Why don't voice radio communications use FM?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> FM offers better quality that AM when signal is relatively strong (or
> signal to noise ratio is high). As the signal strength decreases, there
> is a point when the quality is identical in both cases and then the
> quality of FM deteriorates _rapidly_, while AM is still usable.
> So, it might be a safety issue - using FM would effectively filter out
> the weakest stations that could be heard if AM was used.

Under what conditions would you need to hear really weak AM stations?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Emily[_1_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>> FM offers better quality that AM when signal is relatively strong (or
>> signal to noise ratio is high). As the signal strength decreases, there
>> is a point when the quality is identical in both cases and then the
>> quality of FM deteriorates _rapidly_, while AM is still usable.
>> So, it might be a safety issue - using FM would effectively filter out
>> the weakest stations that could be heard if AM was used.
>
> Under what conditions would you need to hear really weak AM stations?
>
Do you know what an NDB is?

[[email protected]]

> > So, it might be a safety issue - using FM would effectively filter out
> > the weakest stations that could be heard if AM was used.
> Under what conditions would you need to hear really weak AM stations?

Let me think. If my radio died and all I had was a handheld I would
really want to be heard... even with this tiny antenna.

Mind you, this is just a theory. Most of my time in the air (and 100%
of my solo time) was in gliders with no radio at all. I just happen to
know a bit about the technical side of radio :-)

Bartek

[Roger (K8RI)]

On 8 Sep 2006 12:58:47 -0700, wrote:

>Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Perhaps this is a naive question, but: Why don't voice radio
>> communications for aviation use FM radio instead of AM radio?
>
>FM offers better quality that AM when signal is relatively strong (or
>signal to noise ratio is high). As the signal strength decreases, there

For voice communications you want the frequency response narrow.
Probably from a low of 200 or 300 HZ to a high or 2500 or 3,000 Hz.
This is where the majority of the intelligence is located. So,
communications is definitely not hi-fi. Keeping the signal narrow also
improves the signal to noise ratio.

>is a point when the quality is identical in both cases and then the
>quality of FM deteriorates _rapidly_, while AM is still usable.
>So, it might be a safety issue - using FM would effectively filter out
>the weakest stations that could be heard if AM was used. Just a theory
>;-)

There is also "capture ratio" or the ratio of signal strengths where
both of two stations transmitting can be heard. Not understood, but
heard. With AM this is about 12:1 and with FM about 2:1. (Jim, did I
get those ratios correct?) The means the weaker station is completely
gone in FM where in AM the tower would know the other station was
stepped on. With FM, if the stronger station starts first and talks
as long or slightly longer than the weaker station there will be no
indication the weaker one even transmitted.


>
>Bartek
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Which means that a single break in a single wire disables multiple
> aircraft systems. Brilliant.

Versus a break in a wire causing a spark that could result in a fire?

> I could never find a justification for those home remote control
> systems that used house wiring, and they weren't always reliable,
> anyway.

Completely different scenario... With the home remote control systems,
you're still using the larger diameter 110VAC wiring... There are two many
other things on the line for it to handle signals very well... I've tried
them before and I often has lights that wanted to turn on even if there was
no command initiated to tell them to go on... A properly designed system is
no more complex than the wiring to the headlights of your car... You are
basically operating the equivalent to a relay, except that instead of a
lower amperage current going to the switch, the "switch" sends a message to
the light in a particular format to tell it to go on...

[Mxsmanic]

"Grumman-581" > writes:

> Versus a break in a wire causing a spark that could result in a fire?

Anything that carries electricity can create sparks, even at low
voltages. And you can use low-voltage for control systems even
without TCP/IP.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Emily writes:

> Do you know what an NDB is?

Yes. How many commercial flights use NDB routing today? And who
suggested using FM for an NDB?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Let me think. If my radio died and all I had was a handheld I would
> really want to be heard... even with this tiny antenna.

Then use AM on your handheld.

> Mind you, this is just a theory. Most of my time in the air (and 100%
> of my solo time) was in gliders with no radio at all.

I was wondering about gliders not long ago. I take it they don't have
radios? Wouldn't it be safer to have a radio powered by a battery or
something, just in case? Radios can be made very light so weight
would not be an issue.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Roger (K8RI) writes:

> For voice communications you want the frequency response narrow.
> Probably from a low of 200 or 300 HZ to a high or 2500 or 3,000 Hz.
> This is where the majority of the intelligence is located.

You need up to 7 KHz or so for sibilants and some other phonological
features which are occasionally phonemic. This high-end response
makes it possible to distinguish between 'f' and 's' in
communications.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> How about VOR ID's, RCO's, distant TWEBs and FSS stations?

For automated signals (not voice), distance is important. For voice,
I'm not sure that distance matters that much, since if they are far
enough away to be hard to hear, they are probably not an immediate
hazard, and controllers have facilities that provide adequate coverage
for the area that they control.

> Do you fly?

As a pilot, only in simulation. As a passenger, only when absolutely
necessary.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Dave Stadt]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>B A R R Y writes:
>
>> How about VOR ID's, RCO's, distant TWEBs and FSS stations?
>
> For automated signals (not voice), distance is important. For voice,
> I'm not sure that distance matters that much, since if they are far
> enough away to be hard to hear, they are probably not an immediate
> hazard, and controllers have facilities that provide adequate coverage
> for the area that they control.

I believe the Clue stores are open this weekend. You would benefit from a
visit and a purchase.

>
>> Do you fly?
>
> As a pilot, only in simulation. As a passenger, only when absolutely
> necessary.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> I take it they don't have
> radios?
>

You take wrongly.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> As a passenger, only when absolutely
> necessary.
>

Why? It's one of the safest modes of transportation. Do you drive?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Stefan]

Thomas Borchert schrieb:

>> As a passenger, only when absolutely
>> necessary.

> Why? It's one of the safest modes of transportation.

Are you kidding? With all those garbled communications over AM?

Stefan

[[email protected]]

> > Let me think. If my radio died and all I had was a handheld I would
> > really want to be heard... even with this tiny antenna.
> Then use AM on your handheld.

That would be pointless if FM was a standard, wouldn't it ?

> I was wondering about gliders not long ago. I take it they don't have
> radios?

I flew in two clubs. In one radios were the norm and downwind calls
were expected. In the other one, most (if not all) training gliders had
no radios at all.

Bartek

[Stefan]

Mxsmanic schrieb:

> I was wondering about gliders not long ago. I take it they don't have
> radios? Wouldn't it be safer to have a radio powered by a battery or
> something, just in case? Radios can be made very light so weight
> would not be an issue.

Not only would it be safer, but much more convenient, too. That's why
pretty much all gliders actually *do* have radios. Along with GPS
navigation, speed optimizing and glide range computers and a couple more
of such gadgets.

You should *really* get some basic knowledge before commenting.

Stefan

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> That would be pointless if FM was a standard, wouldn't it ?

It depends on who is at the other end.

> I flew in two clubs. In one radios were the norm and downwind calls
> were expected. In the other one, most (if not all) training gliders had
> no radios at all.

Do gliders get any special consideration from ATC, given that they are
unpowered aircraft?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> Sorry, but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The
> ability to pull in a signal is important enough that radios
> incorporate a squelch defeat feature to open the squelch all the way.

That is common for all sorts of radios.

> If you ever decide to learn to fly an actual airplane, which is much
> more fun than any simulation, you'd see what I mean.

I prefer simulation, for a number of reasons.

> Real flying is fantastic, exponentially better than simulations (real
> is better than virtual in everything I've ever done), so I genuinely hope
> that you will!

The parts of flying that I like can be mostly simulated with 100%
accuracy, at much lower cost and much higher convenience than a real
aircraft. For example, I like to fly IFR, and I scarcely need a real
aircraft for that; even a full-motion simulator isn't required,
although it would be nice.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Why? It's one of the safest modes of transportation.

It's also the most frustrating. Hours to get to the airport, hours to
get past the paranoia of incompetent security staff, another hour to
get aboard, another hour waiting to leave the gate, a short period in
the air with tons of traffic all around, above, and below you, and
then another couple of hours at the other end.

All of this is avoided in simulation. You start the engines and go.
When you are done, you stop.

> Do you drive?

Not if I can avoid it. I exhausted the novelty of driving years ago,
and most real-world driving today involves frustrations of its own.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Stefan writes:

> Are you kidding? With all those garbled communications over AM?

That's only the tip of the iceberg. The skies are mighty crowded
today, and that's my biggest source of worry. The practical logistics
of travelling on commercial flights as a passenger make it a very
unpleasant ordeal nowadays. Flying as a pilot is not very practical,
as it costs thousands of dollars to get a license and thousands of
dollars to fly, and that's only if you are satisfied with little
tin-can private aircraft. If you want to fly multiengine jets, you
need to pony up seven figures as a bare minimum. If you want to fly
military aircraft, you're out of luck unless you started at age 20 and
spent years in the service, and even then it's hard to get into that
position.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> As someone who's done both, I totally disagree about 100% accuracy of
> simulators ...

I said "the parts of flying I like," not "everything."

> ... outside of the $50+ million dollar jobbies used in
> professional training.

I would like to have one of those.

> Even the best PC based simulators are simply games.

No more so than the best $50-million simulators. The "games" on PCs
are better than the very best simulators available not so many years
ago.

> I'm truly sorry that you don't realize what you're missing.

I realize what I'm missing, and it doesn't justify the time or money
that would be required to enjoy it. As I've said, a simulator can
provide most of what I like about aviation. Of course, the better the
simulator, the more fun it is, although there is a point of
diminishing returns where it becomes just as awkward as a real
aircraft in terms of time and money.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> As a pilot, only in simulation. As a passenger, only when absolutely
> necessary.

In other words, because magnetic navigation is too difficult for you to
understand, you expect the rest of us to accomodate you... Did you perhaps
used to be a WebTV user?

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> The parts of flying that I like can be mostly simulated with 100%
> accuracy, at much lower cost and much higher convenience than a real
> aircraft. For example, I like to fly IFR, and I scarcely need a real
> aircraft for that; even a full-motion simulator isn't required,
> although it would be nice.

And how many times have you crashed your little simulator game? Guess
what... You don't usually get multiple attempts at life when you're flying a
REAL aircraft...

[Dave Stadt]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>B A R R Y writes:
>
>> Sorry, but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The
>> ability to pull in a signal is important enough that radios
>> incorporate a squelch defeat feature to open the squelch all the way.
>
> That is common for all sorts of radios.
>
>> If you ever decide to learn to fly an actual airplane, which is much
>> more fun than any simulation, you'd see what I mean.
>
> I prefer simulation, for a number of reasons.
>
>> Real flying is fantastic, exponentially better than simulations (real
>> is better than virtual in everything I've ever done), so I genuinely hope
>> that you will!
>
> The parts of flying that I like can be mostly simulated with 100%
> accuracy, at much lower cost and much higher convenience than a real
> aircraft. For example, I like to fly IFR, and I scarcely need a real
> aircraft for that; even a full-motion simulator isn't required,
> although it would be nice.

The only way to fly IFR or VFRfor hat matter is in an airplane. You are
simulating IFR, you are not by the longest stretch of the imagination flying
IFR.

[Mxsmanic]

"Grumman-581" > writes:

> And how many times have you crashed your little simulator game?

Occasionally.

> Guess what... You don't usually get multiple attempts at life when
> you're flying a REAL aircraft...

That's one reason why I don't fly real aircraft.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Stadt writes:

> The only way to fly IFR or VFRfor hat matter is in an airplane. You are
> simulating IFR, you are not by the longest stretch of the imagination flying
> IFR.

The I in IFR stands for instruments. You fly just by reading
instruments. In fact, using a simulator that has no motion or scenery
is a good test for IFR flight; if you can't fly without feeling
movement or looking out the window, you don't know how to fly IFR.

