Do sim pilots log their time?

[Watson]

To whom it may concern:

Do sim pilots log their simulator time? Is so, why?

Possible answers:

To show simulated currency.
In furtherance of a simulated rating.
To prove to the simulated FAA that simulated flying happened.

[Jim Macklin]

Playing MS FS, no reason to, it doesn't count as training.
A real PCATD is FAA approved and can be logged, it counts if
a CFII or IGI gives the training.


"Watson" > wrote in message
...
| To whom it may concern:
|
| Do sim pilots log their simulator time? Is so, why?
|
| Possible answers:
|
| To show simulated currency.
| In furtherance of a simulated rating.
| To prove to the simulated FAA that simulated flying
happened.
|
|
|
|

[Mxsmanic]

Watson writes:

> Do sim pilots log their simulator time? Is so, why?

Some do, and Microsoft Flight Simulator provides for it. It depends
on the goals of the simulation. Some people simulate airline flights
complete with a detailed passenger manifest.

Additionally, if the simulation experience is certified or recognized
by the FAA or other real-world organizations, the time spent in
simulation can definitely be logged in furtherance of real-life goals.

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

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"Watson" > wrote in message
...
> To whom it may concern:
>
> Do sim pilots log their simulator time? Is so, why?

I believe Microsoft logs the flights for you, so you can lose all your
flight time when you need to re-install.

[Stubby]

It is often pointed out here that your log is your own. You can put
anything you want in it. The FARs determine what can be applied for a
new rating.


Watson wrote:
> To whom it may concern:
>
> Do sim pilots log their simulator time? Is so, why?
>
> Possible answers:
>
> To show simulated currency.
> In furtherance of a simulated rating.
> To prove to the simulated FAA that simulated flying happened.
>
>
>
>

[karl gruber[_1_]]

My old instrument instructor, who flew water bombers for fun, liked to
say.................Yes you can log sim time. You SUBTRACT it from your
logbook.

The worse the weather the better to him. No day flights and we never needed
a hood. God bless his soul, he used to say, "God hates cowards," and then
we'd launch. He did have his own methods, and this was decades ago.

Best,
Karl
"Curator" N185KG



"Watson" > wrote in message
...
> To whom it may concern:
>
> Do sim pilots log their simulator time? Is so, why?
>
> Possible answers:
>
> To show simulated currency.
> In furtherance of a simulated rating.
> To prove to the simulated FAA that simulated flying happened.
>
>
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> Do sim pilots log their simulator time? Is so, why?

I know this post was meant tongue-in-cheek, but now that we've had the
"Kiwi" up and running for a few weeks (see it here:
http://alexisparkinn.com/the_kiwi_is_born.htm ) I've had some good
experience watching real pilots "fly" a good simulator.

Interestingly, even though I personally find the sim experience to be
quite realistic, some of the best sticks I know have great difficulty
landing. One fellow in particular is inexplicably having no luck
landing the sim, despite thousands of hours of flight experience.

Just to illustrate his expertise as a pilot, he participated in the
National Air Tour in '04, and also in this past summer's Barnstormers
Tour. He flew wildlife-counting flights for the National Park Service
out West until last year, and has owned and flown literally dozens of
aircraft.

To say he is a "good stick" is an understatement.

Yet, even when I downloaded his current aircraft, and set him up at his
home airport, he was not able to land on the runway. The only thing I
can think of is that he apparently flies his real aircraft "by feel"
more than most of us do, and the simulator obviously is lacking in
"feel", since it is not a full-motion sim.

On the other hand, most average pilots have no difficulty landing. And
a fair number of non-pilots are able to do at least as well as the
fellow I describe, above, who always makes it to the airport but never
lands successfully on the runway.

It will be interesting to see if the new computer system I've ordered
-- which will help to make the sim experience as realistic as possible
-- helps the situation, or if it's strictly a motion-related problem
that can't be resolved.

And, no, I'm not logging the time in the Kiwi...

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

[Doug[_1_]]

Sims do a decent job simulating instrument conditions and maybe some
other things, but they don't simulate landings realistically at all.
Even the most sophisticated sims dont simulate landings well. So it's
really irrelevant. I suspect the pilots who can land your sim well can
do so because they practiced with a sim, not a real airplane.

