Steering on the taxiway

[Mxsmanic]

Is it better to use just the rudder or differential braking to turn on
taxiways? I understand that steering mechanisms vary considerably
from one aircraft to another, but I'm still curious. In this case,
I'm wondering about a Baron 58, the aircraft I fly in my sim (most of
the time).

I note when taxiing that the aircraft seems to oversteer, especially
as speed increases. That is, I'll move the rudder to straighten out
on the centerline of the taxiway, but the aircraft still continues to
drift slightly in the turn and overshoots the centerline. Is this the
way the real aircraft works? If so, what causes it? I should think
that if the rudder pedals turn the nose wheel directly, it would be
hard to overshoot unless the nose wheel actually skids or something
(?). This isn't happening at high speed, it's like 16 knots or so (or
does that count as high taxiway speed?).

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

[G. Sylvester]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> I should think
> that if the rudder pedals turn the nose wheel directly, it would be
> hard to overshoot unless the nose wheel actually skids or something
> (?). This isn't happening at high speed, it's like 16 knots or so (or
> does that count as high taxiway speed?).

It's actually 18 TAS, not IAS, that is correct.

[john smith]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> Is it better to use just the rudder or differential braking to turn on
> taxiways?

The Baron is a twin, you also have differential power.

[BT]

use your brakes, use a little extra power and then "drag" the brakes to keep
them warmed up, hot brakes work better

some aircraft do not have nose wheel steering, but a free castering nose
wheel, those get tricky on crosswind take offs until the rudder becomes
effective

WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW, BECAUSE YOU WON'T GO TAKE A LESSON
is that the "rudder control devices" are connected to the nose steering in
most aircraft, just keep your heals on the floor to keep your toes off the
brakes.


"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Is it better to use just the rudder or differential braking to turn on
> taxiways? I understand that steering mechanisms vary considerably
> from one aircraft to another, but I'm still curious. In this case,
> I'm wondering about a Baron 58, the aircraft I fly in my sim (most of
> the time).
>
> I note when taxiing that the aircraft seems to oversteer, especially
> as speed increases. That is, I'll move the rudder to straighten out
> on the centerline of the taxiway, but the aircraft still continues to
> drift slightly in the turn and overshoots the centerline. Is this the
> way the real aircraft works? If so, what causes it? I should think
> that if the rudder pedals turn the nose wheel directly, it would be
> hard to overshoot unless the nose wheel actually skids or something
> (?). This isn't happening at high speed, it's like 16 knots or so (or
> does that count as high taxiway speed?).
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> Is it better to use just the rudder or differential braking to turn on
> taxiways? I understand that steering mechanisms vary considerably
> from one aircraft to another, but I'm still curious. In this case,
> I'm wondering about a Baron 58, the aircraft I fly in my sim (most of
> the time).

Why do you think anyone here would know? These are people that fly airplanes,
not computer games. They really don't care how the Barron handles on the
ground. They go out and fly airplanes. In the real air, on real taxiways, with
real controls, not plastic things with a wire going to the back of a computer.

They are different. The computer only simulates, and it poorly simulates
airplanes on the ground, so we have been told.

Go ask you simulator buddies. Perhaps they care.
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

john smith writes:

> The Baron is a twin, you also have differential power.

Is it practical/desirable to use it for steering?

Unfortunately it is very awkward to adjust the throttles separately in
a sim, so I've never tried this type of steering.

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

[Mxsmanic]

BT writes:

> some aircraft do not have nose wheel steering, but a free castering nose
> wheel, those get tricky on crosswind take offs until the rudder becomes
> effective

I take it that you steer with brakes alone on these aircraft while
taxiing?

> WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW, BECAUSE YOU WON'T GO TAKE A LESSON
> is that the "rudder control devices" are connected to the nose steering in
> most aircraft, just keep your heals on the floor to keep your toes off the
> brakes.

Actually, I'm aware of the connection between rudder and nose wheel in
some aircraft, but I also understand that there are a number of
different ways to provide steering for taxi, and so the rudder/wheel
connection is not universal. It does appear to work that way on the
Baron.

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

[Ron Natalie]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Is it better to use just the rudder or differential braking to turn on
> taxiways?

Actually with the exception of a few oddities like the Grumman
singles, you steer aircraft with the the nose/tail wheel. The
rudder is a secondary directional control during taxi and not
much effective at low speeds.

[john smith]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> john smith writes:
>
> > The Baron is a twin, you also have differential power.
>
> Is it practical/desirable to use it for steering?
>
> Unfortunately it is very awkward to adjust the throttles separately in
> a sim, so I've never tried this type of steering.

Depending on the size of the aircraft and the engines, only small
increases/decreases (+/- 100 rpm) in power are necessary if applied at
the correct times.

[A Lieberma]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

> Go ask you simulator buddies. Perhaps they care.

Better be careful Jim!!!

You gave the best advise of all, and it will be ignored, like everybody
else's good suggestions....

We just need to kee ignoring this guy and not answer HIS questions is the
only way to get rid of this nut.

Allen

[Cirrus]

Jim,
You bring up a very good point. I myself am a real pilot, but do use
simulators as well. Without getting pulled too much into mxsmanics
history or trying to sound critical (I'm REALLY holding back here), I
wonder why he posts so many questions HERE? I've used sims for years,
both for fun, and procedures training, etc, and sites like avsim or
flightsim have whole communities that ponder nothing but the types of
questions that mxsmanic posts. They are for the most part friendly,
intelligent, and in many cases, a number of them are also real world
pilots. Most importantly- they specialize in simulator stuff. Mx- you
could be a god over there with all your questions..... OR, why not
enroll in a private pilot ground school class somewhere? It's usually
just a few hundred dollars and gets you around 40hours with an
instructor. A number of FBO's here in Seattle offer classes every few
months- the class can be done in a few nights over 2 weeks. Would teach
you a lot about flight, and you would never even need to leave the
ground. Plus, you could interact with other students who are also
learning the same stuff.

By the way- I use the pedals which connect to the nosewheel for
steering (C182RG), but don't forget to use your ailerons during taxi,
to prevent any x-wind (virtual or otherwise) from lifting one of your
wings. (er, arm rests... depends on what model you are "sitting" in).
You can find aileron taxi corrections in the AIM or FAA airplane flying
handbook.


>
> Why do you think anyone here would know? These are people that fly airplanes,
> not computer games. They really don't care how the Barron handles on the
> ground. They go out and fly airplanes. In the real air, on real taxiways, with
> real controls, not plastic things with a wire going to the back of a computer.
>
> They are different. The computer only simulates, and it poorly simulates
> airplanes on the ground, so we have been told.
>
> Go ask you simulator buddies. Perhaps they care.
> --
> Jim in NC

[Don Tuite]

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 08:32:42 -0500, Ron Natalie >
wrote:

>Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Is it better to use just the rudder or differential braking to turn on
>> taxiways?
>
>Actually with the exception of a few oddities like the Grumman
>singles, you steer aircraft with the the nose/tail wheel. The
>rudder is a secondary directional control during taxi and not
>much effective at low speeds.

