

Nope, I politely said you are a clueless, babbling, jerk with no real
knowledge of much of anything and your only talent is diverting a discussion
away from the point of the discussion with irrelevant "factoids" supported
only by your assertions.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On May 22, 7:06*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> Your opinions don't conflict with themselves, as far as I can recall, but they
> conflict with mine. A conflict of opinion is not the same as a factual error.

Your opinion means NOTHING in the real world of flying.

DID YOU FORGET THE FOLLOWING?

You are NOT a credible source to even comment on flying in the real
world.

Why?? You are not a CGI. You NEVER FLEW in a real plane as PIC.

Therefore your lying AND MISREPRESENTATION will be brought out
front and center.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Your opinion means NOTHING in the real world of flying.

Of course, that's only your opinion.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Nope, I politely said you are a clueless, babbling, jerk with no real
> knowledge of much of anything and your only talent is diverting a discussion
> away from the point of the discussion with irrelevant "factoids" supported
> only by your assertions.

If ad hominem has never had any effect on me up to now, what leads you to
belive that it will have any effect henceforth? Or is it simply cathartic for
you?

[[email protected]]

On May 22, 10:05*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Your opinion means NOTHING in the real world of flying.
>
> Of course, that's only your opinion.

I will be sure to post your experience in ANY thread you participate
so NEW people fully understand how you lie and misrepresent
yourself.

That's not opinion, but fact IN THE REAL WORLD of flying.

[Jim Logajan]

" > wrote:
> You are not a CGI.

I'm not familiar with the acronym CGI. Any relation to CFI?

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> " > wrote:
> > You are not a CGI.
>
> I'm not familiar with the acronym CGI. Any relation to CFI?

CGI = Certified Ground Instructor

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> I will be sure to post your experience in ANY thread you participate
> so NEW people fully understand how you lie and misrepresent
> yourself.

OK

> That's not opinion, but fact IN THE REAL WORLD of flying.

Nope, it's opinion. But other readers will be able to judge for themselves if
you post your opinion again and again.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> Nope, I politely said you are a clueless, babbling, jerk with no real
>> knowledge of much of anything and your only talent is diverting a discussion
>> away from the point of the discussion with irrelevant "factoids" supported
>> only by your assertions.
>
> If ad hominem has never had any effect on me up to now, what leads you to
> belive that it will have any effect henceforth? Or is it simply cathartic for
> you?

It was a restatement in blunt terms since you are so delusional you can't
understand the subtle nuances of the original statement.

And you still have no clue how to do flight planning and anything you have
to say on the subject is just a wild assed guess pulled out of your ass.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Martin Hotze[_3_]]

Am 22.05.2010 19:21, schrieb :

> The mentally deranged like MX will not leave a USENET group if ignored,

it is enough if noise level goes down, YOU keep the noise UP.

> nor is it practically possible they will be ignored as there will always
> be new people who will respond to their drooling delusions.

well, tell the new people once.

> If anything they will get more determined.
>
> That has been my experience with about 25 years of posting to USENET.

yeah, but it seems that you haven't learned much.

> Yeah, about 25 years starting with when it was UUCP transfers over 1200 baud
> dial up and there was no "Internet".

then it might be in order to killfile you ... you haven't learned much
.... just like MX.

#m
--
"What would I do with 72 virgins? That's not a reward,
that's a punishment. Give me two seasoned whores any day."
(Billy Connolly)

[Mark]

On May 22, 8:40*pm, Ari > wrote:

> *TIC, TOC, TIC...Game's over*
> --

tick tock tick, little prick with a nervous tick.

Shut the **** up Mary. We are here to discuss
aviation, not play games. Beat it punk.

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

On May 22, 11:03*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> > That's not opinion, but fact IN THE REAL WORLD of flying.
>
> Nope, it's opinion. But other readers will be able to judge for themselves if
> you post your opinion again and again.

WRONG

Detail and your command of the English language must not be your
forte.

FACT You are not a CGI.
FACT You NEVER FLEW in a real plane as PIC
FACT. You are lying and misrepresent yourself as a pilot.

In light of the above

FACT You are NOT a credible source to even comment on flying in the
real
world.

These are not opinions, but FACTS.

What part of the above do you not understand??????

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> WRONG

You don't believe that others can form opinions about you from what you post?