The deficiencies of most popular simulation programs are in their lack
of "feel," and to a lesser extent in many of the compromises made for
practical and other reasons. However, instrument flight is something
that MSFS does particularly well.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

"Grumman-581" > writes:

> In other words, because magnetic navigation is too difficult for you to
> understand, you expect the rest of us to accomodate you ...

No, I understand magnetic navigation very easily; I just find it a bit
anachronistic.

> Did you perhaps used to be a WebTV user?

No.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Dave Stadt]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Stadt writes:
>
>> The only way to fly IFR or VFRfor hat matter is in an airplane. You are
>> simulating IFR, you are not by the longest stretch of the imagination
>> flying
>> IFR.
>
> The I in IFR stands for instruments. You fly just by reading
> instruments. In fact, using a simulator that has no motion or scenery
> is a good test for IFR flight; if you can't fly without feeling
> movement or looking out the window, you don't know how to fly IFR.

Thanks for providing that information. Guess I'll sell the airplane and go
play with my simulator.

> The deficiencies of most popular simulation programs are in their lack
> of "feel," and to a lesser extent in many of the compromises made for
> practical and other reasons. However, instrument flight is something
> that MSFS does particularly well.

Believe what you want but MSFS is a toy and nothing more.

> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 17:03:04 +0200, Stefan >
wrote:

>Mxsmanic schrieb:
>
>> I was wondering about gliders not long ago. I take it they don't have
>> radios? Wouldn't it be safer to have a radio powered by a battery or
>> something, just in case? Radios can be made very light so weight
>> would not be an issue.
>
>Not only would it be safer, but much more convenient, too. That's why
>pretty much all gliders actually *do* have radios. Along with GPS
>navigation, speed optimizing and glide range computers and a couple more
>of such gadgets.
>
>You should *really* get some basic knowledge before commenting.
>

What ever happened to the old distinction that was made between
Gliders and Sail planes?


>Stefan
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Dan Luke]

"Mxsmanic" wrote:

>> The only way to fly IFR or VFRfor hat matter is in an airplane. You are
>> simulating IFR, you are not by the longest stretch of the imagination
>> flying
>> IFR.
>
> The I in IFR stands for instruments. You fly just by reading
> instruments. In fact, using a simulator that has no motion or scenery
> is a good test for IFR flight; if you can't fly without feeling
> movement or looking out the window, you don't know how to fly IFR.

Another item added to the long list of things about which you have opinions
but almost no knowledge.

Do you have a job after school?

--
Dan

"Did you just have a stroke and not tell me?"
- Jiminy Glick

[Jose[_1_]]

> What ever happened to the old distinction that was made between
> Gliders and Sail planes?

What is the distinction?

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Emily[_1_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> "Grumman-581" > writes:
>
>> And how many times have you crashed your little simulator game?
>
> Occasionally.
>
>> Guess what... You don't usually get multiple attempts at life when
>> you're flying a REAL aircraft...
>
> That's one reason why I don't fly real aircraft.
>
And the rest of us are thankful for that.

But I'm curious...what makes you an expert on radio communications when
you don't even fly?

[RK Henry]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 00:40:48 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Dave Stadt writes:
>
>> The only way to fly IFR or VFRfor hat matter is in an airplane. You are
>> simulating IFR, you are not by the longest stretch of the imagination flying
>> IFR.
>
>The I in IFR stands for instruments. You fly just by reading
>instruments. In fact, using a simulator that has no motion or scenery
>is a good test for IFR flight; if you can't fly without feeling
>movement or looking out the window, you don't know how to fly IFR.

No, you can't. Feeling the movement is entirely the point. If you
could fly the airplane by reference to the instruments without feeling
movement, then instrument training would be easy. But it doesn't work
like that in the real world. The airplane inherently imparts
accelerations that are inconsistent with the indications of the
instruments. Part of the training process is learning to ignore the
sensations and trust the instruments. It can be very difficult for the
untrained pilot to make this mental adjustment in the seconds before
making a crater in the ground, which is why getting the training
beforehand is so important.

RK Henry

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 20:15:40 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>B A R R Y writes:
>
>> Sorry, but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The
>> ability to pull in a signal is important enough that radios
>> incorporate a squelch defeat feature to open the squelch all the way.
>
>That is common for all sorts of radios.
>
>> If you ever decide to learn to fly an actual airplane, which is much
>> more fun than any simulation, you'd see what I mean.
>
>I prefer simulation, for a number of reasons.

Simming is enjoyable and I do a fair amount of it as time and other
constraints prevent me from flying as much as I did in the past, or
would prefer to do.

>
>> Real flying is fantastic, exponentially better than simulations (real
>> is better than virtual in everything I've ever done), so I genuinely hope
>> that you will!
>
>The parts of flying that I like can be mostly simulated with 100%
>accuracy, at much lower cost and much higher convenience than a real
>aircraft. For example, I like to fly IFR, and I scarcely need a real
>aircraft for that; even a full-motion simulator isn't required,

Although the sim can do a very nice job of ... well... simulating an
IFR cross country and even approach there are a number of things
missing, part of which are psychological and part physical. I love
rolling into a steep turn and feeling 2Gs pulling me down. I love
doing a loop (not in the Deb) while maintaining positive G forces all
the way around. It's almost as if the earth makes a loop around me.

I have a great respect for the airplane, the weather, ATC, and a
certain amount of unpredictability in all. I've had ATC give me a
vector for traffic avoidance and then forget me. I've had them clear
me for a circle to land right in front of departing traffic, and I've
had them tell me to follow the plane ahead when I couldn't see the
wingtips on the Deb. I've also flown directly over automated stations
reporting clear and I was in solid IMC.

It's difficult to describe the feeling of breaking out of the clouds
just above MDA in rain to find the runway right where the instruments
said it would be after a long cross country. The knowledge that if
the runway isn't visible at the MAP I will have to "go around" and
either try again, or go to some other airport is a part of the
challenge I find exhilarating.

Also IRL (for those who don't sim that is sim language for "In real
life") ATC makes mistakes, pilots make mistakes and it's up to you to
maintain situational awareness. You have to know if what ATC just told
you is correct, or what you just told ATC is going to tell them what
they want and need to know.

I love flying VFR on clear days when it seems you can see forever, but
those days are rare here in the central Great Lakes. One of the most
beautiful trips I ever took was IFR where I ended up between layers.
It looked like a scene out of a sci-fi movie with the clouds above and
below tied together with randomly spaced columns of cloud, Then there
were the random small clouds floating around while the whole scene was
lit with a fluorescent green light.

>although it would be nice.

I guess the easiest way to sum it up: I like siming, but I love flying
IRL.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 20:20:42 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote in >:

> If you want to fly military aircraft, you're out of luck
> unless you started at age 20 and ...

Not really:

http://www.combataircraft.com/aircraft/tl39.aspx
Designed and built by Aero Vodochody in Czechoslovakia, the L-39C
is a tandem-seat, single engine jet warbird, originally designed
to be a pilot trainer. The L-39 Albatros has been flown by
numerous Eastern European air forces since 1974. Many L-39s are
now owned privately throughout the world. The L-39 is considered
to be one of the most popular jet warbirds in the world.


http://aviasales.com/
General information about L-39 Albatross aircraft
Basic and advanced trainer, the largest jet training fleet around
the world in service. Manufactured byAero Vodochody, Czech
Republic.

L-39 main features:

Excellent handling characteristics within the whole flight
envelope
Operation capability on grass strips and semi-prepared airstrips
Excellent visibility from both cockpits
Easy to maintain and service
Low operational cost
High reliability
Model L-39C is best for basic and advanced jet training

The practical suitability of L-39 aircraft for training tasks is
demonstrated daily in military service of more than 30 Air Forces
in Europe, Asia, Africa and America. The entire L-39 fleet,
covering more than 2,800 delivered L-39 aircraft worldwide, has
accumulated over 4,000,000 flying hours.

Information from official Aero Vodochody web site



Aircrafts for sale

1981, L-39C Albatros, 132131 for information about the price
please contact us
view detailed information >>


1981, L-39C Albatros, 132019 for information about the price
please contact us

This is a nice L-39C Albatross aircraft. It was manufactured in
1981, and was used by Ukrainian army as a trainer. It was well
maintained by military personel, which were trained by manufactured.

view detailed information >>


1982, L-39C Albatros, 232208 for information about the price
please contact us

S O L D

on 07/28/06
Delivered to USA 06/12/06

This is a nice L-39C Albatross aircraft. It was manufactured in
1982, and was used by Ukrainian army as a trainer. It was well
maintained by military personel, which were trained by manufactured.

view detailed information >>


1982, L-39C Albatros, 232201 for information about the price
please contact us

This is a nice L-39C Albatross aircraft. It was manufactured in
1982, and was used by Ukrainian army as a trainer. It was well
maintained by military personel, which were trained by manufactured.

view detailed information >>

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> Low operational cost

Compared to other military jet aircraft... Assuming $3 per gallon for Jet-A,
you're probably looking at a best economical fuel consumption of about $1
per nm... 130 gph at 360 kts at 25K ft, for what I understand... Damn, that
even makes my pickup's fuel consumption look good... <grin>

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> The I in IFR stands for instruments. You fly just by reading
> instruments. In fact, using a simulator that has no motion or scenery
> is a good test for IFR flight; if you can't fly without feeling
> movement or looking out the window, you don't know how to fly IFR.

No, real instrument flying is learning to believe what the instruments are
telling you even though your body is telling you something completely
different... I remember in one of my first instrument lessons (in actual
solid IMC) that even though I had the instruments perfectly centered for
straight and level flight, my butt was telling that I was in a turn... If I
had followed my feelings, I would have probably ended up in a descending
spiral...

[Emily[_1_]]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The I in IFR stands for instruments. You fly just by reading
>> instruments. In fact, using a simulator that has no motion or scenery
>> is a good test for IFR flight; if you can't fly without feeling
>> movement or looking out the window, you don't know how to fly IFR.
>
> No, real instrument flying is learning to believe what the instruments are
> telling you even though your body is telling you something completely
> different... I remember in one of my first instrument lessons (in actual
> solid IMC) that even though I had the instruments perfectly centered for
> straight and level flight, my butt was telling that I was in a turn... If I
> had followed my feelings, I would have probably ended up in a descending
> spiral...
>
>
Are you really wasting energy trying to explain this to him?

[Mxsmanic]

Emily writes:

> But I'm curious...what makes you an expert on radio communications when
> you don't even fly?

Nothing. Who has called me an expert?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> You're not "flying". You're playing a computer game.

It's odd how many real pilots become soaked with sweat while playing
such computer "games."

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Stadt writes:

> Thanks for providing that information. Guess I'll sell the airplane and go
> play with my simulator.

It's a personal choice, and a matter of economics. If you have lots
of money and time, being a real pilot becomes more practical, if that
interests you.

> Believe what you want but MSFS is a toy and nothing more.

Believe what you want, but MSFS is a simulator.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

RK Henry writes:

> No, you can't. Feeling the movement is entirely the point.

That's a matter of individual preference. For instrument flight,
feeling the movement is not only unnecessary, but potentially
hazardous, if it distracts attention from what the instruments are
saying.

> If you could fly the airplane by reference to the instruments
> without feeling movement, then instrument training would be easy.

It is.

> But it doesn't work like that in the real world. The airplane
> inherently imparts accelerations that are inconsistent with the
> indications of the instruments.

Which ones?

> Part of the training process is learning to ignore the
> sensations and trust the instruments.

That rather conflicts with the preceding statement, doesn't it? If
the instruments don't accurately indicate accelerations, why trust
them?

> It can be very difficult for the untrained pilot to make this
> mental adjustment in the seconds before making a crater in the
> ground, which is why getting the training beforehand is so important.