Perhaps he meant conventional gear. {;-)

Don

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 16:24:11 GMT, A Lieberma >
wrote:

>"Morgans" > wrote in
:
>
>> Go ask you simulator buddies. Perhaps they care.
>
>Better be careful Jim!!!
>
>You gave the best advise of all, and it will be ignored, like everybody
>else's good suggestions....
>
>We just need to kee ignoring this guy and not answer HIS questions is the
>only way to get rid of this nut.
>
>Allen

If it wasn't for all the silly replies from Mxsmanic the answers to
his question are often very useful. There's lots of competent pilots
with a wide range of knowledge in these groups.

I can't decide if I should read useful replies or ignore the lot!

[Thomas Borchert]

Ron,

> Actually with the exception of a few oddities like the Grumman
> singles,
>

And the most succesful new aircraft: Cirrus, Diamond, Columbia, most
LSAs. A few oddities? Cirrus is the top-seller of new aircraft.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Bt,

> use your brakes, use a little extra power and then "drag" the brakes to keep
> them warmed up, hot brakes work better
>

You're kidding, right? That'S a good way to start a nice fire.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jon Kraus]

Historically this has not happened and my guess is that it will not. If
you notice there are several very valuable folks that are not posting
here anymore and my guess is that this freakn' MXidiot has something to
do with it.

I'd love to start a censored list where the idiots could be sent off to
pasture (let the bleeding hearts flame away) and the real questions
about piloting our real aircraft could continue like it used to. Just my .02

Jon


A Lieberman wrote:
>
> We just need to kee ignoring this guy and not answer HIS questions is the
> only way to get rid of this nut.
>
> Allen
>

[Ron Natalie]

Don Tuite wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 08:32:42 -0500, Ron Natalie >
> wrote:
>
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> Is it better to use just the rudder or differential braking to turn on
>>> taxiways?
>> Actually with the exception of a few oddities like the Grumman
>> singles, you steer aircraft with the the nose/tail wheel. The
>> rudder is a secondary directional control during taxi and not
>> much effective at low speeds.
>
> Perhaps he meant conventional gear. {;-)
>
Many taildraggers have a steerable tailwheel which helps a lot
with gentle turns at lower speeds.

[Newps]

"drag" the brakes to keep
>>them warmed up, hot brakes work better

In no vehicle do hot brakes work better.

[Don Tuite]

On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 13:01:40 -0500, Ron Natalie >
wrote:

>Don Tuite wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 08:32:42 -0500, Ron Natalie >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>> Is it better to use just the rudder or differential braking to turn on
>>>> taxiways?
>>> Actually with the exception of a few oddities like the Grumman
>>> singles, you steer aircraft with the the nose/tail wheel. The
>>> rudder is a secondary directional control during taxi and not
>>> much effective at low speeds.
>>
>> Perhaps he meant conventional gear. {;-)
>>
>Many taildraggers have a steerable tailwheel which helps a lot
>with gentle turns at lower speeds.

And I get a D in reading comprehension today. {8-(

Don

[Kev]

Cirrus wrote:
> You bring up a very good point. I myself am a real pilot, but do use
> simulators as well.

As do a lot of pilots. Pretty weird that Jim feels the need to attack
sim usage.

>why not enroll in a private pilot ground school class somewhere?

Apparently he lives in France, but doesn't speak French. He's also on
a limited income. My guess is that he or perhaps a wife is on
disability and unable or willing to travel. This fits the profile of
many older serious sim users.

As a man gets older, you get more sympathy for curmudgeons and limited
income and disabilities. In my 50's and fighting cancer for the past
year, I am particularly sensitive to this kind of situation, and
clearly I find it abhorent that some pilots (?) find it necessary to
make personal attacks on anyone. I hope these immature types never end
up in a similar situation, but they'd sure deserve it.

OTOH, perhaps Mx is just a pyschological experiment by the FAA to root
out macho-acting, short-tempered pilots to ramp check. Wouldn't that
be a hoot.

Kev

[john smith]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> Bt,
>
> > use your brakes, use a little extra power and then "drag" the brakes to
> > keep
> > them warmed up, hot brakes work better
> >
>
> You're kidding, right? That'S a good way to start a nice fire.

Yep, Cirrus pilots know about that.

[Dave[_3_]]

Hi Mx!

Different aircraft respond differently to rudder input whle taxying..

Heaver aircraft take more "push" to get turning, and tend to want to
keep turning, more than light ones, especially twins with engines out
on the wings. (kind of a "flywheel" effect...)

In some, the nose wheel steering is connected to the rudder pedals
with springs (Cessna 172) so the steering input feels vague and
differential braking is used to assist tight turns. On others (Piper
Cherokee) the steering is hooked direct and is very positive. You have
to be careful to get the rudder centered before you allow the nose
wheel to touch when you are holding rudder in a crosswind landing.

and...

.....for the record..I find your questions here to be reasonable and
the (correct) answers posted will be of some value to You and the
many who lurk here..

I am having some difficulty understanding why some here find it
necessary to chastize you for being a "sim" pilot. I know some local
"sim" pilots who would love to do the real thing, but are unable for
various reasons.

If that is your circumstance, I hope it is temporary, and you may
experience the thrill of piloting a real aircraft someday.

I am a pilot, have lots of hours in sims, and I am fortunate to have a
clean medical and my own plane, - at this time in my life.

It has not always been so, and there will be a time again when it is
not so..... :(

Ignore the rants, there are some here that will answer your question
properly and correctly..

....and... just so there is no confusion.... very hot brakes don't stop
very well.... and 16 Knots is WAY to fast to taxi any aircraft!

Cheers!

Dave




On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 02:59:21 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Is it better to use just the rudder or differential braking to turn on
>taxiways? I understand that steering mechanisms vary considerably
>from one aircraft to another, but I'm still curious. In this case,
>I'm wondering about a Baron 58, the aircraft I fly in my sim (most of
>the time).
>
>I note when taxiing that the aircraft seems to oversteer, especially
>as speed increases. That is, I'll move the rudder to straighten out
>on the centerline of the taxiway, but the aircraft still continues to
>drift slightly in the turn and overshoots the centerline. Is this the
>way the real aircraft works? If so, what causes it? I should think
>that if the rudder pedals turn the nose wheel directly, it would be
>hard to overshoot unless the nose wheel actually skids or something
>(?). This isn't happening at high speed, it's like 16 knots or so (or
>does that count as high taxiway speed?).

[Morgans[_2_]]

"john smith" > wrote
>
> Depending on the size of the aircraft and the engines, only small
> increases/decreases (+/- 100 rpm) in power are necessary if applied at
> the correct times.

So why are you trying to tell him how to fly a simulator?