> FACT You are not a CGI.
> FACT You NEVER FLEW in a real plane as PIC
> FACT. You are lying and misrepresent yourself as a pilot.
>
> In light of the above
>
> FACT You are NOT a credible source to even comment on flying in the
> real
> world.
>
> These are not opinions, but FACTS.

The first two "facts" are indeed facts. The third "fact" is false, and the
fourth "fact" is just an opinion.

Are you interested in discussing aviation, or are you only interested in
admiring me?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> It was a restatement in blunt terms since you are so delusional you can't
> understand the subtle nuances of the original statement.

Restated or not, it was a personal attack. I think it should be obvious to all
by now that I am immune to personal attacks. So why do you persist?

Are you interested in discussing aviation, or are you simply campaigning to be
president of my fan club?

> And you still have no clue how to do flight planning and anything you have
> to say on the subject is just a wild assed guess pulled out of your ass.

Thank you for sharing your opinion. I don't agree with it, however.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> It was a restatement in blunt terms since you are so delusional you can't
>> understand the subtle nuances of the original statement.
>
> Restated or not, it was a personal attack. I think it should be obvious to all
> by now that I am immune to personal attacks. So why do you persist?

It is no more a "personal attack" than saying you live in France.

It is simply a demonstrated truth.

>> And you still have no clue how to do flight planning and anything you have
>> to say on the subject is just a wild assed guess pulled out of your ass.
>
> Thank you for sharing your opinion. I don't agree with it, however.

Since you still have no clue how to do flight planning, it is another obvious
statement of fact that anything you have to say on the subject is just a wild
assed guess pulled out of your ass, not an opinion.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On May 23, 11:56*am, wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote:

> > Thank you for sharing your opinion. I don't agree with it, however.
>
> Since you still have no clue how to do flight planning, it is another obvious
> statement of fact that anything you have to say on the subject is just a wild
> assed guess pulled out of your ass, not an opinion.

Shoot, he can't tell the truth as proven in a subthread he is in
complete denial of the truth..

Dunno if you use MSFS but I know that I don't flight plan when I
simulate a cross country, yet you can bet your bottom dollar my next
flight in a power plane I use a flight planner :-)

[[email protected]]

> wrote:
> On May 23, 11:56Â*am, wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> > Thank you for sharing your opinion. I don't agree with it, however.
>>
>> Since you still have no clue how to do flight planning, it is another obvious
>> statement of fact that anything you have to say on the subject is just a wild
>> assed guess pulled out of your ass, not an opinion.
>
> Shoot, he can't tell the truth as proven in a subthread he is in
> complete denial of the truth..
>
> Dunno if you use MSFS but I know that I don't flight plan when I
> simulate a cross country, yet you can bet your bottom dollar my next
> flight in a power plane I use a flight planner :-)

I stopped playing MSFS a couple of years ago as I found it so unrealistic
in anything but cruise, and no, never did any flight planning for it as
I see it as just a game.

I have used Google Earth to explore the terrain for cross countries to real
locations to get a 3D feel for surrounding hills.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

On May 23, 9:24*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> You don't believe that others can form opinions about you from what you post?

Opinions don't change FACTS. Let me refresh your memory.

> > FACT You are not a CGI.
> > FACT You NEVER FLEW in a real plane as PIC
> > FACT. You are lying and misrepresent yourself as a pilot.
>
> > In light of the above
>
> > FACT You are NOT a credible source to even comment on flying in the
> > real world.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> It is no more a "personal attack" than saying you live in France.

Calling someone delusional has negative connotations that saying someone lives
in France does not, however baseless the accusation.

> It is simply a demonstrated truth.

It hasn't been demonstrated, which is why it's an opinion.

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> It is no more a "personal attack" than saying you live in France.
>
> Calling someone delusional has negative connotations that saying someone lives
> in France does not, however baseless the accusation.

You have demonstrated that you are delusional on many occasions so my saying
that is a simple statement of fact.

That the fact has negative connotations is your problem, not mine.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> You have demonstrated that you are delusional on many occasions so my saying
> that is a simple statement of fact.

No matter how many times you assert this, it will not become reality.

> That the fact has negative connotations is your problem, not mine.

Not always.

[Mxsmanic[_3_]]

On Sun, 23 May 2010 04:21:19 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
>
>
>> *TIC, TOC, TIC...Game's over*
>> --
>
> tick tock tick, little prick with a nervous tick.
> cum here and suck my dick.