[Jay Honeck]

> Sims do a decent job simulating instrument conditions and maybe some
> other things, but they don't simulate landings realistically at all.
> Even the most sophisticated sims dont simulate landings well. So it's
> really irrelevant. I suspect the pilots who can land your sim well can
> do so because they practiced with a sim, not a real airplane.

I think there's more to it than that. Some of our regulars on "Movie
Tuesday" are not computer literate at all, yet can land the Kiwi
without difficulty.

The same thing happened last weekend, during the annual meeting of the
99s (the International Organization of Women Pilots). The guys (known
as "49 1/2s") kicked the girls out of their own meeting room so that
we could fly the Kiwi while they held their meeting up in the (of
course!) Amelia Earhart Suite.

Many of the older guys in the group were completely computer ignorant
(several were rather proud of that fact, actually) -- yet most had no
trouble landing the sim.

I suspect success or failure says something about you, as a pilot, land
a real plane, rather than anything about the sim. In other words, if
you land a real plane more by sight-picture and numbers, you'll
probably have no trouble landing the Kiwi -- but if you land a plane
more by "feel", you'll likely not have good luck in the sim.

I honestly don't know, though.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

karl gruber wrote:
> The worse the weather the better to him. No day flights and we never needed
> a hood. God bless his soul, he used to say, "God hates cowards," and then
> we'd launch. He did have his own methods, and this was decades ago.



I was riding along as copilot in a Cheyenne one fine summer day and we were
advised that the airliners were diverting from Ft. Lauderdale because of
turbulence associated with scattered cells all around the airport. My chief
pilot had a similar attitude to yours: never say "die".

He accepted the ILS approach and promply flew us into a cell. As we were
bouncing around wildly, he says to me: "Why am I working so hard? Here, you
fly it."

Thanks a lot, Jim.

I flew it and managed to get down on the ground in one piece, although the
little chain that held down my necktie broke as my tie flapped in my face a few
times.

Once we were there, he told the guy we were picking up we needed to wait a
little bit for weather before we left again. I guess the passenger wasn't as
brave as the two of us. <G>




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Jay Honeck]

> I suspect success or failure says something about you, as a pilot, land
> a real plane, rather than anything about the sim.

Obviously my sentence should read:

"I suspect success or failure says something about HOW you, as a pilot,
land
a real plane, rather than anything about the sim."
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gene Seibel]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> I suspect success or failure says something about you, as a pilot, land
> a real plane, rather than anything about the sim. In other words, if
> you land a real plane more by sight-picture and numbers, you'll
> probably have no trouble landing the Kiwi -- but if you land a plane
> more by "feel", you'll likely not have good luck in the sim.
>
> I honestly don't know, though.
> --
> Jay Honeck

Only tried a sim a couple times. Did not land well. I guess I land by
feel. Once on short final, I don't look at the guages any more.
--
Gene Seibel
Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
Because we fly, we envy no one.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 23 Nov 2006 09:11:10 -0800, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>Interestingly, even though I personally find the sim experience to be
>quite realistic, some of the best sticks I know have great difficulty
>landing. One fellow in particular is inexplicably having no luck
>landing the sim, despite thousands of hours of flight experience.

He might be more dependent upon peripheral vision when landing, which the sim
won't provide. On many taildraggers, the nose comes up and blots out the view
forward in the flare. I (probably like most pilots) don't like turning my head
during the flare, so I'm left with the "feel" of where I'm at based on my
peripheral vision.

From your description, the Good Stick probably has lots of time in
"barnstormer-like" airplanes where he can't see forward during the last phases
of landing. He might be more used to using peripheral vision.

Strangely enough, though, I can land the MSFS Fly Baby (you DO have it installed
on the Kiwi, right, Jay? :-) without any problems. I might have the "damage
threshold" values set too high. But I did design the panel to arc and provide
just a little view forward on either side during the flare.

http://www.bowersflybaby.com/MSFS/index.html

Ron Wanttaja

[Jim Logajan]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> Interestingly, even though I personally find the sim experience to be
> quite realistic, some of the best sticks I know have great difficulty
> landing. One fellow in particular is inexplicably having no luck
> landing the sim, despite thousands of hours of flight experience.