I don't get it.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

It does appear to work that way on the Baron.

It is only a program./ Someone wrote it wrong. Do whatever you have to do to
make it work.

Even better, fix the program.

Or go ask the simulator folks how it is supposed to work.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote

> If it wasn't for all the silly replies from Mxsmanic the answers to
> his question are often very useful. There's lots of competent pilots
> with a wide range of knowledge in these groups.
>
> I can't decide if I should read useful replies or ignore the lot!

So start a new thread. The problem is all of the people that give good answers,
by replying to the nut.

It is going to take discipline to get rid of him. Even if you know a good
answer, it is NOT the right thing to answer it in response to his post. Go
start a new thread, and give the answer as a hypothetical situation, or
something.

I know everyone wants to talk airplanes, but really, he needs to go back to the
simulator group. Like has been suggested, there have been a lot of people, good
people stop reading, because of the annoying nutcase.

To get rid of a troll, you can not answer him in a dignified manner, no matter
what. Make fun of the question, insult the person, or don't answer, but don't
treat the question like a real question. It takes restraint.

JMHO.
--
Jim in NC

[Mxsmanic]

Dave writes:

> Heaver aircraft take more "push" to get turning, and tend to want to
> keep turning, more than light ones, especially twins with engines out
> on the wings. (kind of a "flywheel" effect...)
>
> In some, the nose wheel steering is connected to the rudder pedals
> with springs (Cessna 172) so the steering input feels vague and
> differential braking is used to assist tight turns. On others (Piper
> Cherokee) the steering is hooked direct and is very positive. You have
> to be careful to get the rudder centered before you allow the nose
> wheel to touch when you are holding rudder in a crosswind landing.

As far as I can tell, the Baron has a direct connection from rudder to
nose wheel. The part I don't understand is how an aircraft can
overshoot in a turn if the rudder is connected directly to the nose
wheel. Either the wheel stays put, in which case it must skid a bit
as the aircraft continues to turn, or the nose wheel turns and forces
the rudder pedals to move in consequence (which I would not be able to
feel in a simulator). Do you know which way it works?

I'm getting better at turns. I try to anticipate enough in advance
that I don't keep turning past the centerline. Oddly enough, it seems
to be more difficult to turn on the ground than it is in the air.

Maintaining speed is irritating, too. Sometimes I hit it just right
and the aircraft just putts along at about 11 kts, but finding that
sweet spot consistently is difficult. And with long runways and large
airports, one is rolling about for quite a while at 11 kts.

> ....for the record..I find your questions here to be reasonable and
> the (correct) answers posted will be of some value to You and the
> many who lurk here..

Thanks.

> I am having some difficulty understanding why some here find it
> necessary to chastize you for being a "sim" pilot. I know some local
> "sim" pilots who would love to do the real thing, but are unable for
> various reasons.

It's the nature of USENET, and I seem to attract more of the standard
USENET kiddies than most, for some reason. I stopped paying attention
to the children years ago. There are always a few people who want a
serious discussion, if one sifts through the noise.

> If that is your circumstance, I hope it is temporary, and you may
> experience the thrill of piloting a real aircraft someday.

I hope so, too, but I'm not very optimistic at the moment.

> I am a pilot, have lots of hours in sims, and I am fortunate to have a
> clean medical and my own plane, - at this time in my life.

I hope you didn't have to wait long. While I suppose that flying at
70 might be better than never flying at all, it seems like a long time
to wait. But it is so expensive that few have the means early in
life, and conversely many don't have the medical later in life (the
medical requirements are rather exaggerated, but there they are).

> ...and... just so there is no confusion.... very hot brakes don't stop
> very well.... and 16 Knots is WAY to fast to taxi any aircraft!

Hmm. It seems so slow. How about 11 knots? I go faster than that on
a bicycle ... why do aircraft have to taxi so slowly?

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

[Doug[_1_]]

In spite of what a lot of people think, you can still steer a
non-nosewheel-steering aircraft like a Cirrus and others with the
rudders at taxi speeds. You may the brakes to turn with the wind,
however. And contrary to how many are being taught, you don't need the
brakes on the beginning of takeoff run to stay aligned with the center
stripe.

[Mxsmanic]

Doug writes:

> And contrary to how many are being taught, you don't need the
> brakes on the beginning of takeoff run to stay aligned with the center
> stripe.

Pilots are taught to use the brakes on take-off? Isn't that unsafe?

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

[A Lieberma]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

> To get rid of a troll, you can not answer him in a dignified manner,
> no matter what. Make fun of the question, insult the person, or don't
> answer, but don't treat the question like a real question. It takes
> restraint.

Lordy it takes a lot or restraint, especially when the nutball questions
the real world.....

Gotta pat myself on the back, I have not and will not reply to anything
directly, only determine to remind new people that I see that they are
dealing with a troll and gently remind them to ignore him, not answer his
questions and so on. And as Jim says above, the new person can easily
start their own threads.

Yes, some lurkers may not like it, and personally, I don't care how good
the questions he may ask, the lurkers DO HAVE A KEYBOARD and can ask the
questions themselves.

I also re-iterate, I can't imagine a pilot not helping a fellow pilot,
armchair pilot or even a sim pilot, but this guy is beyond these categories
when he starts his combative answers without having any knowledge of the
real deal.

Allen

[A Lieberma]

Jon Kraus > wrote in
:

> Historically this has not happened and my guess is that it will not.
> If you notice there are several very valuable folks that are not
> posting here anymore and my guess is that this freakn' MXidiot has
> something to do with it.

Yeah, unfortunately you are right, one thing for sure, the folks not
contributing are very much missed.....

Maybe as more see what we as a group can do, the less responses Mx
nutball will get and those folks will come back onboard.

Jim in NC I see is giving heads up about Mx's history, the more that
does this, the less answers he will get, to the point that maybe NOBODY
will respond to his posts.

It's bad enough I am adding to this by trying to drum up non responders
and not talk about aviation related stuff, but somehow, someway, we
regulars CAN take back the group with the power of peer power by
ignoring this nut.

> I'd love to start a censored list where the idiots could be sent off
> to pasture (let the bleeding hearts flame away) and the real questions
> about piloting our real aircraft could continue like it used to. Just
> > .02

I think this is called moderated, don't know enuf about newsgroups to
figure out about moderated groups. Just know enough to be dangerous....

Allen

[Jon Kraus]

Nor have I responded, just like I said I wouldn't.

Jon

A Lieberma wrote:
>
> Gotta pat myself on the back, I have not and will not reply to anything
> directly, only determine to remind new people that I see that they are
> dealing with a troll and gently remind them to ignore him, not answer his
> questions and so on. And as Jim says above, the new person can easily
> start their own threads.
>
> Yes, some lurkers may not like it, and personally, I don't care how good
> the questions he may ask, the lurkers DO HAVE A KEYBOARD and can ask the
> questions themselves.
>
> I also re-iterate, I can't imagine a pilot not helping a fellow pilot,
> armchair pilot or even a sim pilot, but this guy is beyond these categories
> when he starts his combative answers without having any knowledge of the
> real deal.
>
> Allen

[Peter Dohm]

>
> Is it practical/desirable to use it for steering?
>
Yes, it is.