Don't think so.

--
Live To Spend It

[[email protected]]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
>
>> You have demonstrated that you are delusional on many occasions so my saying
>> that is a simple statement of fact.
>
> No matter how many times you assert this, it will not become reality.

Denying reality is delusional.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[terry]

On May 22, 7:44*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > ALREADY HAVE IN THIS THREAD
>
> No, you have not. Most "corrections" I see in this group are in fact
> expressions of conflicting opinions. Since my facts are almost invariably on
> the money, corrections of those are neither necessary nor forthcoming,
> although on some occasions I've had people "correct" things that weren't
> wrong, despite overwhelming evidence that they were right. Emotion is a
> powerful distorter of reason and judgment.


The fact that you cant ( or more likely wont) ever be convinced you
are wrong does not mean that others cant see your errors. I can
still recall you trying to tell a physical chemist that the ideal gas
law doesnt apply in the atmosphere, simply because the gas isnt
contained in a piston like the drawings in your high school chemistry
book, And no amount of explanation could convince you otherwise.
Ignorance and pride are powerful distorters of reason and judgement
also. Ignorance comes from sitting in a lounge chair thinking you can
understand things as well as people who do them.

Anyone can state " my facts are invariably on the money" but people
whose facts are invariably on the money, are normally people in high
demand for their skills and knowledge. They invariably dont work for
peanuts, or beg for handouts.

[Mxsmanic]

terry writes:

> The fact that you cant ( or more likely wont) ever be convinced you
> are wrong does not mean that others cant see your errors.

That can work both ways.

> I can still recall you trying to tell a physical chemist that the ideal gas
> law doesnt apply in the atmosphere, simply because the gas isnt
> contained in a piston like the drawings in your high school chemistry
> book, And no amount of explanation could convince you otherwise.

That's because it is true. That's why you can't use the gas laws as-is for the
atmosphere. The atmosphere is held against the Earth by gravity, not
confinement. That's why pressure and temperature gradients exist with
altitude, which would not be the case if confinement held the atmosphere
together.

> Anyone can state " my facts are invariably on the money" but people
> whose facts are invariably on the money, are normally people in high
> demand for their skills and knowledge. They invariably dont work for
> peanuts, or beg for handouts.

Actually, I've met a number of highly competent people who are vastly
underutilized in their work. Often extroversion and brown-nosing are more
important than qualifications.

[terry]

On May 26, 3:40*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> terry writes:
> > The fact that you cant ( or more likely wont) ever be convinced you
> > are wrong does not mean that others cant see your errors.
>
> That can work both ways.
>
> > I can still recall you trying to tell a physical chemist that the ideal gas
> > law doesnt apply in the atmosphere, simply because the gas isnt
> > contained in a piston like the drawings in your high school chemistry
> > book, And no amount of explanation could convince you otherwise.
>
> That's because it is true. That's why you can't use the gas laws as-is for the
> atmosphere. The atmosphere is held against the Earth by gravity, not
> confinement. That's why pressure and temperature gradients exist with
> altitude, which would not be the case if confinement held the atmosphere
> together.

typical mx obfuscation and twisting of the argument to avoid ever
admitting you are just wrong.
the chemist, who also happened to be a pilot, was telling you that
they could use the measured temperature
and pressure at an airfield to calculate the air density at the
airfield from the ideal gas law, now explain again
what gravity and temperature gradients with altitude have to do with
that? ( thats really a rhetorical question)

>
> > Anyone can state " my facts are invariably on the money" but people
> > whose facts are invariably on the money, are normally people in high
> > demand for their skills and knowledge. They invariably dont work for
> > peanuts, or beg for handouts.
>
> Actually, I've met a number of highly competent people who are vastly
> underutilized in their work. *Often extroversion and brown-nosing are more
> important than qualifications.

And your qualifications are what ? ( since we are in an aviation
forum, could you start with your aviation quals please please?)

Terry

Live to Earn it , Live to Do it.

[Ari[_2_]]

On Tue, 25 May 2010 13:30:30 -0700 (PDT), terry wrote:

> typical mx obfuscation and twisting of the argument to avoid ever
> admitting you are just wrong.