What specifically is he having problems with? Is it difficulty in
controlling speed, approach angle, direction, or what? Are the problems
encountered within ground effect distance or higher? In a real plane, is he
more likely than most to judge altitude and attitude by glancing out the
side windows?

Okay - that's a lot of questions I'm pretty sure you don't have answers to,
but I suspect answering them would help isolate where the simulator is
weakest in replicating reality.

[birdog]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Sims do a decent job simulating instrument conditions and maybe some
>> other things, but they don't simulate landings realistically at all.
>> Even the most sophisticated sims dont simulate landings well. So it's
>> really irrelevant. I suspect the pilots who can land your sim well can
>> do so because they practiced with a sim, not a real airplane.

Just to add to the conversation ---- I wish I'd had access to a MS simulator
when I started on my instrument rating. Whatever else, it would have helped
in instrument scanning and intuitional control reaction. Would have saved me
agonizing cockpit time.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>> I suspect success or failure says something about you, as a pilot, land
>> a real plane, rather than anything about the sim. In other words, if
>> you land a real plane more by sight-picture and numbers, you'll
>> probably have no trouble landing the Kiwi -- but if you land a plane
>> more by "feel", you'll likely not have good luck in the sim.
>>
>> I honestly don't know, though.
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>
> Only tried a sim a couple times. Did not land well. I guess I land by
> feel. Once on short final, I don't look at the guages any more.
> --
> Gene Seibel
> Gene & Sue's Aeroplanes - http://pad39a.com/gene/planes.html
> Because we fly, we envy no one.
>

How can you tell? I mean, if you end up on the simulated runway and you
don't get the simulated cracks in the simulated windshield acompanied by the
simulated crashing sound, you know you didn't simulate wrecking a simulated
airplane, but beyond that???

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> I believe Microsoft logs the flights for you, so you can lose all your
> flight time when you need to re-install.

It's an option in the sim. Some add-ons also provide some degree of
logging. The Hobbs meter in the Dreamflight aircraft accurately
measures time, and the only way to reset it is to reinstall or modify
some configuration files. Likewise, some of the instruments have
total use timers; I don't know how to reset some of them, short of
reinstalling.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Jay Honeck writes:

> Yet, even when I downloaded his current aircraft, and set him up at his
> home airport, he was not able to land on the runway. The only thing I
> can think of is that he apparently flies his real aircraft "by feel"
> more than most of us do, and the simulator obviously is lacking in
> "feel", since it is not a full-motion sim.

Yup. Put him in a full-motion sim, and I'm sure he'll be able to land
effortlessly. Turn off the motion in the full-motion sim, and you'll
probably see the same problems you're seeing in your sim.

Does this pilot ever fly IFR?

> It will be interesting to see if the new computer system I've ordered
> -- which will help to make the sim experience as realistic as possible
> -- helps the situation, or if it's strictly a motion-related problem
> that can't be resolved.

Instrument-rated pilots apparently resolve it.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Doug writes:

> Sims do a decent job simulating instrument conditions and maybe some
> other things, but they don't simulate landings realistically at all.
> Even the most sophisticated sims dont simulate landings well.

In what ways are they deficient?

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

[[email protected]]

karl gruber wrote:
> My old instrument instructor, who flew water bombers for fun, liked to
> say.................Yes you can log sim time. You SUBTRACT it from your
> logbook.
>
> The worse the weather the better to him. No day flights and we never needed
> a hood. God bless his soul, he used to say, "God hates cowards," and then
> we'd launch.

*** My old CFII Bob was pretty brave, too. We'd be bouncing along in
the clouds
and I'd say

"Get a load of this turbulence!"

"What turbulence?"

or

"Yeee - HAH"

or

"Rock-n-roll!"

I really miss him - would like to show him how good I'm getting at
"turbulence tolerance" - but he flew a Baron into a mountaintop a year
and a half ago.

Maybe it's true what they say about old pilots and bold pilots?