> Unfortunately it is very awkward to adjust the throttles separately in
> a sim, so I've never tried this type of steering.
>
>
Hmmm. Let me guess ... you don't have a full throttle quadrant in addition
to your yoke and rudder pedals (hopefully with brakes).

Without all of that/those, I don't see how you hope to simulate any
particular type of aircraft.

[Peter Dohm]

>
> > use your brakes, use a little extra power and then "drag" the brakes to
keep
> > them warmed up, hot brakes work better
> >
>
> You're kidding, right? That'S a good way to start a nice fire.
>
Finally! A use for smell-o-vision!

[BT]

it's MX... of course anything we tell him is "tongue in cheek"

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Bt,
>
>> use your brakes, use a little extra power and then "drag" the brakes to
>> keep
>> them warmed up, hot brakes work better
>>
>
> You're kidding, right? That'S a good way to start a nice fire.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Dohm writes:

> Hmmm. Let me guess ... you don't have a full throttle quadrant in addition
> to your yoke and rudder pedals (hopefully with brakes).

Just a single throttle. The occasions where I might need separate
throttle controls are so rare that they don't justify the expense of a
full dual set of throttles. For things like single-engine failures, I
pause the sim to reset throttles or feather props or whatever.

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

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dave" > wrote

> I am having some difficulty understanding why some here find it
> necessary to chastize you for being a "sim" pilot. I know some local
> "sim" pilots who would love to do the real thing, but are unable for
> various reasons.

Have you read any of the FADEC thread? The stuff he makes up is out of the
realm of reasonable. He continues to back it up, as being the truth.

He has made claim to designing systems like FADEC, but will not say what. He
does not understand the most basic of things that would be necessary for a
person to design anything like a FADEC..

He asks a question, then when given a good answer by a pilot, questions it, and
gives reasons why it is the wrong answer.

He does not want to fly a real plane. He finds them dangerous, and pilots on
the whole incompetent.

You can get questions from a different reasonable reader. Not this guy, if you
want this group to remain health. He is a troll, plain and simple. Go over to
the sim group, and ask about him. They ran him off, over there.

If you continue to respond to this guy, and can not see why that is a problem,
you are part of the problem.
--
Jim in NC

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Doug writes:
>
>
>>And contrary to how many are being taught, you don't need the
>>brakes on the beginning of takeoff run to stay aligned with the center
>>stripe.
>
>
> Pilots are taught to use the brakes on take-off? Isn't that unsafe?

Oy.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"B A R R Y" > wrote
>
> I don't get why there are as many posts from you complaining about Mx,
> than there are from Mr. Mx himself.
>
> Are you a sock puppet of his, or are you fixated?

Perhaps you should look up the definition of sock puppet. A sock puppet is a
post made by the same person under a different screen name, or by a supporter of
a person, making a positive confirmation of whatever the original poster says.

I am fixated on to clarify his posts, so he makes statements so silly, that the
people from this group that now support him, will see what a loon he is, and
will think twice before responding to him in the future.

And he does not own me. I have made it a campaign to challenge him whenever he
makes a statement that should not be allowed to pass as the truth.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote

> to your yoke and rudder pedals (hopefully with brakes).
>
> Without all of that/those, I don't see how you hope to simulate any
> particular type of aircraft.

Using a game, I don't see how he can hope to accurately simulate anything, other
than entertainment.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jon Kraus" > wrote

> Nor have I responded, just like I said I wouldn't.

Great. If we could only get everyone to not respond, we would have it made. I
will only respond to harass.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote
>
> Pilots are taught to use the brakes on take-off? Isn't that unsafe?

That's the way to do it. Question a real pilot's answer! Way to go!

Take a lesson or two, and find out.

Oh, that's right, you don't see the need to fly real planes, if you can sim it,
instead.

Sad.
--
Jim in NC

[Cirrus]

Mxsmanic wrote:

Mx- I'm trying to find some hope for you, and thought that maybe there
are circumstances that warrent more kindness in replies to you from
people. And, really, if you want to fly and can't, I send you my wishes
that you find your way to meeting whatever goal you are aiming for.
Just tell people. But your previous comment is EXTREMELY insulting:

> It's the nature of USENET, and I seem to attract more of the standard
> USENET kiddies than most, for some reason. I stopped paying attention
> to the children years ago. There are always a few people who want a
> serious discussion, if one sifts through the noise.
>

Children? Noise?- ouch......
You want serious discussion? It's not that you are a sim pilot that
bothers some people- it's your ego. If you were a little more humble,
you' would see that. Since you do seem to know so much, why do you come
here? Discussion is all about different points of view, but you can't
pick and choose answers you like and cast judgement on the ones you
don't. Especially if you aren't a pilot(in this case). Or am I a kiddie
for asking?

[A Lieberma]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

> And he does not own me. I have made it a campaign to challenge him
> whenever he makes a statement that should not be allowed to pass as
> the truth.

Yeah, can fully relate Jim, but do all you can to filter the noise out....

The less response to his I know ludicrous replies is hard, but it's better
to focus your replies on people that really appreciate your knowledge.

Put your well spent energy on people that fully appreciate the time you
take......

Allen

[Thomas Borchert]

John,

> Yep, Cirrus pilots know about that.
>

PA-28 pilots, too. At least the one who burned his PA-28 to the ground
on one of the very long taxiways in Berlin Tempelhof two or so years
ago.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> I seem to attract more of the standard
> USENET kiddies than most
>

That must be it. ROFL.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Doug,

> And contrary to how many are being taught, you don't need the
> brakes on the beginning of takeoff run to stay aligned with the center
> stripe.
>

Ah, at last. Thanks. I have never understood where that silly notion
came from.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Cirrus writes:

> But your previous comment is EXTREMELY insulting:

It's an accurate description of the people it references (the kiddies
and children), who unfortunately are very common on USENET. Someone
who counts himself among the kiddies and children might feel insulted,
particularly since people in these categories tend to take everything
as an insult. There's nothing I can do about that.

> Children? Noise?- ouch......

Why ouch?

> You want serious discussion?

Always.

> It's not that you are a sim pilot that bothers some people- it's
> your ego. If you were a little more humble, you' would see that.

If people are bothered by me, they should avoid me. Such people
aren't likely to be willing or able to participate in a normal
discussion, so interaction with them is usually a waste of time.

> Since you do seem to know so much, why do you come here?

If I knew so much, I would not ask questions.