Like I said, the idea is to trust the instruments.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

"Grumman-581" > writes:

> No, real instrument flying is learning to believe what the instruments are
> telling you even though your body is telling you something completely
> different... I remember in one of my first instrument lessons (in actual
> solid IMC) that even though I had the instruments perfectly centered for
> straight and level flight, my butt was telling that I was in a turn... If I
> had followed my feelings, I would have probably ended up in a descending
> spiral...

The opposite can also happen. I have heard that people who have spent
years in simulation and then decide to go for a pilot's license tend
to spend too much time watching the instruments (although that depends
to some extent on what type of simulation they've been doing).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Roger (K8RI) writes:

> Although the sim can do a very nice job of ... well... simulating an
> IFR cross country and even approach there are a number of things
> missing, part of which are psychological and part physical. I love
> rolling into a steep turn and feeling 2Gs pulling me down.

I can understand that, but I usually hate strong physical sensations,
so it probably would not please me at all. I stay off
roller-coasters, for example.

> I love doing a loop (not in the Deb) while maintaining positive G forces all
> the way around. It's almost as if the earth makes a loop around me.

That is definitely not on my list of desired experiences--although
I've done it in simulation (while watching from a safe distance).

> I have a great respect for the airplane, the weather, ATC, and a
> certain amount of unpredictability in all. I've had ATC give me a
> vector for traffic avoidance and then forget me. I've had them clear
> me for a circle to land right in front of departing traffic, and I've
> had them tell me to follow the plane ahead when I couldn't see the
> wingtips on the Deb. I've also flown directly over automated stations
> reporting clear and I was in solid IMC.

That's another reason why I don't feel a need for real-world flight.
Too much room for human error (besides my own).

> It's difficult to describe the feeling of breaking out of the clouds
> just above MDA in rain to find the runway right where the instruments
> said it would be after a long cross country.

That much can be largely simulated, and I like that experience.
Sometimes I fly for hours in zero visibility, just to see if the
instruments can be trusted, and they always can. If I'm not where I
expect, I did something wrong.

Of course, my life is not at stake in a simulator, but I don't need
that kind of risk to make the experience enjoyable.

> The knowledge that if
> the runway isn't visible at the MAP I will have to "go around" and
> either try again, or go to some other airport is a part of the
> challenge I find exhilarating.

Which is good, because you cannot simply stop the simulation if you
are landing for real. Even if you are tired or frustrated or not
feeling well.

> Also IRL (for those who don't sim that is sim language for "In real
> life") ATC makes mistakes, pilots make mistakes and it's up to you to
> maintain situational awareness. You have to know if what ATC just told
> you is correct, or what you just told ATC is going to tell them what
> they want and need to know.

ATC makes mistakes in simulation, but it's a bug in the software, not
a simulation of the real world, so you have to try to ignore it. It
seems like every other aircraft is told to "go around" in MSFS, but I
doubt that ATC would be that careless in real life.

> I love flying VFR on clear days when it seems you can see forever, but
> those days are rare here in the central Great Lakes. One of the most
> beautiful trips I ever took was IFR where I ended up between layers.
> It looked like a scene out of a sci-fi movie with the clouds above and
> below tied together with randomly spaced columns of cloud, Then there
> were the random small clouds floating around while the whole scene was
> lit with a fluorescent green light.

Some scenes are interesting to see. Recent versions of simulators
have become very good at producing convincing skies and weather. In
some cases, the sim sky can easily be mistaken for the real thing.
The same cannot be said of ground detail, which is manifestly computer
generated on close examination (photo realism is possible but
expensive, and it's not really necessary for most sim applications).

> I guess the easiest way to sum it up: I like siming, but I love flying
> IRL.

You must be independently wealthy and retired if you can actually
afford to fly in real life. And even then, it's unlikely that you
have your own 737 that you can fly around whenever you're in the mood.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Larry Dighera writes:

> > If you want to fly military aircraft, you're out of luck
> > unless you started at age 20 and ...
>
> Not really ...

I was thinking mainly of state-of-the-art fighters and bombers, or
other expensive and sensitive aircraft.

I've been told by several military pilots that they really like
trainers, though, and would choose those for their personal aircraft
if they could.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> Explain how you can tell the difference on the telephone.

The telephone is often better than 4 kHz, and you can also infer from
surrounding sounds; sick is a word, but fick is not. If it's only 4
kHz, there are some sounds that you won't hear, period.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> > If you could fly the airplane by reference to the instruments
> > without feeling movement, then instrument training would be easy.
>
> It is.
>

Listen. For the past week or so people have constantly tried to tell
you that you might want to be more careful talking about things you
have no clue about. Why don't you take a hint?

How dare you judge how difficult instrument training is right after
having explained that you have never flown?

You must be truly dense.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> It's also the most frustrating. Hours to get to the airport, hours to
> get past the paranoia of incompetent security staff, another hour to
> get aboard, another hour waiting to leave the gate, a short period in
> the air with tons of traffic all around, above, and below you, and
> then another couple of hours at the other end.

Coudln't agree less. If, after that "short period in the air", I arrive
6000 miles from where I usually live, the exitment is all worth it. But
I take it you're not much into real life.

> All of this is avoided in simulation. You start the engines and go.
> When you are done, you stop.

What's simulation got to do with flying?

> > Do you drive?
>
> Not if I can avoid it.

Well, what can I say. You live a weird life.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> You must be independently wealthy and retired if you can actually
> afford to fly in real life.
>

That's just more bull****. Try visiting your local airport and have a
look around.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 00:37:41 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> What ever happened to the old distinction that was made between
>> Gliders and Sail planes?
>
>What is the distinction?

Way back and it may have been just here in the states, but gliders
were un powered planes that were towed behind others and then cut
loose to "glide" back to earth as in the troop gliders at Normandy.

Sail planes on the other hand had the ability to "sail" in the air.
They, like sail boats could turn on a dime, and use the wind and
updrafts to their advantage.

IOW sail planes could make use of thermals, and ridge currents to stay
aloft for a long time while gliders could not.,

Some times I still see the distinction made even in news reports, but
to most people sail planes are just gliders. I think it has been a
good 20 to 30 years since that distinction was commonly used. It was
pretty common when I started flying, but that was in 63.



>
>Jose
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 07:24:58 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>B A R R Y writes:
>
>> You're not "flying". You're playing a computer game.
>
>It's odd how many real pilots become soaked with sweat while playing
>such computer "games."

That is because most of us are used to tactile feed back. The
"seat-of-the-pants" feel experienced by most pilots is not there. As
I spend time on both I do notice the difference, but it doesn't bother
me.

The opposite would be to put a low timer in instrument conditions with
light flicker, or turbulence could cause a case of the leans or worse
yet a case of vertigo. Probably the worst is in instrument training
where you are under the hood on nice warm/hot days with lots of
thermals and your VOR approaches are a step down to 500 AGL or ILS
down to 200 AGL. Great way to turn green in a hurry.

Actually you can do the same while simming with three large screens so
you have all the visual cues and no physical. Eyes and sense of
balance don't agree...instant queasy. IMAX theatres are a good
example of this.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 07:28:36 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>RK Henry writes:
>
>> No, you can't. Feeling the movement is entirely the point.
>
>That's a matter of individual preference. For instrument flight,
>feeling the movement is not only unnecessary, but potentially
>hazardous, if it distracts attention from what the instruments are
>saying.
>
>> If you could fly the airplane by reference to the instruments
>> without feeling movement, then instrument training would be easy.
>
>It is.
>
>> But it doesn't work like that in the real world. The airplane
>> inherently imparts accelerations that are inconsistent with the
>> indications of the instruments.

He's correct, particularly in training. You are down low, it's hot,
and you are getting bounced around. Light and shadow play tricks such
as flying through light cumulus. The light flickers and is brighter on
one side than the other. Our minds tell us that brighter is up, but
it's usually off to one side.

I have a great photo that was shot by a friend from the back seat in a
Cherokee 180 when we were IFR in actual IMC. It was a relatively thin
layer of cumulus that wasn't supposed to be there according to the
forecast. At any rate, every one in the plane appears to be leaning
until you look at the AI. The two of us in front are aligned with the
AI while the photographer was the one with the "leans".

>
>Which ones?

AI, TC, and DG. Both light and motion can give inputs to the body
that conflict with any or all of these three instruments. It takes
time, but you, or rather your mind, become acclimated to accepting the
instruments as input rather than the bodily senses as it does when
flying VFR.


>
>> Part of the training process is learning to ignore the
>> sensations and trust the instruments.
>
>That rather conflicts with the preceding statement, doesn't it? If
>the instruments don't accurately indicate accelerations, why trust
>them?

Mainly it's because it's not a just matter of acceleration but the
summation of a multitude of inputs. For instance, I can put a plane
through a barrel roll while holding positive G all the way through. If
a passenger were not looking outside they would never know we had
rolled a complete 360 degrees. Bob Hoover used to do that with a glass
of water setting on the glare shield and the water stayed pretty much
level in the glass even when inverted. I'm not and never will be the
pilot Bob is.

You can also do a loop and maintain positive G all the way around.
What the person will feel is a pull up, a feeling of leveling off
(when inverted) and a feeling of pulling up again as you start down
the back side of the loop.

The really strange part about a loop for some one who gets used to the
motion is it often feels like the earth did a loop around you instead
of you doing a loop above the earth. In the G-III that would be a
maximum of about 4 1/2 Gs when the nose reaches a point about 45
degrees before level flight at the end of the loop.

I used to do a lot of photography. I shot road rallies for several
years and spent some time tied onto a helicopter. The pilot would
bank and use his own down wash to stop and hang there momentarily.
(gun ships do the same). Instead of me feeling like I was tipping
forward it was as if the earth tipped up in front of us.

>
>> It can be very difficult for the untrained pilot to make this
>> mental adjustment in the seconds before making a crater in the
>> ground, which is why getting the training beforehand is so important.
>
>Like I said, the idea is to trust the instruments.

That is extremely difficult to do when your body is telling you
otherwise even when everything in the plane is working right. Add to
that a case of vertigo and your thinking gets stuck in the mud. It
takes a lot of conditioning before your mind is willing to accept the
input from the instruments over what your body is telling you. Add to
that the work load of climbing or descending to the proper altitude
and turning to the proper heading let alone holding heading and
altitude and it can become a high pressure environment at times. Some
never make that transition.

I fly high performance. I've let a lot of other pilots fly the Deb.
It's a rare pilot who has been flying fixed gear planes that wont soon
have the Deb doing 2Gs out of the bottom and zero over the top in a
PIO. They are used to looking at the VSI. That doesn't work in
slippery airplanes. More than one has had me saying to my self: I will
not get sick in my own airplane... I..will.. not...get ... sick...
in... my ... own airrrr...plane....

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 07:37:58 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

<snip>
>> I guess the easiest way to sum it up: I like siming, but I love flying
>> IRL.
>
>You must be independently wealthy and retired if you can actually

No and yes in that order although I started flying many years ago.
Comfortable? Maybe, but my wife and I don't always agree on that.
Wealthy in the monetary sense? No. Retired? Yes.

>afford to fly in real life. And even then, it's unlikely that you
>have your own 737 that you can fly around whenever you're in the mood.

I like something a bit more responsive than a 737<:-))
http://www.rogerhalstead.com/833R/833R_frame.htm

Building something even faster and more responsive.
I tried to hook to www.newglasair.com but it's not responding tonight.