- Jerry "Chicken pilot" Kaidor

[[email protected]]

karl gruber wrote:
> My old instrument instructor, who flew water bombers for fun, liked to
> say.................Yes you can log sim time. You SUBTRACT it from your
> logbook.
>
> The worse the weather the better to him. No day flights and we never needed
> a hood. God bless his soul, he used to say, "God hates cowards," and then
> we'd launch.

*** My old CFII Bob was pretty brave, too. We'd be bouncing along in
the clouds
and I'd say

"Get a load of this turbulence!"

"What turbulence?"

or

"Yeee - HAH"

or

"Rock-n-roll!"

I really miss him - would like to show him how good I'm getting at
"turbulence tolerance" - but he flew a Baron into a mountaintop a year
and a half ago.

Maybe it's true what they say about old pilots and bold pilots?

- Jerry "Chicken pilot" Kaidor

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> *** My old CFII Bob was pretty brave, too. We'd be bouncing along in
> the clouds
> and I'd say
>
> "Get a load of this turbulence!"
>
> "What turbulence?"
>
> or
>
> "Yeee - HAH"
>
> or
>
> "Rock-n-roll!"
>
> I really miss him - would like to show him how good I'm getting at
> "turbulence tolerance" - but he flew a Baron into a mountaintop a year
> and a half ago.

Are you sure it was bravery?

> Maybe it's true what they say about old pilots and bold pilots?

"Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old
pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots."

-- E. Hamilton Lee, 1949

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

[Tony]

Instrument Rated pilots don't land on the gauges, they use visual
reference.

I am one who supports practicing, with a safety pilot of course, flying
an ILS all the way to touchdown a couple of times a year (you know the
drill -- start backing off throttle at the MM, give up on glide slope,
keep the localizer centered, feel ground effect, flare and touch down).
Don't do it in a crosswind. Knowing you can gives you one more tool
should conditions really turn to crap in real life.



On Nov 23, 4:54 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Jay Honeck writes:
> > Yet, even when I downloaded his current aircraft, and set him up at his
> > home airport, he was not able to land on the runway. The only thing I
> > can think of is that he apparently flies his real aircraft "by feel"
> > more than most of us do, and the simulator obviously is lacking in
> > "feel", since it is not a full-motion sim.Yup. Put him in a full-motion sim, and I'm sure he'll be able to land
> effortlessly. Turn off the motion in the full-motion sim, and you'll
> probably see the same problems you're seeing in your sim.
>
> Does this pilot ever fly IFR?
>
> > It will be interesting to see if the new computer system I've ordered
> > -- which will help to make the sim experience as realistic as possible
> > -- helps the situation, or if it's strictly a motion-related problem
> > that can't be resolved.Instrument-rated pilots apparently resolve it.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Judah]

"Watson" > wrote in news:4f6db$45652d13
:

> To whom it may concern:
>
> Do sim pilots log their simulator time? Is so, why?
>
> Possible answers:
>
> To show simulated currency.
> In furtherance of a simulated rating.
> To prove to the simulated FAA that simulated flying happened.


I am a real pilot, and not a sim pilot, but the answer is quite obvious.

I can tell you unequivocably that all sim pilots must sim-log their sim-
time.

Sim-logging sim-time enhances simulated flight safety.

The SNTSB (aka sim-NTSB) statistics show that any sim pilot who doesn't
sim-log his sim-time will instantly suffer certain sim-death. Sim-mortality
rates for sim pilots who sim-log their sim-time is substantially lower.
Additionally, a large proportion of sim pilots who do sim-log their sim-
time have sim-accidents when they upgrade from one version of MSFS to
another...

Of course, I won't actually give you a link to a source, because it should
be as common sense to all real pilots, as it is to me.

[Jose[_1_]]

> or if it's strictly a motion-related problem
> that can't be resolved.

I'm betting that.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> I can tell you unequivocably that all sim pilots must sim-log their sim-
> time.

This bears a certain sim-ilarity to sim-body we are familiar with, but I
am sim-pathetic to the idea, as it can sim-ply save me a lot of sim-olians.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Mxsmanic]

Tony writes:

> Instrument Rated pilots don't land on the gauges, they use visual
> reference.

What is Category III c?

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

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Tony writes:
>
>
>>Instrument Rated pilots don't land on the gauges, they use visual
>>reference.
>
>
> What is Category III c?