However, I long ago learned--the hard way--that most people are
blowing smoke when they answer questions. I don't take answers at
face value unless I know from long personal interaction with a person
that he has an excellent track record for giving reliable answers.
Few people are in that category. On USENET, almost everyone is
posturing, so all responses must be taken with a large grain of salt.

A good way to explore the validity of an answer is to question it.
Most people giving good answers can effortlessly support them and can
easily explain why they have chosen those answers; not only does this
make the answer much safer to accept, but it can also provide a lot of
interesting additional information. People blowing smoke simply
become emotional and resort to personal attacks, and I promptly write
off anything they've said.

> Discussion is all about different points of view, but you can't
> pick and choose answers you like and cast judgement on the ones you
> don't.

Why not? I like answers that are supported by sound reasoning based
on acceptable premises. I ignore answers that amount to unsupported
assertions. Credentials are not a factor, in part because (1)
credentials are not reliable, and (2) everyone on USENET is a
self-appointed world expert in everything.

> Especially if you aren't a pilot(in this case).

Being a pilot isn't a guarantee of anything, unfortunately, except
that one holds a pilot's license. As a group, pilots are likely to
know more about aviation than non-pilots, but this general observation
is useless for predicting the reliability of individuals who call
themselves pilots. I've encountered too many pilots who blithely
contradict extremely reliable sources of aviation information. I
don't call pilots on their mistakes, as a general rule, in order to
avoid embarrassment; but I do silently write them off.

What I find revealing is how often "pilots" cannot even agree among
themselves. If they knew as much as they believe themselves to know,
they would not provide wildly varying answers to so many of the same
questions. I try to extract a majority opinion from the serious
answers I receive, and I compare this with whatever other sources I
can locate for answers to the same questions. If all goes well, I
eventually learn something useful.

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

[Peter Dohm]

>
> Just a single throttle. The occasions where I might need separate
> throttle controls are so rare that they don't justify the expense of a
> full dual set of throttles.

Perhaps, since you are not really using it as a simulation in preparation
for a flight. OTOH, you found one.

> For things like single-engine failures, I
> pause the sim to reset throttles or feather props or whatever.
>

Thus simulating nothing.

[Greg Farris]

In article >, says...

>You can get questions from a different reasonable reader. Not this guy, if
you
>want this group to remain healthy. He is a troll, plain and simple. Go over
to
>the sim group, and ask about him. They ran him off, over there.
>



How did they get rid of him?
Can they give us some instruction?

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Greg Farris >
wrote:

> >You can get questions from a different reasonable reader. Not this guy, if
> you
> >want this group to remain healthy. He is a troll, plain and simple. Go
> >over
> to
> >the sim group, and ask about him. They ran him off, over there.
>
> How did they get rid of him?
> Can they give us some instruction?

How did we get rid of the fish that shall not be named?

What happened to the long island looney bird?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Dohm writes:

> Perhaps, since you are not really using it as a simulation in preparation
> for a flight. OTOH, you found one.

It looks as though throttles are often side by side in real aircraft
as well, so presumably one moves them as a unit most of the time,
unless there's a specific reason to adjust one throttle alone.

One thing about the sim is that throttles are always perfectly locked
together. I don't know how easy that is to manage in real life,
unless an aircraft has some sort of locking system to ensure that all
throttles move in exactly the same way.

I've heard that very small differences in throttle settings can reduce
economy, and that FADECs automatically eliminate discrepancies in
order to improve fuel economy.

> Thus simulating nothing.

Not quite. Some things that are time-consuming in the sim would be
extremely fast and easy in real life. Thus, pausing the sim to carry
them out is actually more realistic than doing them in real time.

For example, feathering a single prop requires bringing up the
throttle panel, placing the mouse on the prop lever, and rolling it
downwards towards the feather position. In real life, it would be one
very simple and quick movement. Doing it in the sim takes time that
wouldn't be taken up in real life, and thus reduces realism. Pausing
the sim makes the timing closer to real life.

The main reason for throttle quadrants is to avoid the problem above.
Adjusting throttles in MSFS is very awkward without an actual throttle
quadrant, and throttle adjustments are so frequent in real life that
having a moveable throttle lever enhances realism enough to make it
cost-effective. This is dramatically less true for prop and mixture
levers.

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> If people are bothered by me, they should avoid me. Such people
> aren't likely to be willing or able to participate in a normal
> discussion, so interaction with them is usually a waste of time.
>

The way your life seems to be going, it might be time to ask if YOU are
the cause of the problems, not "such people". But you knew that - just
as well as you know that your style of "discussion" is anything but
normal.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>If people are bothered by me, they should avoid me. Such people
>aren't likely to be willing or able to participate in a normal
>discussion, so interaction with them is usually a waste of time.



Break into their group, then say they should avoid you.
Anyone who's bothered by you is, by definition, unlikely to be willing or
able to participate in a normal discussion?


Funny thing about humans. They are such unrelaible sources of
information. They have ideas, opinions - they disagree with each other
- they even make mistakes, and when they do, they are capable of still
trying to defend themselves! Such children!It's hard to imagine what
pleasure they can get out of hearing one anothers' opinions, when, by
definition, only one can be right, and the others can only be "blowing
smoke".

There are much more reliable sources of information - books for
example. But wait a minute - this argument is made by one who refuses
to research a subject before discussing it - who cannot find the
motivation to look up the simplest subject before coming to the public
place to tell the experts they are amateurs and children . . .

[Mxsmanic]

Greg Farris writes:

> Break into their group, then say they should avoid you.

"Their" group? Sorry, but newsgroups belong to no one, and although
the kiddies in the boys' club might be the most active posters in a
group, that doesn't mean that the group belongs to them.

> Anyone who's bothered by you is, by definition, unlikely to be willing or
> able to participate in a normal discussion?

No, but people who are in general preoccupied by personalities and
emotions rather than rational discussion are likely to have such
difficulties.

> Funny thing about humans. They are such unrelaible sources of
> information. They have ideas, opinions - they disagree with each other
> - they even make mistakes, and when they do, they are capable of still
> trying to defend themselves! Such children!

Yes.

> It's hard to imagine what
> pleasure they can get out of hearing one anothers' opinions, when, by
> definition, only one can be right, and the others can only be "blowing
> smoke".

It's not hard to imagine, but it is a source of pleasure that I do not
share. There are many psychological underpinnings to such behavior.

> There are much more reliable sources of information - books for
> example.

Books are not inherently reliable.

> But wait a minute - this argument is made by one who refuses
> to research a subject before discussing it - who cannot find the
> motivation to look up the simplest subject before coming to the public
> place to tell the experts they are amateurs and children . . .

Well, you can change if you wish.

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

[Judah]

Bob Noel > wrote in
:

> In article >, Greg Farris
> > wrote:
>
>> >You can get questions from a different reasonable reader. Not this
>> >guy, if
>> you
>> >want this group to remain healthy. He is a troll, plain and simple.
>> >Go over
>> to
>> >the sim group, and ask about him. They ran him off, over there.
>>
>> How did they get rid of him?
>> Can they give us some instruction?