At any rate this is a link to my builders diary.
http://www.rogerhalstead.com/G3_files/GIII_Diary.htm If you go to the
table of contents on my home page there is a non frames version. I
haven't accomplished much on it this summer.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 02:27:37 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 20:20:42 +0200, Mxsmanic >
>wrote in >:
>
>> If you want to fly military aircraft, you're out of luck
>> unless you started at age 20 and ...
>
>Not really:
>
> http://www.combataircraft.com/aircraft/tl39.aspx
> Designed and built by Aero Vodochody in Czechoslovakia, the L-39C
> is a tandem-seat, single engine jet warbird, originally designed
> to be a pilot trainer. The L-39 Albatros has been flown by
> numerous Eastern European air forces since 1974. Many L-39s are
> now owned privately throughout the world. The L-39 is considered
> to be one of the most popular jet warbirds in the world.
>

And to think I almost purchased one of these (relatively low time and
in good shape) plus a brand new spare engine still in the can less
than 10 years ago for about the same price I paid for the Debonair.
THAT would have been a *good* investment!


<snip>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 00:08:22 GMT, B A R R Y
> wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 11:18:14 +0200, Mxsmanic >
>wrote:
>>
>>You need up to 7 KHz or so for sibilants and some other phonological
>>features which are occasionally phonemic. This high-end response
>>makes it possible to distinguish between 'f' and 's' in
>>communications.

Then you won't be able to tell them apart as communications in general
is tailored to operate between 200 to 300 Hz and about 2500 to 3000
Hz. Response is just about nil at 7KHz, but the hearing in my left
ear is down 80 db at 8 KHz. OTOH at a useless 60 Hz its about a plus 8
to 10 db compared to normal. Right one is pretty good. Now if I could
only get rid of the ringing.<:-))

>
>Explain how you can tell the difference on the telephone. I know I
>certainly can,, and multiplexing pretty much limits telephone calls @
>3500 hz.

Telephone is pretty much zip for signal above 3 KHz let alone 3.5.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> > You must be independently wealthy and retired if you can actually
> > afford to fly in real life.
>
> That's just more bull****. Try visiting your local airport and have a
> look around.

Bad advice. He would be a danger to himself and those around him.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Emily[_1_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> B A R R Y writes:
>
>> You're not "flying". You're playing a computer game.
>
> It's odd how many real pilots become soaked with sweat while playing
> such computer "games."
>
Uh, not many. We realize how DRASTICALLY different MSFS and real flying
area.

[Emily[_1_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dave Stadt writes:
>
>> Thanks for providing that information. Guess I'll sell the airplane and go
>> play with my simulator.
>
> It's a personal choice, and a matter of economics. If you have lots
> of money and time, being a real pilot becomes more practical, if that
> interests you.
>
>> Believe what you want but MSFS is a toy and nothing more.
>
> Believe what you want, but MSFS is a simulator.
>
Have you flown a real simulator? Ever? If the answer is no, then
again, you have zero idea what you area talking about.

Do me a favor. Get an instructor and rent an airplane for an hour.
Have him let you fly some holds and approaches under the hood. Then
come back here and post his comments regarding your flying? Please?

[Emily[_1_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> RK Henry writes:
>
>> No, you can't. Feeling the movement is entirely the point.
>
> That's a matter of individual preference. For instrument flight,
> feeling the movement is not only unnecessary, but potentially
> hazardous, if it distracts attention from what the instruments are
> saying.

You still need to feel the movement. The important part is IGNORING it,
something which you would not be able to do with MSFS experience.

[Emily[_1_]]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Mxsmanic,
>
>> It's also the most frustrating. Hours to get to the airport, hours to
>> get past the paranoia of incompetent security staff, another hour to
>> get aboard, another hour waiting to leave the gate, a short period in
>> the air with tons of traffic all around, above, and below you, and
>> then another couple of hours at the other end.
>
> Coudln't agree less. If, after that "short period in the air", I arrive
> 6000 miles from where I usually live, the exitment is all worth it. But
> I take it you're not much into real life.

Actually, I agree with him on the "hours to get past the paranoia of
incompetent security staff". The rest of it is just hyperbole. But are
you really surprised?

[Emily[_1_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> You must be independently wealthy and retired if you can actually
> afford to fly in real life.
Are you really that ignorant? I work full time, and I'm doing ok, but
I'm certainly not wealthy and have no problem flying most times I want
to. Of course, being able to get paid for instructing helps. I
seriously suggest you actually do some research into what you are
talking about, because you're coming off as pretty stupid.

[Thomas Borchert]

Emily,

> Actually, I agree with him on the "hours to get past the paranoia of
> incompetent security staff". The rest of it is just hyperbole. But are
> you really surprised?
>

No, I'm not. Quite a character we caught ourselves here in the group.

Sure, the security is incompetency and paranoia embodied. Would that keep
me from a visit to exciting foreign places? No way! It's called real life -
no sim can beat it ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> You must be independently wealthy and retired if you can actually
> afford to fly in real life.
>

Just for your information, since you mentioned the cost of flying in
another post as well: The certificate will cost you something like 4000
or 5000 dollars spread over 6 months or a year. Does spending that kind
of money over that period of time require wealth and retirement? No, it
requires dedication. Have that?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Emily[_1_]]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Mxsmanic,
>
>> You must be independently wealthy and retired if you can actually
>> afford to fly in real life.
>>
>
> Just for your information, since you mentioned the cost of flying in
> another post as well: The certificate will cost you something like 4000
> or 5000 dollars spread over 6 months or a year. Does spending that kind
> of money over that period of time require wealth and retirement? No, it
> requires dedication. Have that?
>
Just think, he could get rid of his internet access and fly about a half
hour to an hour a month. Worth it to me!

[Dave Stadt]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Stadt writes:
>
>> Thanks for providing that information. Guess I'll sell the airplane and
>> go
>> play with my simulator.
>
> It's a personal choice, and a matter of economics. If you have lots
> of money and time, being a real pilot becomes more practical, if that
> interests you.
>
>> Believe what you want but MSFS is a toy and nothing more.
>
> Believe what you want, but MSFS is a simulator.

Sure it is and I just flew to the moon to get a load of green cheese.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 02:19:25 GMT, Jose >
wrote in >:

>
>"Your call is important to us. Our operators are busy right now giving
>their full attention to other airlines. We will be with you shortly.
>Did you know that you can find most of the information you seek on our
>website? Please log on to www.getlostspamcan.com. In the mean time, we
>hope you enjoy our new rap hold music."


Yeah know, I keep hearing "this call may be recorded for quality
assurance", but the quality is anything but. :-)

[Mxsmanic]

Roger (K8RI) writes:

> That is because most of us are used to tactile feed back.

No, it's because some simulators are so realistic that one forgets
that it's just a simulation. This is most common with full-motion
simulators, but motion is not necessarily required.

> Actually you can do the same while simming with three large screens so
> you have all the visual cues and no physical. Eyes and sense of
> balance don't agree...instant queasy.

From what I've read, queasiness sets in from a variety of causes and
the exact mechanism isn't known. I've never been queasy in
simulations, because the scenery just isn't moving fast enough (and if
it were, that would probably be a bad sign). Playing Doom has
nauseated me on a number of occasions, though, and watching _The Blair
Witch Project_ did the same.

Presumably if you're flying the plane it greatly diminishes the
chances of motion sickness. I think it's the ability to understand
the movement that is more important than the ability to feel it; that
is, if the movement you see or feel corresponds to something your
brain can figure out, you won't get sick.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Emily writes:

> Uh, not many. We realize how DRASTICALLY different MSFS and real flying
> area.

There's more than just MSFS out there. And even MSFS can be
engrossing to a greater extent than you seem willing to admit.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Emily writes:

> Have you flown a real simulator?

Yes.

> Do me a favor. Get an instructor and rent an airplane for an hour.
> Have him let you fly some holds and approaches under the hood.

I can't afford it, unfortunately.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Emily[_1_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Roger (K8RI) writes:
<snip>
>
> Presumably if you're flying the plane it greatly diminishes the
> chances of motion sickness. I think it's the ability to understand
> the movement that is more important than the ability to feel it; that
> is, if the movement you see or feel corresponds to something your
> brain can figure out, you won't get sick.

We aren't talking about motion sickness, we're talking about spatial
disorientation. I've never been motion sick, but I HAVE been
disoriented in night IMC on a missed approach. I promise you many other
pilots are the same way.

The fact is, you really have zero clue what it's really like to fly IFR.
A simulator (which MSFS is not) doesn't come close. Simulators are
good for practicing procedures, but they will not teach you to ignore
the feelings the plane is giving you. I'm asking you again....why don't
you go to an airplane, get an instructor to let you fly under the hood,
and REALLY experience what it's like?

[Emily[_1_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Emily writes:
>
>> Uh, not many. We realize how DRASTICALLY different MSFS and real flying
>> area.
>
> There's more than just MSFS out there. And even MSFS can be
> engrossing to a greater extent than you seem willing to admit.
>
Oh, I'm sorry.

Have you ever been in a full size, full motion, transport catergory
aircraft simulator?

Didn't think so.

[Emily[_1_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Emily writes:
>
>> Have you flown a real simulator?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Do me a favor. Get an instructor and rent an airplane for an hour.
>> Have him let you fly some holds and approaches under the hood.
>
> I can't afford it, unfortunately.
>
Oh, can't afford $150 for an hour of flight time?

Please. Your toy simulator and computer cost way more than that.

[Mxsmanic]

Roger (K8RI) writes:

> I fly high performance. I've let a lot of other pilots fly the Deb.
> It's a rare pilot who has been flying fixed gear planes that wont soon
> have the Deb doing 2Gs out of the bottom and zero over the top in a
> PIO. They are used to looking at the VSI. That doesn't work in
> slippery airplanes. More than one has had me saying to my self: I will
> not get sick in my own airplane... I..will.. not...get ... sick...
> in... my ... own airrrr...plane....

What _do_ you do if you get sick, especially if you are flying on your
own?

Are there instruments that indicate the direction and magnitude of net
accelerations in the aircraft, so that you can visually see if you are
holding 1 G or more in a loop?

Anyway, these accelerations are another reason why I'm not too keen on
flying for real. Some are pleasant enough, such as standard movements
on take-off, but bouncing around in turbulence or certain unexpected
movements of the aircraft are quite unpleasant. I've only been queasy
once on a commercial aircraft, but that was mainly because I was very
tired but could not sleep (as a passenger, obviously). The statistics
I've seen show that less than 0.1% of passengers experience motion
sickness; I don't know what the figure is for pilots.

Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be useful to have a drug that
eliminates all sense of motion for instrument flying. That way you
could watch your instruments without being influenced by what your
semicircular canals are saying.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Emily writes:

> You still need to feel the movement. The important part is IGNORING it,
> something which you would not be able to do with MSFS experience.

Unfortunately, full-motion simulators are expensive (and anyone asking
to use them is likely to be considered a terrorist nowadays).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Roger (K8RI) writes:

> I like something a bit more responsive than a 737<:-))
> http://www.rogerhalstead.com/833R/833R_frame.htm

But I _like_ the response of a 737. It offers challenges of its own.
It's all well and good to have an aircraft that immediately snaps to
whatever orientation you ask of it, but working with one that takes
several seconds to listen to you requires a certain amount of
anticipation.

I don't make any rapid movements in my aircraft, anyway. Proof of
this is that I flew in MSFS for fifteen years with just a keyboard to
control the aircraft.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Just for your information, since you mentioned the cost of flying in
> another post as well: The certificate will cost you something like 4000
> or 5000 dollars spread over 6 months or a year. Does spending that kind
> of money over that period of time require wealth and retirement?

Yes.

> No, it requires dedication. Have that?

I don't know. I have neither time nor money, so there's no point in
examining dedication.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Emily writes:

> Just think, he could get rid of his internet access and fly about a half
> hour to an hour a month. Worth it to me!

Right now I keep my Internet access and I sometimes fly for hours each
day.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Coudln't agree less. If, after that "short period in the air", I arrive
> 6000 miles from where I usually live, the exitment is all worth it.