Keep on arguing with him, two twits are better than one.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[[email protected]]

On May 25, 3:30*pm, terry > wrote:

> And your qualifications are what ? *( since we are in an aviation
> forum, could you start with your aviation quals please please?)

Ohhh, I so anxiously await Mx's reply LOL

We know he is not a pilot by FAA standards
We know he is not a CGI
We know he pretends to be something he is not (pilot)

In spite of HIS opinions, the above are simply facts that he wishes he
can disprove and yet has not done so.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Stephen!" > wrote in message
...
> "birdog" > wrote in :
>
>> Unless convinced otherwise, I can't see pilots EVER stepping directly
>> from a sim into the left seat.
>
> I did just that (except it was the appropriate right seat) in an R-22.
> After five hours in the non-motion sim, I was hovering, unassisted, on my
> very first flight.
>
And the make and model of the simulator is?

Had you had previous pilot training of any type?

How much time riding in helios?
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

On Jun 1, 10:25*am, "Stephen!" > wrote:

> * Not relavent. *Glider, ASEL, and ASES ratings have nothing to compare
> with flying a helicopter. *Completely different ball of wax. *As a matter
> of fact, some of the "immediate action" actions are completely opposite
> of fixed wing aircraft. *

Your past experience is fully relevant.

Lets go this route. Could you learn from MSFS 5 hours for your rotor
rating and go out and PROFICIENTLY fly a helicopter WITHOUT any REAL
world flying experiences? Be honest about this.

I seriously doubt it.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 1, 8:23*pm, "Stephen!" > wrote:

> > Lets go this route. *Could you learn from MSFS 5 hours for your rotor
> > rating and go out and PROFICIENTLY fly a helicopter WITHOUT any REAL
> > world flying experiences? *Be honest about this.
>
> * Who said anything about MSFS? *I said "simulator". *I even provided you
> the make and model. *Nice try, though.

This whole thread is about computer DESKTOP simulators if you even
took the time to read through it..

Again, I ask you as you have not answered my question, could you fly a
helicopter based on 5 hours on a non motion simulator WITHOUT ANY real
world flying?

I still say the answer is no and your real world flying experience
accelerated where you are, not SOLELY based on your sim time.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 2, 11:06*pm, "Stephen!" > wrote:

> *None of that had any relevance to flying *ANY*
> fixed wing aircraft. *

I know this. I have been told hovering is like standing on a beach
ball with your eyes closed. But physical sensation of flight is the
same whether you be in a helicoptor or a fixed wing. You can't ignore
that in the real world. So, in spite of your denial, your past flight
experiences are relevent.

>I could *NOT* have done that without the five hours
> in the Frasca.

I know this too.

You are a bunch of bunk if you think someone without REAL WORLD flight
experience can get into a Frasca non motion simulator, work it for 5
hours, walk out to the ramp and PROFICIENTLY go fly a REAL helicoptor
WITHOUT any type of real world flying experiences experiencing the
sensation of flight. Operative word is PROFICIENT. Anybody can shake
the stick or rudder around and even get beginners luck.

Next think I bet you will say is that you can conduct flight in IMC in
the real world based on MSFS experiences and no real world flight
experience. Same concept, just t'waint going to happen..

But if you wish to brag that you are superman or the next Hoover,
carry on, I won't stop you. :-)

Over and out...

[[email protected]]

On Jun 2, 11:06*pm, "Stephen!" > wrote:

> * If *YOU* took the time to read the original post by 'birdog' you'd relize
> how full of crap you are with that statement... *Birdog's question was
> directly toward "top line simulators". *MSFS has never been a 'top line
> simulator'.

You are just like Mx.

Reading comprehension must not be your forte as birdog comment WAS NOT
directed toward top line simulators.

Sure looks like MSFS in his first paragraph quoted below
Sure looks like he discounted top line simulators in the second
paragraph quoted below
Sure looks like he agrees with me on the third paragraph quoted below.
(Guess for helicoptors he should have put right seat)

Segments copied from Birdog's original post quoted below to refresh
your memory.

"Some years ago I bought a Microsoft simulator, played with it a while
and
relegated it to a young friend. I'll say this - I wish I had this when
I
first started chasing instruments for certification"

"Don't know the present reality status of top line simulaters, but
recovery
from unusual attitudes involves more than just manipulating the
controls.
How one reacts psycologically to suddenly looking straight at the
ground, or
the sudden appearence of the inverted treeline is a big factor"

"Unless convinced otherwise, I can't see pilots EVER stepping directly
from a
sim into the left seat."