Not relavant to this newsgroup. And even if it was a pilot isn't
landing a Cat 3c airplane, the computer is.

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>

> *** My old CFII Bob was pretty brave, too. We'd be bouncing along in
> the clouds
> and I'd say
>
> "Get a load of this turbulence!"
>
> "What turbulence?"
>
> or
>
> "Yeee - HAH"
>
> or
>
> "Rock-n-roll!"
>
> I really miss him - would like to show him how good I'm getting at
> "turbulence tolerance" - but he flew a Baron into a mountaintop a year
> and a half ago.
>
> Maybe it's true what they say about old pilots and bold pilots?
>
> - Jerry "Chicken pilot" Kaidor
>

I was flying back from New York with another pilot. It was a little bumpy,
but nothing bad. I asked if he wanted to fly, and he said no. He asked "Why
don't you use turn on the auto-pilot?". I replied "I just tried - you said
NO".

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in message
news:gIGdnT1uOcTkcPjYnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...

> How can you tell? I mean, if you end up on the simulated runway and you
> don't get the simulated cracks in the simulated windshield acompanied by
> the simulated crashing sound, you know you didn't simulate wrecking a
> simulated airplane, but beyond that???

I always got the simulated cracks in the simulted windshield. I think I
'landed' successfully once. The last version I used was 98 (I think). It ran
on Windows 95. No sound.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> Not relavant to this newsgroup.

Instrument approaches and landings are not relevant to a piloting
newsgroup? Why?

> And even if it was a pilot isn't landing a Cat 3c airplane, the computer is.

Then why does the pilot have to be instrument rated?

How many times have you landed in zero visibility? You don't just
push a button.

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

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Jim Macklin > wrote:
> Playing MS FS, no reason to, it doesn't count as training.
> A real PCATD is FAA approved and can be logged, it counts if
> a CFII or IGI gives the training.


Very true. In fact, the only sim that is FAA approved and can
be logged is X-Plane, IIRC. Details about that are at
http://www.x-plane.com/FTD.html .

So for MSFS, It's just something for the sim world. Throw
X-Plane in a full motion simulator and you can use that for getting
your instrument rating, commercial cert, or air transport pilot cert.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFZqGayBkZmuMZ8L8RAqPDAKCCtJyQHPMl/EUD345LuPYobyvK8gCgv52B
t9vp8bMmZg23upZ4iugPIy8=
=PrMA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Jay Honeck]

> Very true. In fact, the only sim that is FAA approved and can
> be logged is X-Plane, IIRC. Details about that are at
> http://www.x-plane.com/FTD.html .

Dang! We've been running X-plane on the Kiwi, too! It's a great sim,
although the user interface to get started is awkward, to say the
least.

Once it's set up, though, it's a great program.

Now I'm gonna have to figure out that "full-motion" part...

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

[Jim Macklin]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
|> Very true. In fact, the only sim that is FAA approved and
can
| > be logged is X-Plane, IIRC. Details about that are at
| > http://www.x-plane.com/FTD.html .
|
| Dang! We've been running X-plane on the Kiwi, too! It's
a great sim,
| although the user interface to get started is awkward, to
say the
| least.
|
| Once it's set up, though, it's a great program.
|
| Now I'm gonna have to figure out that "full-motion"
part... http://www.flightmotion.com/
|
| ;-)
| --
| Jay Honeck
| Iowa City, IA
| Pathfinder N56993
| www.AlexisParkInn.com
| "Your Aviation Destination"
|

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

>> And even if it was a pilot isn't landing a Cat 3c airplane, the
>> computer is.
>
> Then why does the pilot have to be instrument rated?
>
> How many times have you landed in zero visibility? You don't just
> push a button.

In Cat IIIC you do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_Landing_System

[Jose[_1_]]

> Now I'm gonna have to figure out that "full-motion" part...

Can't you simulate that with a few beers?

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Viperdoc[_3_]]

Some of these responses suggest that people just don't get sarcasm or
cynicism.

[Jay Honeck]

> Can't you simulate that with a few beers?