Maybe we should all just go over to the sim group and leave him here all by
himself.

> How did we get rid of the fish that shall not be named?

Dumping Nuclear Waste in the water?

> What happened to the long island looney bird?

Shot 'em all?

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> It's an accurate description of the people it references (the kiddies
> and children), who unfortunately are very common on USENET.

Hey group! This is what you get, if you deal with this one!

> If people are bothered by me, they should avoid me. Such people
> aren't likely to be willing or able to participate in a normal
> discussion, so interaction with them is usually a waste of time.

You are the authority on interaction being a waste of time. It is always a
waste of time to communicate with you.

> However, I long ago learned--the hard way--that most people are
> blowing smoke when they answer questions. On USENET, almost everyone is
> posturing, so all responses must be taken with a large grain of salt.

See what I mean, group? This is what he thinks of your answers. Just say no!

> Credentials are not a factor, in part because (1)
> credentials are not reliable, and (2) everyone on USENET is a
> self-appointed world expert in everything.

Again, this is what he thinks of you, group.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote

> Books are not inherently reliable.

So you don't trust books or people. Is anyone up to your high standards?

No need to answer that. I know you think more of yourself than anyone or
anything else.

Have fun playing with your sim game.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Greg Farris" > wrote

> How did they get rid of him?
> Can they give us some instruction?

Everyone quit responding to him.

We still have members here that think it is worthwhile to answer him, and
continue threads with his insertions.

He will not leave, until nobody will play with him.
--
Jim in NC

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Greg Farris writes:
>
>> Break into their group, then say they should avoid you.
>
> "Their" group? Sorry, but newsgroups belong to no one, and although
> the kiddies in the boys' club might be the most active posters in a
> group, that doesn't mean that the group belongs to them.

The charter of this group, which I have quoted below:

From: Geoff Peck )
Subject: CHARTER: rec.aviation.piloting
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Date: 2002-01-13 00:45:07 PST


The charter of rec.aviation.piloting is:


************************************************** *****************
* Information pertinent to pilots of general aviation aircraft
* which would not fall into one of the other non-misc
* rec.aviation groups. Topics include, but are not limited to
* flying skills, interesting sights, destinations, flight
* characteristics of aircraft, unusual situations, handling
* emergencies, working with air traffic control, international
* flights, customs and immigration, experiences with
* ground support facilities, etc.
************************************************** *****************

Certainly you can recognize by now that certain of your questions and
comments are not pertinent to pilots of General Aviation aircraft.

Please refrain from violating the charter of this group.

[Cirrus]

MX,
You do raise valid points, and I appreciate that you at least replied.
Now I'm going to be sentimental....There is one underlying thing for
you to keep in the back of your mind here, however. There is an
underlying principle that bonds pilots subconsciously together- that
mistakes can lead to death. Being a pilot doesn't guarantee anything,
you are right. A lot of us have friends who have died flying, with
their license providing no help. But, despite that, we love flying, and
it is safe. Not knowing the perfect taxi speed might not hurt anyone,
but the collective package of knowledge a pilot possesses makes him/her
safer up there. It takes a lifetime commitment to being a safe pilot.

Try to get to the right answer, but be sensitive to the fact that this
group of people's differing opinions stem from a deeper belief that
their well being (as well as their passengers) depends on their
ultimate actions in the cockpit. Often times there are multiple ways to
do the same thing, and everyone who has done it their way safely wants
to tell others. (And yes, some people just want to show off...). But
what is good for one pilot might not be for another. So of Course there
are different answers. Examples:

You are too high on final. Do you sideslip or go around?
How much do you lean the mixture while on the ground?
What visibility is too low for takeoff? Part 91 lets me go with 0.
Am I safe at 9000ft at night without supplemental oxygen? FAR says it's
legal
When you taxi, how fast is too fast?
Is that runway too short today?


I know my abilities and limitations. For instance, I have great
crosswind landing skills, but am more timid with small mountain strips.
Most people here have different opinions OR experience levels, and you
can't just poke them with sticks when they know that you are detached
from the issue. If you screw up, no problem. If I screw up, somebody
might die, and that's why we try so hard to tell each other what we
think is best. Sometimes it seems you toy with this principle (without
knowing it, I hope) and it really ****es people off. Just my 2 cents.

>
> Being a pilot isn't a guarantee of anything, unfortunately, except
> that one holds a pilot's license. As a group, pilots are likely to
> know more about aviation than non-pilots, but this general observation
> is useless for predicting the reliability of individuals who call
> themselves pilots.

[Judah]

Dave > wrote in
:

> ....for the record..I find your questions here to be reasonable and
> the (correct) answers posted will be of some value to You and the
> many who lurk here..

Most of Manic's questions seem to start off in that direction, true. But he
frequently hunts down a way to turn it into an argument, even when he gets
an answer that is accurate. Often he simply states that the answer cannot
be correct because it doesn't work that way for him in the sim, or because
he has some preconceived notion that itself may be inaccurate. Other times
he will find some minor detail within the response that is refutable, and
take immediate action to refute it in an attempt to discredit the entire
post. It's disingenuous, inflammatory, and it is not interesting to pilots
on this newsgroup.

He continues to repeat the same pattern over and over again. Many of us
gave him the benefit of the doubt for too long a time.

> I am having some difficulty understanding why some here find it
> necessary to chastize you for being a "sim" pilot. I know some local
> "sim" pilots who would love to do the real thing, but are unable for
> various reasons.

No one is chastising him just for being a Sim pilot. What we are chastising
him for being a troll.

> If that is your circumstance, I hope it is temporary, and you may
> experience the thrill of piloting a real aircraft someday.

He has indicated that he has neither the money nor the interest to actually
pilot a real plane. He has disdain for pilots and believes flying to be too
risky. I am convinced that his entire purpose on this newsgroup is to
improve his own ego by demonstrating how well he can manipulate the "elite
pilots" on this newsgroup.

> Ignore the rants, there are some here that will answer your question
> properly and correctly..

But that won't stop him from arguing with them, either.

[Mxsmanic]

Morgans writes:

> So you don't trust books or people. Is anyone up to your
> high standards?

Quite a few. But I take nothing at its or his word. I've been burned
too many times. There are lots of people who want to appear to be
experts, but very few who are. Experience has taught me that the
soft-spoken ones are the often the ones who know the most--once a
person really _is_ an expert, there's no reason to put on a show.

> Have fun playing with your sim game.

Last night was great, Essex County to Martha's Vineyard, and then a
very nice flight from Logan International to JFK.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Certainly you can recognize by now that certain of your questions and
> comments are not pertinent to pilots of General Aviation aircraft.

More importantly, I recognize that essentially all of them are on
topic.

> Please refrain from violating the charter of this group.