That isn't going to happen in any aircraft you're likely to be able to
afford, nor even in any aircraft available if we are talking about
60-90 minutes of time in the air.

> But I take it you're not much into real life.

I'm into simulation, which is very faithful to real life in some
respects and completely different from it in others.

> What's simulation got to do with flying?

They both involve many of the same skills, perceptions, and
impressions.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

B A R R Y writes:

> Once fiber to the home becomes a reality, you're guaranteed to not get
> over 3.5k, as the rest of the space will be used for other things, and
> the demultiplexing device won't provide it.

Then you will lose part of speech if it is direct encoding of an audio
signal. With more creative encoding you can fit far better speech
quality into 3.5 kHz.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Roger (K8RI) writes:

> Then you won't be able to tell them apart as communications in general
> is tailored to operate between 200 to 300 Hz and about 2500 to 3000
> Hz.

Yes, and that problem is quite common.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Emily[_1_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Thomas Borchert writes:
<snip>

>
>> What's simulation got to do with flying?
>
> They both involve many of the same skills, perceptions, and
> impressions.
>
Um, no they don't.

And how can you even make such an assessment if you've never flown?

Whatever. I'm done with you. I can only hope everyone else gives up as
well.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 19:44:30 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Roger (K8RI) writes:
>
>> That is because most of us are used to tactile feed back.
>
>No, it's because some simulators are so realistic that one forgets
>that it's just a simulation. This is most common with full-motion
>simulators, but motion is not necessarily required.

Well, two things here. As Emily said, the problem is spatial
disorientation. Nearly all of us get it and having flown even several
thousand hours does not make you immune to it. Those hours do help
acclimate you to it which allows you to deal with it is a safe and
timely manner. Actually spatial disorientation is with us constantly
and the motion is far more important when flying IFR than VFR.

As to the realism. I've had quite a few sims over the years including
two right now that could be used for training IF I had an instructor
and the instructor's console. Even though the publishers have gone to
great lengths to make it to quote MS "As real as it gets", it is still
a long way from feeling real.

You don't get flicker vertigo, or the leans, or even a false horizon
in a sim and those are with us on a day-to-day basis IRL. Make a 360
degree turn to the left and straighten out. The body will immediately
see this as a left turn followed by a right turn and that is a normal
reaction. It *should* do that. Even a slight bank is felt as a turn.
Without visual clues (looking out the window) the body becomes acutely
aware of these sensations. For many pilots it takes many hours before
they can ignore that feeling and follow the instruments. Some never
reach the point of safely handeling them.
>
>> Actually you can do the same while simming with three large screens so
>> you have all the visual cues and no physical. Eyes and sense of
>> balance don't agree...instant queasy.
>
>From what I've read, queasiness sets in from a variety of causes and
>the exact mechanism isn't known. I've never been queasy in

"Primarily" air sickness comes from the mind getting confused due to
conflicting inputs between the eyes and the other senses and
particularly the sense of balance. Some forms are understood. It's
more of a "not all causes of motion sickness are understood" or why
some people are far more sensitive than others.

Spatial disorientation exists across a wide range from a slight
turning sensation to full blown vertigo. The leans which has been
mentioned as being quite common and experienced by most pilots can be
induced from simple variations in light intensity to varying
accelerations through turbulence or just making turns.

Every one should experience the FAA's "vertigo chair". You can do the
same thing in an office chair, but you need a couple of good size
helpers to catch you for safety.

The "vertigo chair" is elegant in its simplicity.

The victim..er subject sets in the chair and is blindfolded. The
subject is to point in the direction they think they are turning. At
this point helpers start turning the chair. The subject immediately
points in the proper direction. The chair is "spun up" to a reasonable
rate, but not what I'd call fast. As the spin reaches a steady state
the subject will indicate the chair is slowing, stopped, and then
rotating in the opposite direction. If you slow the chair they will
indicate it is speeding up in the opposite direction.

The interesting part comes when you hold the steady state long enough
for them to indicate the chair is now stopped. Now comes the need for
those helpers. The chair is stopped quickly and the subject will go
over the arm of the chair even though they'd do nothing more than lean
a little were they not blindfolded. This was the reason for the
helpers. The keep the subject from getting hurt.

>simulations, because the scenery just isn't moving fast enough (and if

Unfortunately it raises the cost considerably, but if you go the route
of multiple monitors with 3 wide screens being best to simulate IRL
VFR your visual senses are properly stimulated. You will find, among
other things due to the added visual realism, you will lean in the
turns and you will feel a sense of light headedness with a push over
after a climb.

>it were, that would probably be a bad sign). Playing Doom has
>nauseated me on a number of occasions, though, and watching _The Blair
>Witch Project_ did the same.

Doom is just fast paced. The Witch Project is similar to flicker
vertigo. Fast switching between scenes and erratic camera motion
produce just too much changing information for the brain to process in
a logical manner, or even keep up. That logical manner is one key
part. The subconscious will always try to make sense out of things
and make order out of disorder. When there is no logical sense, or
order to the input the subconscious will still try to turn that input
into a logical order. If it can't it'll go into overload and nearly
every one can reach the point of overload sooner or later.
Instrument students just starting out tend to be on the sooner
side...*much* sooner<:-))
>
>Presumably if you're flying the plane it greatly diminishes the
>chances of motion sickness. I think it's the ability to understand

To some it do and some it don't. It does for me as I do not ride well.
I can do basic aerobatics with little problem although its been quite
a while. OTOH riding with some one practicing their basic PPL
maneuvers such as steep turns, S-turns, turns around a point, and
stalls can get me a bit queasy in a hurry
..
>the movement that is more important than the ability to feel it; that
>is, if the movement you see or feel corresponds to something your
>brain can figure out, you won't get sick.

I believe that to be true to at least some extent for some of us. I've
been on a commercial flight where it was so rough there were only
about 10 of us who didn't get sick. The guy beside me was reading a
news paper until it got so rough he couldn't keep his place. It didn't
seem to bother him a bit. Man, but I was glad he was the one sitting
next to me and not someone with their head in a bag.

The point is that it's the motion and learning to ignore normal body
reactions in addition to the technical parts that makes instrument
flying difficult. Sims are very good for the technical part, but much
of the reality of real world flight is missing from the best of them.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Casey]

> Whatever. I'm done with you. I can only hope everyone else gives up as
> well.

I had originally consigned the subject line to my kill filters. This
afternoon I was clearing out obsolete filters and came across this.

This has got to have set some sort of record for troll feeding!!

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> > Just for your information, since you mentioned the cost of flying in
> > another post as well: The certificate will cost you something like 4000
> > or 5000 dollars spread over 6 months or a year. Does spending that kind
> > of money over that period of time require wealth and retirement?
>
> Yes.
>

Ok. You got a car? House? Air Condition? PC? All require similar amounts of
money. So you gotta be wealthy.

It would help if at least sometimes you could give the impression to
understand you're wrong. There are plenty of pilots that are anything but
wealthy. They just set their spending priorities different from yours.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> But I _like_ the response of a 737.
>

Uhm, you don't know it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 19:52:40 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Roger (K8RI) writes:
>
>> I fly high performance. I've let a lot of other pilots fly the Deb.
>> It's a rare pilot who has been flying fixed gear planes that wont soon
>> have the Deb doing 2Gs out of the bottom and zero over the top in a
>> PIO. They are used to looking at the VSI. That doesn't work in
>> slippery airplanes. More than one has had me saying to my self: I will
>> not get sick in my own airplane... I..will.. not...get ... sick...
>> in... my ... own airrrr...plane....
>
>What _do_ you do if you get sick, especially if you are flying on your
>own?

You get sick and fly the airplane. My second time in actual which was
bringing the Deb home from Muncie IN. We were in building storms that
hadn't quite turned into thunderstorms...yet. a number of planes were
reporting severe turbulence (bad enough ATC had the altitude alarms
turned off) and torrential rain. At 9000 we were just catching the
bottoms of the clear air spaces between the cumulus for a few seconds
at a time. For an hour and 8 minutes we were anything except straight
and level. Now why would I remember something like that down to the
minute? <:-)) I had vertigo so bad I had to use my finger to point to
each instrument, but it was so rough I kept missing. Then I'd set
there trying to remember which instrument I'd been after. GAWD but I
was sick. My instructor just sat over on the right side with an
occasional finger thump on the yoke to remind me to go up, down,
right, or left. His comment after the flight was the same as your
question.

After about 15 minutes the nausea went away to be replaced by the most
GAWD AFFUL head ache I can remember. An hour and 8 minutes after
entering the crap we popped out the side of a bigggg cumulus with
nothing but clear sky ahead. I turned around and looked up, and up,
and up, then scrunched down in the seat so I could look up even
farther. My remark: "We just came out of that!" Instructor's bored
sounding remark: "Sorta looks that way."
>
>Are there instruments that indicate the direction and magnitude of net
>accelerations in the aircraft, so that you can visually see if you are
>holding 1 G or more in a loop?

Most aerobatic aircraft have a G meter which indicates negative and
positive G but only in the vertical axis of the airplane. Typically
you use the G meter for some maneuver entry forces and to keep from
breaking in the airplane.

>
>Anyway, these accelerations are another reason why I'm not too keen on
>flying for real. Some are pleasant enough, such as standard movements
>on take-off, but bouncing around in turbulence or certain unexpected
>movements of the aircraft are quite unpleasant. I've only been queasy
>once on a commercial aircraft, but that was mainly because I was very
>tired but could not sleep (as a passenger, obviously). The statistics
>I've seen show that less than 0.1% of passengers experience motion
>sickness; I don't know what the figure is for pilots.

I think they were all on the one flight I took. <:-)) It was the 6:30
AM flight out of Denver for Cleveland (737). We hit the jet stream
interface right after breakfast. There were only a couple of empty
seats. Seams like it was only one and all but about 10 of us got sick.

>
>Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be useful to have a drug that
>eliminates all sense of motion for instrument flying. That way you
>could watch your instruments without being influenced by what your
>semicircular canals are saying.

As a pilot you aren't even allowed to take Dramamine. Which after
flying home from Marysville KS my wife marked "That Dramamine is
wonderful stuff!". We took off into winds of 30 G 50 and had over a
100 knot tail wind at 500 feet.RNAV said we were moving 250 but that
was from a VOR about 30 degrees to our left.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Casey]

>>
>>Are there instruments that indicate the direction and magnitude of net
>>accelerations in the aircraft, so that you can visually see if you are
>>holding 1 G or more in a loop?
>

Except to do a symmetrical loop (that is a loop with a more or less
constant radius) the pilot doesn't hold 1G throughout the manuever.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 08:47:16 -0500, Emily >
wrote:

>Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> Mxsmanic,
>>
>>> You must be independently wealthy and retired if you can actually
>>> afford to fly in real life.
>>>
>>
>> Just for your information, since you mentioned the cost of flying in
>> another post as well: The certificate will cost you something like 4000
>> or 5000 dollars spread over 6 months or a year. Does spending that kind
>> of money over that period of time require wealth and retirement? No, it
>> requires dedication. Have that?
>>
>Just think, he could get rid of his internet access and fly about a half
>hour to an hour a month. Worth it to me!

When I had ISDN and then DSL my Internet bill would have paid for a
lot more flying than that and in a high performance retract to boot!
<:-)) OTOH there is a reason I'm flying a 46 year old (as of tomorrow)
airplane. Airworthiness certificate is 9/11/59. TT is still less than
4,000 hours

When I was in college studying CS at age 47 to 50 my phone bill was
close to $300 a month just so I could get my home work done and I
wasn't even on the Internet then although I used to get into the
boards at different colleges.



Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Dave Stadt]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Roger (K8RI) writes:
>
>> I like something a bit more responsive than a 737<:-))
>> http://www.rogerhalstead.com/833R/833R_frame.htm
>
> But I _like_ the response of a 737.

You haven't a clue as to how a 737 or anything else for that matter
responds.

[Dave Stadt]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic,
>
>> > Just for your information, since you mentioned the cost of flying in
>> > another post as well: The certificate will cost you something like 4000
>> > or 5000 dollars spread over 6 months or a year. Does spending that kind
>> > of money over that period of time require wealth and retirement?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>
> Ok. You got a car? House? Air Condition? PC? All require similar amounts
> of
> money. So you gotta be wealthy.

Tricycle is maybe more like it.

> It would help if at least sometimes you could give the impression to
> understand you're wrong. There are plenty of pilots that are anything but
> wealthy. They just set their spending priorities different from yours.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> Coudln't agree less. If, after that "short period in the air", I arrive
>> 6000 miles from where I usually live, the exitment is all worth it.
>
> That isn't going to happen in any aircraft you're likely to be able to
> afford, nor even in any aircraft available if we are talking about
> 60-90 minutes of time in the air.
>
>> But I take it you're not much into real life.
>
> I'm into simulation, which is very faithful to real life in some
> respects and completely different from it in others.

No, you are into MSFS which is a toy.

>> What's simulation got to do with flying?
>
> They both involve many of the same skills, perceptions, and
> impressions.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Jim Logajan]

Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> Just for your information, since you mentioned the cost of flying in
> another post as well: The certificate will cost you something like 4000
> or 5000 dollars spread over 6 months or a year.

That cost sounds a bit low, or maybe I live in the wrong part of the
country. The flying schools say the average student should expect their
training to cost anywhere from $6500 to $9500. Here are their links:

http://www.takewinginc.com/pilot_training/pilot_train.html
http://www.abouttimeaviation.com/rates.html

And wouldn't stretching the training out that much actually work against
getting your certificate at the lowest cost?

[Emily[_1_]]

Jim Logajan wrote:
> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>> Just for your information, since you mentioned the cost of flying in
>> another post as well: The certificate will cost you something like 4000
>> or 5000 dollars spread over 6 months or a year.
>
> That cost sounds a bit low, or maybe I live in the wrong part of the
> country. The flying schools say the average student should expect their
> training to cost anywhere from $6500 to $9500. Here are their links:
>
> http://www.takewinginc.com/pilot_training/pilot_train.html
> http://www.abouttimeaviation.com/rates.html
>
> And wouldn't stretching the training out that much actually work against
> getting your certificate at the lowest cost?

Nah, it took me 9 months to get my private and I paid around $5500.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 21:45:47 GMT, B A R R Y
> wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 17:36:12 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>When I had ISDN and then DSL my Internet bill would have paid for a
>>lot more flying than that and in a high performance retract to boot!
>
>My first dedicated line (non-dial) work at home setup was a 2B+D ISDN
>setup, then an $800/month 4 wire HDSL dedicated T1. The T1 was
>cheaper in actual use!
>
>Now it's a $19.95/month ADSL connection.
>
>The first home router was a $2500+ Cisco bought with a purchase order
>and a Dilbert-ese ordering process. The LAN port was 10 meg, and I
>needed an additional $500 hub to connect more computers.

Five port 100 baseT hub is now about twenty bucks.

> I bought my
>current ADSL router, complete with (4) onboard 100/meg ports for $69

Mine was a tad more than that (but not by much). I'm running a
gigabit network through a five port switch.

>at my local Staples.

Ahhh yes... <:-))

My first computer (OSI C2-8P) with dual 8" floppies is still down in
the basement. Thing cost $4,000 in 1979. I think I could build a state
of the art 64 bit dual core processor, PCI express video, dual 700 Gig
SATA HDs and at least a 20" LCD monitor for half that or less. With
the equivalent of that C2-8P in today's dollars I could build up four
bleeding edge technology machines with multiple monitors and have
money left over.

>
>Ain't technology grand? <G>
>
>Where's my G1000...

Mine's at the dealers where it'll probably stay as I can't justify the
current value of the airplane in new avionics. <sigh>

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Grumman-581[_4_]]

Emily wrote:
> Are you really wasting energy trying to explain this to him?

Yeah, it would seem that I must enjoy ****ing into the wind... Maybe I
have more patience over here on r.a.p... Hell, over on rec.scuba, I
would have probably told him to **** off by now...

[Grumman-581[_4_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Believe what you want, but MSFS is a simulator.

It has it's place, but it's not the real thing... I would have to admit
though, learning how to fly a real plane made me a lot better on
MSFS... Perhaps MSFS could get you a bit familiar with instrument
procedures and as such save a bit of actual aircraft time, but you
still need actual flight time with an instructor to be able to be
competent in actual instrument flight...

[Emily[_1_]]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> Emily wrote:
>> Are you really wasting energy trying to explain this to him?
>
> Yeah, it would seem that I must enjoy ****ing into the wind... Maybe I
> have more patience over here on r.a.p... Hell, over on rec.scuba, I
> would have probably told him to **** off by now...
>
See, I have patience with people who don't know any better, but zero for
people who refuse to learn.

[Grumman-581[_4_]]

Emily wrote:
> Have you ever been in a full size, full motion, transport catergory
> aircraft simulator?

And have you ever had a chance to fly the Space Shuttle simulator and
try to do a loop while coming back out of orbit? Guess what? The
wings rip off... <sheepish-grin>

[Mxsmanic]

Emily writes:

> We aren't talking about motion sickness, we're talking about spatial
> disorientation.

You may be; others are not.

> The fact is, you really have zero clue what it's really like to fly IFR.

I disagree.

> A simulator (which MSFS is not) doesn't come close.

It comes very close indeed. IFR by definition is instruments only,
and without motion in a simulator, instruments is about all you have,
other than some visual cues of varying quality.

> I'm asking you again....why don't
> you go to an airplane, get an instructor to let you fly under the hood,
> and REALLY experience what it's like?

I'm telling you again: it requires too much time and money. Besides,
I'd prefer a full-motion simulation, which is safer.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Roger (K8RI) writes:

> Every one should experience the FAA's "vertigo chair". You can do the
> same thing in an office chair, but you need a couple of good size
> helpers to catch you for safety.

Is this a requirement for becoming a pilot?

> Unfortunately it raises the cost considerably, but if you go the route
> of multiple monitors with 3 wide screens being best to simulate IRL
> VFR your visual senses are properly stimulated. You will find, among
> other things due to the added visual realism, you will lean in the
> turns and you will feel a sense of light headedness with a push over
> after a climb.

It sounds nice; I don't know if MSFS supports it. In any case, I
can't afford three monitors right now.

> Doom is just fast paced.

But the nature of the motion is sick-making, too. Doom and some other
FPS games are famous for it.

> The Witch Project is similar to flicker vertigo. Fast switching
> between scenes and erratic camera motion produce just too much changing
> information for the brain to process in a logical manner, or even keep up.

Much was shot handheld by the actors themselves, and apparently they
were given no instruction on how to hold a camera steady.

> To some it do and some it don't. It does for me as I do not ride well.
> I can do basic aerobatics with little problem although its been quite
> a while. OTOH riding with some one practicing their basic PPL
> maneuvers such as steep turns, S-turns, turns around a point, and
> stalls can get me a bit queasy in a hurry

How common is this queasiness among the pilots actually flying these
maneuvers?

> I believe that to be true to at least some extent for some of us. I've
> been on a commercial flight where it was so rough there were only
> about 10 of us who didn't get sick. The guy beside me was reading a
> news paper until it got so rough he couldn't keep his place. It didn't
> seem to bother him a bit. Man, but I was glad he was the one sitting
> next to me and not someone with their head in a bag.

I don't know how he managed it. Trying to read or something similar
when the aircraft is bouncing about is an excellent way to get motion
sickness.

> Sims are very good for the technical part, but much
> of the reality of real world flight is missing from the best of them.

Perhaps home sims will be full-motion one day, but I doubt it. The
cost of full motion isn't going down, unlike the cost of computer
power.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Emily writes:

> Have you ever been in a full size, full motion, transport catergory
> aircraft simulator?

Too expensive, and it also requires freedoms that have now been taken
away.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Emily writes:

> Oh, can't afford $150 for an hour of flight time?

No.

> Please. Your toy simulator and computer cost way more than that.

The simulator cost about $39. The computer cost more, but it serves
many purposes besides flight simulation, which is strictly a
leisure-time activity (even if it is among my favorites).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Grumman-581 writes:

> It has it's place, but it's not the real thing... I would have to admit
> though, learning how to fly a real plane made me a lot better on
> MSFS...

Conversely, MSFS can also make you better at flying a real plane,
although pilots are often strangely reluctant to admit this.

> Perhaps MSFS could get you a bit familiar with instrument
> procedures and as such save a bit of actual aircraft time, but you
> still need actual flight time with an instructor to be able to be
> competent in actual instrument flight...

Perhaps, but I don't plan to fly an actual plane. I'd prefer a
full-motion simulator if given the choice. Simulators don't crash.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Roger (K8RI) writes:

> You get sick and fly the airplane.

That's what I feared. With a simulator, I stop the sim and lie down
(although sim flight hasn't made me sick so far).

> After about 15 minutes the nausea went away to be replaced by the most
> GAWD AFFUL head ache I can remember. An hour and 8 minutes after
> entering the crap we popped out the side of a bigggg cumulus with
> nothing but clear sky ahead. I turned around and looked up, and up,
> and up, then scrunched down in the seat so I could look up even
> farther. My remark: "We just came out of that!" Instructor's bored
> sounding remark: "Sorta looks that way."

See above. If I don't like the weather on a sim, I change it. In
heavy turbulence things bounce around a lot, but of course I can't
feel it.

> I think they were all on the one flight I took. <:-)) It was the 6:30
> AM flight out of Denver for Cleveland (737). We hit the jet stream
> interface right after breakfast. There were only a couple of empty
> seats. Seams like it was only one and all but about 10 of us got sick.

Ick.

> As a pilot you aren't even allowed to take Dramamine. Which after
> flying home from Marysville KS my wife marked "That Dramamine is
> wonderful stuff!".

It would have to be a drug that doesn't influence cerebration.
Unfortunately, there are no anti-nausea drugs in this category that I
know of.

Which reminds me ... are you allowed to take stuff for headaches when
you fly? I get migraines and I always have OTC stuff with me, mostly
acetaminophen and aspirin but some OTC remedies here contain small
amounts of codeine. Antihistamine sometimes works well but that would
be out of the question when flying because it makes one sleepy and
inattentive (analgesics don't generally do this).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Roger (K8RI) writes:

> When I had ISDN and then DSL my Internet bill would have paid for a
> lot more flying than that and in a high performance retract to boot!

How many hours? I can fly a sim whenever I'm free; I'd go broke
trying to fly a real aircraft for even a fraction of that time.

> When I was in college studying CS at age 47 to 50 my phone bill was
> close to $300 a month just so I could get my home work done and I
> wasn't even on the Internet then although I used to get into the
> boards at different colleges.

I still think that pales in comparison to flying. Around here getting
a private pilot's license costs around $16,000, and that's without
taking into account the time required or related expenses (such as the
need for a car).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> You got a car?

No.

> House?

No.

> Air Condition?

A small portable one, about ten years old.

> PC?

No. I don't own the PCs I use.

> All require similar amounts of money.

A house for the price of a PC? Where can I find that?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Dave Stadt writes:

> No, you are into MSFS which is a toy.

Then it should be good for simulating most small private planes, since
they are toys as well.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[RK Henry]

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 07:28:36 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>RK Henry writes:
>
>
>> But it doesn't work like that in the real world. The airplane
>> inherently imparts accelerations that are inconsistent with the
>> indications of the instruments.
>
>Which ones?