[Peter Dohm]

"Stephen!" > wrote in message
...
> " > wrote in news:e8f2d96c-76dd-474f-
> :
>
>> You are a bunch of bunk if you think someone without REAL WORLD flight
>> experience can get into a Frasca non motion simulator, work it for 5
>> hours, walk out to the ramp and PROFICIENTLY go fly a REAL helicoptor
>> WITHOUT any type of real world flying experiences experiencing the
>> sensation of flight. Operative word is PROFICIENT.
>
> You seem to be the only one using that word. Quit trying to stuff it
> into my mouth. I never once said I was proficient. Now... Admit you
> were
> wrong and get on with the rest of your life.
>
>
>
>> Next think I bet you will say is that you can conduct flight in IMC in
>> the real world based on MSFS experiences and no real world flight
>> experience.
>
> *YOU* are the only one that keeps trying to drag MSFS into this. Again,
> admit you were wrong and quit making yourself look like an idiot.
>
>
> --
> RCOS #7
> IBA# 11465
> http://imagesdesavions.com

Oh, Please!!

The only reason that anyone is dragging MSFS into this, or anything even
remotely related to aviation, is the existence (and persistence) of another
frequent contributor who asserts that MSFS is the same as realtity--only
better--which is about as stupid as saying that reality is a crutch for
people who can't handle drugs.

Any, and all, of us could go on and on; but I'm sure that you get the idea.

In any case, the Frasca sim is a lot of steps above MSFS, and I've been
offered a couple of hours in one configured as a Cessna 172--and I plan to
make good use of it!

All the best,
Peter

[Peter Dohm]

"Stephen!" > wrote in message
...
> " > wrote in news:ffbf8848-5a20-47b6-
> :
>
>>
>> You are just like Mx.
>>
>
>
> Do go find somewhere to **** off, retard.
>
>
> --
> RCOS #7
> IBA# 11465
> http://imagesdesavions.com

I appologize to one and all, for failing to read to the end of the thread
before responding.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote

> Oh, Please!!
>
> The only reason that anyone is dragging MSFS into this, or anything even
> remotely related to aviation, is the existence (and persistence) of
> another frequent contributor who asserts that MSFS is the same as
> realtity--only better--which is about as stupid as saying that reality is
> a crutch for people who can't handle drugs.
>
Exactly my point. I was relatively sure that the simulator in question was
well above MSFS, but at the time I didn't know what the simulator type was
that had been used.
--
Jim in NC

[a[_3_]]

On Jun 5, 11:39*pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote
>
> > Oh, Please!!
>
> > The only reason that anyone is dragging MSFS into this, or anything even
> > remotely related to aviation, is the existence (and persistence) of
> > another frequent contributor who asserts that MSFS is the same as
> > realtity--only better--which is about as stupid as saying that reality is
> > a crutch for people who can't handle drugs.
>
> Exactly my point. *I was relatively sure that the simulator in question was
> well above MSFS, but at the time I didn't know what the simulator type was
> that had been used.
> --
> Jim in NC

There's another component to this sim question. I think pilots often
use them, including MSFS, for training purposes -- beyond the edge of
the envelop kinds of things, or as a way of gaining an initial
familiarization with an airplane's panel. My pilot friends and I have
coined a phrase when one of us updates our instrumentation -- "Panel
Envy" -- and it might actually be good to test fly a new gadget in a
sim if you can't get behind a real one in an airplane.

Our resident most frequent poster has written about sitting at his
desk as PIC watching an entire flight simulated under automatic/
autopilot control, for God's sake. It can't be true, but I seem to
remember him writing about enduring gate holds or traffic delays too.
I'd find simming an entire flight mind numbing, but he in a recent
thread talked about doing it from before start check list and "Clear"
to tie down. That experience makes him, he has claimed, something of
an expert. I am reminded of the definition of 'expert', one has to
take the word apart to understand it. An Ex is a has been, and a spurt
is a drip under pressure. He's not an Ex, he's a 'never was'. Worse
than that, the attitude most of us perceive turned many against sims
in general, as evidenced in other threads here.