It's not a law, so it can't be violated. But I'm well within the
charter, anyway.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Cirrus writes:

> You do raise valid points, and I appreciate that you at least replied.
> Now I'm going to be sentimental....There is one underlying thing for
> you to keep in the back of your mind here, however. There is an
> underlying principle that bonds pilots subconsciously together- that
> mistakes can lead to death.

That bonds a lot of people together. There are many ways to die.

> Not knowing the perfect taxi speed might not hurt anyone,
> but the collective package of knowledge a pilot possesses makes him/her
> safer up there.

Safer than whom? Nobody else is allowed to fly.

> It takes a lifetime commitment to being a safe pilot.

I don't think so. It doesn't take a lifetime to become a doctor; it
certainly doesn't take a lifetime to become a pilot.

But in any safety-critical domain, a certain attitude tends to me more
conducive to safety than any other. Some people have this attitude,
others don't. Training programs and credentialing attempt to instill
and maintain the right attitude, but they don't always succeed, as
accidents and deaths continue to prove.

> Try to get to the right answer, but be sensitive to the fact that this
> group of people's differing opinions stem from a deeper belief that
> their well being (as well as their passengers) depends on their
> ultimate actions in the cockpit.

What I find surprising is that, even though they probably do have this
deep belief for the most part, they consciously act against it on so
many occasions. For example, it has been pointed out that GPS
altitudes are not trustworthy, and yet some pilots stubbornly insist
that they can fly with them. They display many of the characteristics
that the FAA says are associated with pilots who will eventually kill
themselves.

> You are too high on final. Do you sideslip or go around?
> How much do you lean the mixture while on the ground?
> What visibility is too low for takeoff? Part 91 lets me go with 0.
> Am I safe at 9000ft at night without supplemental oxygen? FAR says it's
> legal
> When you taxi, how fast is too fast?
> Is that runway too short today?

Most of these questions have an unambiguously "safest" answer, so the
only variable is how willing pilots are to follow the safest route in
every situation.

> I know my abilities and limitations. For instance, I have great
> crosswind landing skills, but am more timid with small mountain strips.
> Most people here have different opinions OR experience levels, and you
> can't just poke them with sticks when they know that you are detached
> from the issue. If you screw up, no problem. If I screw up, somebody
> might die, and that's why we try so hard to tell each other what we
> think is best. Sometimes it seems you toy with this principle (without
> knowing it, I hope) and it really ****es people off. Just my 2 cents.

Being ****ed off is unsafe. Emotion clouds judgement, and cloudy
judgement is poor judgement, and poor judgement leads to bad things.

I'm sorry that some people are ruled by their emotions. It must be
very unpleasant. I'm thankful that I'm not flying with them at the
controls.

I long ago noticed that the best pilots, astronauts, engineers, etc.,
tend to be like robots when they are doing what they like best.
People who cannot control their emotions wash out, or die. I like to
see that icy calm in anyone flying a plane in which I'm a passenger.
When all hell breaks loose, I know they'll keep a cool head and bring
us all in to a safe landing.

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

[Christopher Brian Colohan]

Mxsmanic > writes:
> Doug writes:
>
> > And contrary to how many are being taught, you don't need the
> > brakes on the beginning of takeoff run to stay aligned with the center
> > stripe.
>
> Pilots are taught to use the brakes on take-off? Isn't that unsafe?

Note -- I believe Doug is an airline pilot. He probably knows what he is talking about.

To answer your question: depends on the plane, depends on the
conditions. For most planes you probably don't want to touch the
brakes on takeoff at all. For the DA-20 I am currently training in,
the POH claims that in crosswind conditions you may need to tap one of
the brakes a bit during the initial takeoff roll to retain directional
control before the rudder gains full authority -- but doing this
increases your takeoff distance.

Chris

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Most of Manic's questions seem to start off in that direction, true. But he
> frequently hunts down a way to turn it into an argument, even when he gets
> an answer that is accurate. Often he simply states that the answer cannot
> be correct because it doesn't work that way for him in the sim, or because
> he has some preconceived notion that itself may be inaccurate. Other times
> he will find some minor detail within the response that is refutable, and
> take immediate action to refute it in an attempt to discredit the entire
> post. It's disingenuous, inflammatory, and it is not interesting to pilots
> on this newsgroup.

Not really--but it's injurious to pilot egos, and for some pilots,
that overrides every other consideration.

Do you really expect me to accept every answer I get unconditionally?
I can't even get coherent answers from more than one person at a time
in some cases. The answers are contradictory, or bizarre, or conflict
with other sources I've consulted. I'm not stupid enough to just
swallow whatever I'm given. I may actually have to apply this
knowledge someday.

I have _consistently_ found that people who know exactly what they are
talking about can explain every answer they give in exhausting,
grueling detail if necessary. Furthermore, they can do it without
becoming defensive or emotional, and without insulting whoever asked
the question. Some people here may think that they are valiantly
defending their egos and honor when they fly off the handle and whine
like children. In fact, I'm just drawing a line through their names.
They can't explain their answers, and they get antsy when anyone
questions them--these two behaviors combined are an extremely strong
indicator that they simply don't know what they are talking about.

> No one is chastising him just for being a Sim pilot.

Some people are. It's an ego issue, again.

> He has indicated that he has neither the money nor the interest to actually
> pilot a real plane. He has disdain for pilots and believes flying to be too
> risky.

I haven't the money or time to fly. The medical requirements are
(unnecessarily) strict. Given all this, the obstacles to flying are
simply too high to make it a consideration. Perhaps if they didn't
exist, I might be more willing to try it out.

I don't have a disdain for pilots, only for stupid people.
Unfortunately, being a pilot doesn't prevent someone from being
stupid.

Flying _is_ risky--the numbers prove it. It's not necessarily risky
enough to avoid, but pretending that GA is as safe as stepping onto an
airliner is deliberately and dramatically misleading.

> I am convinced that his entire purpose on this newsgroup is to
> improve his own ego by demonstrating how well he can manipulate the "elite
> pilots" on this newsgroup.

It's easy to manipulate people; it doesn't provide much for the ego.
And I can't say that I've seen much in the way of elite pilots on this
newsgroup. I've seen some who I'd say know a lot more than others,
but I won't name names.

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

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> It's not a law, so it can't be violated.

Certainly other things besides laws can be violated.

From Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
vi-o-late [vahy-uh-leyt]–verb (used with object)
1. to break, infringe, or transgress (a law, rule, agreement, promise,
instructions, etc.).
2. to break in upon or disturb rudely; interfere thoughtlessly with: to
violate his privacy.
4. to treat irreverently or disrespectfully; desecrate; profane: violate a
human right.


Many of your posts "break in upon or disturb rudely; interfere thoughtlessly
with" this newsgroup, whether you see it that way or not. And some of your
posts "treat irreverently or disrespectfully" General Aviation and its
Pilots, which is what this newsgroup was designed for.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Judah > wrote:

> > How did we get rid of the fish that shall not be named?
>
> Dumping Nuclear Waste in the water?

nope - by ignoring him

>
> > What happened to the long island looney bird?
>
> Shot 'em all?

nope - by ignoring him

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Many of your posts "break in upon or disturb rudely; interfere thoughtlessly
> with" this newsgroup, whether you see it that way or not.