In one common exercise, referred to as Recovery from Unusual
Attitudes, the instructor, or eventually a FAA-designated pilot
examiner, will ask the hooded student to look down or conceal his
eyes. With the student unable to see what is going on, the instructor
will take the airplane through a series of maneuvers calculated to
disrupt the student's inner ear equilibrium. Once that has been
accomplished, the student is asked to look at the instruments and take
over control the airplane. Immediately, the student will notice that
the airplane's attitude is seriously out of whack. He has to recognize
what's wrong and fix it. The challenge is complicated by the fact that
the previous maneuvering has given rise to inner ear equilibrium
sensations that conflict with the instruments. He may level the wings
but still have a sensation that the airplane is continuing to roll. He
may bring the nose to the horizon but experience a sensation that the
airplane is continuing to pitch up or down.

It's a little like the game that kids play of sitting in an office
chair and spinning round and round until they're dizzy. Great fun when
you're a kid, not so much fun if the sensations trick you into taking
improper actions with the airplane. You just have to learn to ignore
the sensation through sheer mental willpower.

>> Part of the training process is learning to ignore the
>> sensations and trust the instruments.
>
>That rather conflicts with the preceding statement, doesn't it? If
>the instruments don't accurately indicate accelerations, why trust
>them?

The thing is, the instruments should be trusted over the sensations of
the inner ear, but they can't be trusted completely. Another facet of
instrument training is understanding the limitations of the
instruments. One example is precession errors. All gyroscopic
instruments exhibit this behavior to some extent. You may roll into an
intensive series of maneuvers and after rolling level may discover
that the attitude gyro no longer indicates "up." It's slightly tilted.
From the other instruments, you deduce that it's the AI that is wrong
and that the airplane is actually level. The AI will right itself
after a short time, but you have to understand the instrument in order
to not be tricked into following its incorrect indication in the
meantime. Similarly, most of us fly airplanes in which we have to
reset the directional gyro regularly to keep it in agreement with the
magnetic whiskey compass. Otherwise it eventually drifts off to
indicate some heading that has little basis in reality.

And then sometimes the instruments perversely decide to fail. During
instrument training, expect the instructor to pull out a piece of
paper, or a suction cup thingy, to cover one, or more, or maybe even
all of the instruments. Then instead of looking at the attitude gyro,
you're deducing the state of your airplane based on what's left,
including airspeed, changes in altitude, and maybe even just sound.
You'll then be asked to perform some maneuvers to demonstrate your
ability to compensate for the lost information.

Instrument flying doesn't come from the instrument panel, it comes
from between the pilot's ears. It's a mental process, which is why so
many people seem to find it so difficult. It isn't about making the
instruments do something, it's about making the airplane do something.
It's about challenging the forces of nature and prevailing, and
celebrating your triumph with your beverage of choice at some pleasant
spot hundreds of miles from where you started. It's about seeing and
doing things you've never done before.

Which raises an interesting question: Who here has seen a glory?

RK Henry

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> > A simulator (which MSFS is not) doesn't come close.
>
> It comes very close indeed.
>

How in the world would you know?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Emily,

> See, I have patience with people who don't know any better, but zero for
> people who refuse to learn.
>

You nailed it. The way this guy refuses to accept anything from others and
to recognize the (tight) boundaries of his knowledge is really, well,
unusual.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Grumman-581[_4_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Perhaps, but I don't plan to fly an actual plane. I'd prefer a
> full-motion simulator if given the choice. Simulators don't crash.

Then obviously you are on the wrong newsgroup... Perhaps you should go
to comp.pc.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim or rec.aviation.simulators and leave
this group for real pilots...

[Grumman-581[_4_]]

Emily wrote:
> Whatever. I'm done with you. I can only hope everyone else gives up as
> well.

That line about not trying to teach a pig to sing comes to mind...

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> How in the world would you know?

Many pilots who use it have told me so.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

RK Henry writes:

> In one common exercise, referred to as Recovery from Unusual
> Attitudes, the instructor, or eventually a FAA-designated pilot
> examiner, will ask the hooded student to look down or conceal his
> eyes. With the student unable to see what is going on, the instructor
> will take the airplane through a series of maneuvers calculated to
> disrupt the student's inner ear equilibrium. Once that has been
> accomplished, the student is asked to look at the instruments and take
> over control the airplane. Immediately, the student will notice that
> the airplane's attitude is seriously out of whack. He has to recognize
> what's wrong and fix it. The challenge is complicated by the fact that
> the previous maneuvering has given rise to inner ear equilibrium
> sensations that conflict with the instruments. He may level the wings
> but still have a sensation that the airplane is continuing to roll. He
> may bring the nose to the horizon but experience a sensation that the
> airplane is continuing to pitch up or down.

But isn't it simply a matter of looking at the instruments and doing
what they say? Surely a person should be able to override distracting
sensations and trust the instruments, especially when he knows that
they are reliable.

> You just have to learn to ignore the sensation through sheer mental
> willpower.

And you say that there's a lot of variation in this? Does it actually
prevent some people from becoming pilots? It seems straightforward,
even if it requires willpower.

> The thing is, the instruments should be trusted over the sensations of
> the inner ear, but they can't be trusted completely. Another facet of
> instrument training is understanding the limitations of the
> instruments. One example is precession errors. All gyroscopic
> instruments exhibit this behavior to some extent. You may roll into an
> intensive series of maneuvers and after rolling level may discover
> that the attitude gyro no longer indicates "up." It's slightly tilted.
> From the other instruments, you deduce that it's the AI that is wrong
> and that the airplane is actually level.

Which other instruments will tell you this?

> Similarly, most of us fly airplanes in which we have to
> reset the directional gyro regularly to keep it in agreement with the
> magnetic whiskey compass. Otherwise it eventually drifts off to
> indicate some heading that has little basis in reality.

But doesn't the compass drift as well?

> And then sometimes the instruments perversely decide to fail. During
> instrument training, expect the instructor to pull out a piece of
> paper, or a suction cup thingy, to cover one, or more, or maybe even
> all of the instruments. Then instead of looking at the attitude gyro,
> you're deducing the state of your airplane based on what's left,
> including airspeed, changes in altitude, and maybe even just sound.
> You'll then be asked to perform some maneuvers to demonstrate your
> ability to compensate for the lost information.

So you are expected to trust instruments, but then not to trust them?

If two different instruments indicate two different things, how do you
know which one to trust? There isn't always a third instrument to
break the tie. I suppose I could deduce that I don't have the wings
level from a turn indicator or my changing heading, but how do I know
that it's not the heading that is changing inappropriately, or the
turn indicator that's broken?

> Instrument flying doesn't come from the instrument panel, it comes
> from between the pilot's ears. It's a mental process, which is why so
> many people seem to find it so difficult. It isn't about making the
> instruments do something, it's about making the airplane do something.
> It's about challenging the forces of nature and prevailing, and
> celebrating your triumph with your beverage of choice at some pleasant
> spot hundreds of miles from where you started. It's about seeing and
> doing things you've never done before.

I don't think instrument flight would pose a problem for me. I think
VFR would be more difficult, as I have virtually no experience with
looking out the window and none with motion, and I'm not very
coordinated.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

Your comments show utter cluelessness about instrument flying, I'm afraid.
It would help you if you understood how little you know about IFR flying.

> But isn't it simply a matter of looking at the instruments and doing
> what they say? Surely a person should be able to override distracting
> sensations and trust the instruments, especially when he knows that
> they are reliable.

"Knowing" is not all a human reacts to. "Surely" persons are NOT able to
override those sensations without ample training. This fundamental
difference between simulation and the real thing has been pointed out to
you many times before in this thread. So far, you chose to ignore that.

> > You just have to learn to ignore the sensation through sheer mental
> > willpower.
>
> And you say that there's a lot of variation in this? Does it actually
> prevent some people from becoming pilots? It seems straightforward,
> even if it requires willpower.

Go try it.

> Which other instruments will tell you this?

Turn and bank indicator, DG, compass.

> But doesn't the compass drift as well?

No. Why would it?

> So you are expected to trust instruments, but then not to trust them?

You're expected to corroborate one instrument's indications against the
others.

>
> If two different instruments indicate two different things, how do you
> know which one to trust? There isn't always a third instrument to
> break the tie.

Yes, there is. Read a book on instrument flying.

> I suppose I could deduce that I don't have the wings
> level from a turn indicator or my changing heading, but how do I know
> that it's not the heading that is changing inappropriately, or the
> turn indicator that's broken?

Understand failure modes - and then it will all be easy.

> I don't think instrument flight would pose a problem for me.

Your hubris is simply amazing! All that you have written before this
sentence shows a total lack of the essentials of instrument flight!

Have you really come here to learn something or just to annoy others by
showing your ignorance? How old are you?


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[RK Henry]

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 21:08:48 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>RK Henry writes:

>> The thing is, the instruments should be trusted over the sensations of
>> the inner ear, but they can't be trusted completely. Another facet of
>> instrument training is understanding the limitations of the
>> instruments. One example is precession errors. All gyroscopic
>> instruments exhibit this behavior to some extent. You may roll into an
>> intensive series of maneuvers and after rolling level may discover
>> that the attitude gyro no longer indicates "up." It's slightly tilted.
>> From the other instruments, you deduce that it's the AI that is wrong
>> and that the airplane is actually level.
>
>Which other instruments will tell you this?

If you're honestly interested in learning, I think the best book I
could recommend is the FAA's publication "Instrument Flying Handbook."
Some may disagree with me, but I think it's an excellent text. I
bought mine years ago from the Government Printing Office, but I
notice that it can now be downloaded in PDF format.
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/instrument_flying_handbook/

This weighty tome covers most of the questions you've been asking and
even the armchair aviator ought to find it interesting reading. It
might even stimulate interest in investigating the subject further.

>I don't think instrument flight would pose a problem for me. I think
>VFR would be more difficult, as I have virtually no experience with
>looking out the window and none with motion, and I'm not very
>coordinated.

There's really only one way to find out for sure. You might surprise
yourself. Challenging one's preconceptions often does that.

RK Henry

[Peter R.]

Grumman-581 > wrote:

> Then obviously you are on the wrong newsgroup... Perhaps you should go
> to comp.pc.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim or rec.aviation.simulators and leave
> this group for real pilots...

He's already there, too.

--
Peter

[Emily[_1_]]

Peter R. wrote:
> Grumman-581 > wrote:
>
>> Then obviously you are on the wrong newsgroup... Perhaps you should go
>> to comp.pc.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim or rec.aviation.simulators and leave
>> this group for real pilots...
>
> He's already there, too.
>
Can he stay there?

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> No. Why would it?

Because of the way a compass is mounted, it will briefly tend to
continue moving after a turn.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Peter R.]

Emily > wrote:

> Can he stay there?

Ha! :) 'fraid not. We are all in a Wild West of sorts here and the
sheriff doesn't have much authority.


--
Peter

[Mxsmanic]

RK Henry writes:

> If you're honestly interested in learning, I think the best book I
> could recommend is the FAA's publication "Instrument Flying Handbook."
> Some may disagree with me, but I think it's an excellent text. I
> bought mine years ago from the Government Printing Office, but I
> notice that it can now be downloaded in PDF format.
> http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aviation/instrument_flying_handbook/

Thanks. I had previously downloaded other stuff but I was not aware
of this.

> There's really only one way to find out for sure. You might surprise
> yourself. Challenging one's preconceptions often does that.

Maybe. If I join the idle rich one day I might try it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Peter R.]

Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> How in the world would you know?
>
> Many pilots who use it have told me so.

Many pilots here told me you were a few kings shy of a full deck, too, but
I prefer evidence other than anecdotal.