If you've read other of my comments, this may make you smile. It's VFR
here, but I think we'll go flying anyway.

[Mxsmanic]

a writes:

> Our resident most frequent poster has written about sitting at his
> desk as PIC watching an entire flight simulated under automatic/
> autopilot control, for God's sake.

I don't know of any aircraft that allows for fully automated flight from
takeoff to landing, although some modern transport-category aircraft can come
close, and the concept was successfully demonstrated decades ago. Even in
MSFS, you cannot carry out an entire flight on autopilot or under FMS control
(since you can't do it in real life).

> It can't be true, but I seem to remember him writing about enduring
> gate holds or traffic delays too.

That is possible when flying on VATSIM with MSFS. As far as I know, the
built-in ATC won't do this.

> I'd find simming an entire flight mind numbing, but he in a recent
> thread talked about doing it from before start check list and "Clear"
> to tie down.

Flying for hours in a real aircraft can be mind-numbing, too, just like
driving down a highway for hours at a time.

The advantage of a simulator is that you can skip the parts of real flight
that you don't like, as long as you don't mind the nominal loss of realism.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 6, 9:17*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Flying for hours in a real aircraft can be mind-numbing, too, just like
> driving down a highway for hours at a time.

What experiences do you have to support this IN THE REAL WORLD OF
FLYING????? Let me guess, it's zero.

Much to your chagrin, there are plenty of options. But obviously you
have no clue since you only simulate flying on MSFS.

[a[_3_]]

On Jun 6, 12:11*pm, " > wrote:
> On Jun 6, 9:17*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > Flying for hours in a real aircraft can be mind-numbing, too, just like
> > driving down a highway for hours at a time.
>
> What experiences do you have to support this IN THE REAL WORLD OF
> FLYING????? * *Let me guess, it's zero.
>
> Much to your chagrin, there are plenty of options. *But obviously you
> have no clue since you only simulate flying on MSFS.

In most cases, MX's remarks can be dismissed as irrelevant. From time
to time there's a meaningful contribution and sometines errors that
should be pointed out, but for the most part why dignify inane crap
with responses?

[Morgans[_2_]]

"a" > wrote

In most cases, MX's remarks can be dismissed as irrelevant. From time
to time there's a meaningful contribution and sometines errors that
should be pointed out, but for the most part why dignify inane crap
with responses?

But his presence here is always disruptive.

Think of a marriage where one partner ****es off the other 90% of the time.
That partner also does not care if the other is ****ed off, at all.

Does the marriage have a chance of surviving? No way. The only way for it
to work is for one to leave, for good.

Same thing with MX being here. The only way the group will not continue to
suck eggs is for him to be ignored all of the time. It does not matter if
he is right 10% of the time. He is disruptive and needs to go.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

Morgans > wrote:
>
> "a" > wrote
>
> In most cases, MX's remarks can be dismissed as irrelevant. From time
> to time there's a meaningful contribution and sometines errors that
> should be pointed out, but for the most part why dignify inane crap
> with responses?
>
> But his presence here is always disruptive.
>
> Think of a marriage where one partner ****es off the other 90% of the time.
> That partner also does not care if the other is ****ed off, at all.
>
> Does the marriage have a chance of surviving? No way. The only way for it
> to work is for one to leave, for good.
>
> Same thing with MX being here. The only way the group will not continue to
> suck eggs is for him to be ignored all of the time. It does not matter if
> he is right 10% of the time. He is disruptive and needs to go.

Since there is nothing that forces anyone to read any article or thread
posted to USENET, I find the use of the word "disruptive" to be a bit
strange.

Any article, thread, or poster can be ignored.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Peter Dohm]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "a" > wrote
>
> In most cases, MX's remarks can be dismissed as irrelevant. From time
> to time there's a meaningful contribution and sometines errors that
> should be pointed out, but for the most part why dignify inane crap
> with responses?
>
> But his presence here is always disruptive.
>
> Think of a marriage where one partner ****es off the other 90% of the
> time. That partner also does not care if the other is ****ed off, at all.
>
> Does the marriage have a chance of surviving? No way. The only way for
> it to work is for one to leave, for good.
>
> Same thing with MX being here. The only way the group will not continue
> to suck eggs is for him to be ignored all of the time. It does not matter
> if he is right 10% of the time. He is disruptive and needs to go.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
Well said.