Well, I've flown the Kiwi with three beers under my belt, and there was
no discernible motion. I'm not sure what the "beer-to-movement" ratio
is, but it's apparently well beyond my current experience level.

We may have to push the edge of the envelope on this one...in the name
of science, of course.

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

[Morgans[_2_]]

>> How many times have you landed in zero visibility? You don't just
>> push a button.
>
> In Cat IIIC you do.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_Landing_System

He was wrong again. At least that is a consistent thing, for him.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> Some of these responses suggest that people just don't get sarcasm or
> cynicism.

<chuckle>

How true. They probably didn't read who the original post was from!

The crack about simulated FAA was the give-away. It was easy to miss, if you
didn't read closely! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> In Cat IIIC you do.

No, you don't. There's quite a procedure to carry out an autolanding.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_Landing_System

Did you by any chance check to see who wrote this article?

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

[Montblack]

"Viperdoc"
> Some of these responses suggest that people just don't get sarcasm or
> cynicism.


sim-icism?


Montblack ...with-a-beard

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Newps writes:
>
>
>>Not relavant to this newsgroup.
>
>
> Instrument approaches and landings are not relevant to a piloting
> newsgroup? Why?

Not Cat 3c.


>
>
>>And even if it was a pilot isn't landing a Cat 3c airplane, the computer is.
>
>
> Then why does the pilot have to be instrument rated?
>
> How many times have you landed in zero visibility? You don't just
> push a button.

Yes, you do. It's required. Cat 3c is an autoland. The pilot is there
to monitor the electronics. He does not land the plane.

[Judah]

"Morgans" > wrote in news:zVE9h.201$Th4.128
@newsfe07.lga:

>>> How many times have you landed in zero visibility? You don't just
>>> push a button.
>>
>> In Cat IIIC you do.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_Landing_System
>
> He was wrong again. At least that is a consistent thing, for him.

Yeah... He is quite a phenomenon.

I have killfiled him, but when he makes a stupid one-liner remark that is
easily and factually refuted with a link, I just can't help myself.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Judah" > wrote

> I have killfiled him, but when he makes a stupid one-liner remark that is
> easily and factually refuted with a link, I just can't help myself.

I did, but that was not making his responses go away, so I have changed tactics.

I'm going to keep on him, let him dig a deeper hole, and give him more rope.

You ought to try it. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, with a 12 gauge
shotgun. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> Not Cat 3c.

Why? All instrument approaches are flown by pilots, including Cat
IIIc.

> Yes, you do. It's required. Cat 3c is an autoland. The pilot is there
> to monitor the electronics. He does not land the plane.

He doesn't autoland by pushing a button. There's quite a checklist.
In fact, it appears to be similar in workload to a visual approach,
except that the time is spent configuring the FMC or autopilot rather
than manipulating the yoke or pedals. And with zero visibility and/or
generally bad weather, the stress factor is certainly an additional
workload.

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

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
> I did, but that was not making his responses go away, so I have changed
> tactics.
> I'm going to keep on him, let him dig a deeper hole, and give him more rope.
>
> You ought to try it. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, with a 12 gauge
> shotgun. <g>


Why bother? It's so easy to pick out his threads, even with the original
question nuked. Just look for the lamest ones. It's probably his.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 19:23:44 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Judah" > wrote
>
>> I have killfiled him, but when he makes a stupid one-liner remark that is
>> easily and factually refuted with a link, I just can't help myself.
>
>I did, but that was not making his responses go away, so I have changed tactics.
>
>I'm going to keep on him, let him dig a deeper hole, and give him more rope.
>
>You ought to try it. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, with a 12 gauge
>shotgun. <g>

The problem with that is you keep getting splattered with fish guts.

What I should do is write a macro or program to check threads and then
kill file the whole thread. It's amazing how the number of posts
drops.

OTOH I've always had a tendency to answer some out in left field
questions with a smart assed remarks and I seriously doubt I'm alone
in that. That being the case I'd hate to see some unwary soul led
astray.


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

[CRaSH]

I'm amazed you guys are still even talking to HAL.
He's got all the answers anyway and just needs TLC.
Troll
Live
Chatter

But, it's best he's kept amused here, and far away from the sim groups!

Cheers'n beers.. [_])
Don

d:->))