--
Peter

[Dave Stadt]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>> Thomas Borchert writes:
>>
>>> How in the world would you know?
>>
>> Many pilots who use it have told me so.
>
> Many pilots here told me you were a few kings shy of a full deck, too, but
> I prefer evidence other than anecdotal.
>
> --
> Peter

So far he has provided absolutely no evidence to support any of that wild
statements he has claimed to be the truth.

[Mxsmanic]

Peter R. writes:

> Many pilots here told me you were a few kings shy of a full deck,
> too, but I prefer evidence other than anecdotal.

The pilots who told me were pilots in real life. You never know what
someone is on USENET.

People who call MSFS a game haunt mostly USENET. When I talk to real
pilots they acknowledge that it's a simulator much more than it's a
"game," even if it obviously isn't real life. If they truly want a
game, there are other programs that fit the bill much more accurately
than MSFS.

I also know quite a few non-pilots who find MSFS to be a waste of
time, precisely because it's not a game to them. A few days I spent
an hour explaining to someone just how to get in the air and find an
airport to land with instruments (and MSFS makes this all very easy,
especially if you crank down the realism). I'm not sure that he saw
much game value in this, but his daughter has developed a fascination
with the simulator and he wanted to explain it to her. Maybe she's a
future pilot.

Indeed, MSFS is probably motivating a significant number of people
into flying for real every day, so I wouldn't knock it too quickly.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Right now I keep my Internet access and I sometimes fly for hours each
> day.

I suspect that you need to increase your sim flying time and decrease your
USENET posting time...

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> People who call MSFS a game haunt mostly USENET. When I talk to real
> pilots they acknowledge that it's a simulator much more than it's a
> "game," even if it obviously isn't real life. If they truly want a
> game, there are other programs that fit the bill much more accurately
> than MSFS.

We've tried to explain things to you, but you just won't listen... I have to
wonder why you would even post to this group... Apparently, it is just so
that you can hear your own self talk... Frankly, I'm giving up on you... Go
back to your sim group and talk to them about your problems... I suspect
they'll be a lot more understanding of you than we will ever be...

I can't decide if you're a troll or just clueless... If a troll, you're one
of the more polite trolls that I've encountered on USENET, so that leads me
to believe that you're just clueless... A lot of the regulars here have
tried to give you a clue, but it's just not working on you...

Feel free to talk to yourself... Followups set appropriately...

<bitch-slap>

<plonk>

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
> And to think I almost purchased one of these (relatively low time and
> in good shape) plus a brand new spare engine still in the can less
> than 10 years ago for about the same price I paid for the Debonair.
> THAT would have been a *good* investment!

Calculate the hours (or perhaps distances) that you've flown in the last 10
years and see how much fuel you would have used in the L-39... It might be
interesting to see how the numbers work out once you factor that in... Might
as well factor in the cost of annual inspections... Surely they are more
expensive than the Deb, right? Also, I wonder what the difference in the
insurance would be each year.... Personally, I have a bit of trouble
justifying
something that burns 130 gph on it's *economical* setting...

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> He's already there, too.
>

Is he as dumb there as he is here?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Because of the way a compass is mounted, it will briefly tend to
> continue moving after a turn.
>

Yes. So?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Maybe. If I join the idle rich one day I might try it.
>

Listen. Many people here have tried to tell you they are not "the idle
rich". Quit spouting utter BS. What are you trying to achieve?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Yes. So?

So the compass cannot always be trusted.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

"Grumman-581" > writes:

> I suspect that you need to increase your sim flying time and decrease your
> USENET posting time...

I already spend much more time simming than posting, but sometimes I
have questions.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Stefan]

Thomas Borchert schrieb:

>> Because of the way a compass is mounted, it will briefly tend to
>> continue moving after a turn.

> Yes. So?

Um... no! The compass does not "briefly tend to continue moving after a
turn" but it has a well defined turn error, which should more accurately
be called bank error. If you understand this error, you can tell your
heading at each moment during the whole turn.

Stefan

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> So the compass cannot always be trusted.
>

Yes, it can. Compass turning error is well-defined - any pilot
understands it and takes it into account.

Again and again: Why can't you acknowlegde that there are things you
don't know anything about? Just shut your mouth and learn instead of
coming back with smart*ss comments over and over again.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Peter R.]

Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> Listen. Many people here have tried to tell you they are not "the idle
> rich". Quit spouting utter BS. What are you trying to achieve?

Thomas, it is obvious from this and the "small planes are toys" comment of
his that he is just trying to get a rise out of many. I think this is a
good time for the killfile and "ignore thread" features of your newsreader.

Perhaps, then, Mr M. can ponder the metaphysical thought, "What is the
sound of one troll posting?"

--
Peter

[Emily[_1_]]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Mxsmanic,
>
>> Because of the way a compass is mounted, it will briefly tend to
>> continue moving after a turn.
>>
>
> Yes. So?
>

Did he really just point this out like no instrment pilot knows this?

[Thomas Borchert]

Stefan,

> >> Because of the way a compass is mounted, it will briefly tend to
> >> continue moving after a turn.
>
> > Yes. So?
>
> Um... no! The compass does not "briefly tend to continue moving after a
> turn" but it has a well defined turn error,
>

Please! Not you, too! Your "well defined turn error" does indeed lead to
the fact that the compass "willbriefly tend to continue moving after a
turn." Which is why I said yes to affirm that statement.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Emily,

> Did he really just point this out like no instrment pilot knows this?
>

Still here? ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[RK Henry]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 00:39:17 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Maybe. If I join the idle rich one day I might try it.

There aren't going to be many idle rich among this bunch. For one
thing, the rich aren't going to be interested in flying in a noisy,
cramped, slow machine decorated with cheap, crumbling Royalite. The
idle rich fly in jets decked out in exotic woods and fine upholstery,
with uniformed pilots and a staff to cater to their every whim. Those
of us who DO fly these noisy, cramped, slow machines constantly
scrimp, save, and scrounge to find some way to keep doing it. We
consider it a gross insult to have our scrimping and saving dismissed
as "idle rich."

Frequently, the idle rich go into politics, where they focus on making
life even more difficult for those of us who are trying to scrimp and
save.

That's apart from the question of whether there's really such a group
as "the idle rich." According to one economist's study, inherited
wealth only accounts for 9% of the net worth of the nation's richest
1%. The rest of them made it the old fashioned way, they earned it.

RK Henry

[Stefan]

Thomas Borchert schrieb:

> Please! Not you, too! Your "well defined turn error" does indeed lead to
> the fact that the compass "willbriefly tend to continue moving after a
> turn." Which is why I said yes to affirm that statement.

Ah, but no! Turn to the right and level your wings at 270°, and I accept
every bet that your compass will *not* continue to move. (Other than
shake with the turbulence, of course, and provided your bank angle
allowed it to move at all in the first place.) In fact, it has stopped
to move well before reaching 270°. Shall I add the second example?
(Nitpicking, but what else would you expect in r.a.p.)

Stefan

[Thomas Borchert]

Stefan,

> (Nitpicking, but what else would you expect in r.a.p.)
>

Have you read this thread? The one big smart*ss in it is more than
enough, thank you very much. No need to add to it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Emily[_1_]]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Emily,
>
>> Did he really just point this out like no instrment pilot knows this?
>>
>
> Still here? ;-)
>
I know, Iknow, I should just kill the entire thread.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:48:35 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> Yes. So?
>
>So the compass cannot always be trusted.

The *only* time a compass can almost be trusted is in straight, level,
and un-accelerated flight. We make turns based on the TC and a watch
not the compass. OTOH you don't have to worry about it precessing like
the DG. I can roll into a CW turn and watch the compass show a CCW
turn. I can accelerate on one direction and it'll show a left turn.
Accelerate in a different direction and have it show a right turn. Of
course decelerating will show turns opposite of accelerating.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Emily[_1_]]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:48:35 +0200, Mxsmanic >
> wrote:
>
>> Thomas Borchert writes:
>>
>>> Yes. So?
>> So the compass cannot always be trusted.
>
> The *only* time a compass can almost be trusted is in straight, level,
> and un-accelerated flight.

But the errors are predictable. I've seen a DG slowly wind down to
nothing and then completely fail, and I flew the plane just fine with
just the compass.

[Matt Whiting]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:48:35 +0200, Mxsmanic >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Thomas Borchert writes:
>>
>>
>>>Yes. So?
>>
>>So the compass cannot always be trusted.
>
>
> The *only* time a compass can almost be trusted is in straight, level,
> and un-accelerated flight. We make turns based on the TC and a watch
> not the compass. OTOH you don't have to worry about it precessing like
> the DG. I can roll into a CW turn and watch the compass show a CCW
> turn. I can accelerate on one direction and it'll show a left turn.
> Accelerate in a different direction and have it show a right turn. Of
> course decelerating will show turns opposite of accelerating.

It is still trustworthey as it does the same thing in the same
conditions every time. That is most people's definition of something
you can trust. The acceleration and turn errors are known and
predictable, what is there not to trust? The only thing that makes a
compass not trustworthey is an unknown magnetic field that may have been
brought into the airplane.

If you didn't learn to understand and compensate for the characteristics
of the standard aviation compass during your flight training, then it is
your instruction that was not trustworthey! :-)

Matt

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 01:27:58 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote in >:

>The only thing that makes a
>compass not trustworthey is an unknown magnetic field that may have been
>brought into the airplane.

Of course, there's also electromagnetism...

[Matt Whiting]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 01:27:58 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote in >:
>
>
>>The only thing that makes a
>>compass not trustworthey is an unknown magnetic field that may have been
>>brought into the airplane.
>
>
> Of course, there's also electromagnetism...

I didn't specify the source of the magnetic field. :-)

Matt

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 05:01:18 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote in >:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 01:27:58 GMT, Matt Whiting >
>> wrote in >:
>>
>>
>>>The only thing that makes a
>>>compass not trustworthey is an unknown magnetic field that may have been
>>>brought into the airplane.
>>
>>
>> Of course, there's also electromagnetism...
>
>I didn't specify the source of the magnetic field. :-)
>

No you didn't.

I would think it possible for portable wiring plugged into a cigarette
lighter to be a possible source of magnetism capable of affecting a
compass. I suppose, if both wires are parallel and adjacent, their
fields would cancel, but I wouldn't stake my life on it.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 20:13:57 -0500, Emily >
wrote:

>Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:48:35 +0200, Mxsmanic >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thomas Borchert writes:
>>>
>>>> Yes. So?
>>> So the compass cannot always be trusted.
>>
>> The *only* time a compass can almost be trusted is in straight, level,
>> and un-accelerated flight.
>
>But the errors are predictable. I've seen a DG slowly wind down to
>nothing and then completely fail, and I flew the plane just fine with
>just the compass.

I think I may have phrased that poorly.
Let me try again? <:-))

The compass tells you the truth "only" when in straight, level, and
un-accelerated flight IF outside influences are taken into account.
Those outside influences are normally predictable, but sometimes sneak
up on the unwary. In addition to magnetic variation some aircraft
develop some magnetic fields (portions of the airframe may become
magnetized) and require degaussing. Adding new equipment can sometimes
require "re-swinging" the compass. I have to be careful where I put
the Garmin GPS. It works fine on the yoke, but will swing the compass
about 60 degrees on when on the glare shield.

Around here the magnetic compass is only 6 degrees off which is close
enough. However there are areas in the lower 48 where I think you can
find close to 20 degrees. Now that is enough to notice even on a short
trip.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[[email protected]]

Unfortunately, prices have gone up, yet, this is often available
for $59 (sometimes less).


> He can do this for $49 at many places. He dosen't need to be under
> the hood to manipulate the controls.

> www.beapilot.com


Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocations!"
--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer<at>frii.com http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot BM218 HAM N0FZD 240 Young Eagles!