So the way you see things is objectively valid, whereas the way I see
things is not? Do you see a contradiction here?

> And some of your
> posts "treat irreverently or disrespectfully" General Aviation and its
> Pilots, which is what this newsgroup was designed for.

It's not a religion.

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

[Peter Dohm]

> > Thus simulating nothing.
>
> Not quite. Some things that are time-consuming in the sim would be
> extremely fast and easy in real life. Thus, pausing the sim to carry
> them out is actually more realistic than doing them in real time.
>
I have been a long time proponent of simulation as a safer and more cost
effective method to practice and prepare for a variety of operations.
However, you have finally convinced me that Allen, Jim, and several others
have been correct in their assessment--that this series of threads is a huge
waste.

Therefore, Mx, fairwell to you and I hope that you are finding enjoyment in
almost simulating.

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

> As a man gets older, you get more sympathy for curmudgeons and limited
> income and disabilities. In my 50's and fighting cancer for the past
> year, I am particularly sensitive to this kind of situation, and
> clearly I find it abhorent that some pilots (?) find it necessary to
> make personal attacks on anyone. I hope these immature types never end
> up in a similar situation, but they'd sure deserve it.
>
Your point is well taken, and I certainly empathize for various reasons.
All the same, for the foressable future, I plan to confine my participation
in this series of threads to (at most) lurking.

Peter

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> So the way you see things is objectively valid, whereas the way I see
> things is not? Do you see a contradiction here?

Not at all. Objectivity is not relevant. The charter indicates that this is a
newsgroup for discussions pertinent to Pilots.

> It's not a religion.

Respect does not apply only to religion.

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Do you really expect me to accept every answer I get unconditionally?

No. Yet you seem to expect the rest of the group to accept every answer you
give unconditionally, even when you do not include sources, citations,
relevant experiences, or any other forms of support for your ideas.

> I can't even get coherent answers from more than one person at a time
> in some cases. The answers are contradictory, or bizarre, or conflict
> with other sources I've consulted. I'm not stupid enough to just
> swallow whatever I'm given. I may actually have to apply this
> knowledge someday.

Clearly not all pilots have the same opinions about all things. And
certainly, as pilots posting on a newsgroup, not all answers are accurate.

No one would fault you for asking for more details or for support regarding
an answer that you received. But many of your responses seem to be
inflammatory, belittling the people who tried to genuinely help you.

> I have _consistently_ found that people who know exactly what they are
> talking about can explain every answer they give in exhausting,
> grueling detail if necessary. Furthermore, ...

If you really only wanted correct answers, you would read the appropriate
documentation. Some of your questions evidence the likelihood that you may
have read the documentation, and are specifically looking to bait pilots so
you can prove that pilots are humans who make mistakes.

> I haven't the money or time to fly. The medical requirements are
> (unnecessarily) strict. Given all this, the obstacles to flying are
> simply too high to make it a consideration. Perhaps if they didn't
> exist, I might be more willing to try it out.

I'm not sure what the rules are in France, but in the US, you can fly
certain types of aircraft with little or no licensing or medical
requirements... Perhaps there is something similar in France. The cost to
fly these types of planes is also lower.
However, disregarding your current income and medical situation (which
perhaps could change someday), you have made comments implying or
indicating that you have no interest in flying anything other than a sim.
So I have trouble believing your last statement.

> I don't have a disdain for pilots, only for stupid people.
> Unfortunately, being a pilot doesn't prevent someone from being
> stupid.

Stupid people can increase their intelligence through learning.

> Flying _is_ risky--the numbers prove it.

There are _many_ things in life that are risky.

> It's easy to manipulate people; it doesn't provide much for the ego.

So then why do you keep doing it?

[Cirrus]

MX,
>
> > Flying _is_ risky--the numbers prove it.

That is definitely a landmine waiting to be stepped on.....
I'm going to have to agree with Judah- many things are risky.

> I haven't the money or time to fly. The medical requirements are
> (unnecessarily) strict. Given all this, the obstacles to flying are
> simply too high to make it a consideration. Perhaps if they didn't
> exist, I might be more willing to try it out.

They aren't obstacles- IT IS A LOT OF WORK to be a safe pilot.
I'm curious which parts you find to be unnecessary? Flying has inherent
risks, but I wouldn't say it is risky. Very few serious accidents are a
result of airplane mechanical problems, meaning that training and
decision making skills are as crucial as a working airplane. It's more
often the pilot than flying that can be called risky, I think most
pilots are competent safe people. True, there are dumb ones too....
Let me ask you this- would you let a friend who was a pilot take you up
in a small airplane?

[Dave[_3_]]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 01:03:04 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:


>As far as I can tell, the Baron has a direct connection from rudder to
>nose wheel. The part I don't understand is how an aircraft can
>overshoot in a turn if the rudder is connected directly to the nose
>wheel. Either the wheel stays put, in which case it must skid a bit
>as the aircraft continues to turn, or the nose wheel turns and forces
>the rudder pedals to move in consequence (which I would not be able to
>feel in a simulator). Do you know which way it works?

Hmmmm.... I have not seen any nose wheels "skid" sideways while
taxying on dry pavement.. one would have to be taxying way to fast...
I guess I would look to the sim software or a possibly misadjusted
"null" in the rudder pedal input parameters...
>
>I'm getting better at turns. I try to anticipate enough in advance
>that I don't keep turning past the centerline. Oddly enough, it seems
>to be more difficult to turn on the ground than it is in the air.

Actually, this is true sometimes... Tailwheel aircraft especially....
>
>Maintaining speed is irritating, too. Sometimes I hit it just right
>and the aircraft just putts along at about 11 kts, but finding that
>sweet spot consistently is difficult. And with long runways and large
>airports, one is rolling about for quite a while at 11 kts.

It usually takes constant adjustment of power to maintan a constant
taxi speed. ..unless the surface is perfectly level and smooth, and it
is perfectly calm. Think about this, - a power setting produces thrust
in a calm situation, the aircraft settles in at a constant speed. The
wind gusts, impacting your plane from the front - this will reduce the
effective thrust, and add drag - you will slow down.

You have to nudge the throttle up....to compensate.


>
>> If that is your circumstance, I hope it is temporary, and you may
>> experience the thrill of piloting a real aircraft someday.
>
>I hope so, too, but I'm not very optimistic at the moment.

Don't give up on it, if it is really what you want to do...
>
>> I am a pilot, have lots of hours in sims, and I am fortunate to have a
>> clean medical and my own plane, - at this time in my life.
>
>I hope you didn't have to wait long.


Got lucky, could afford to start at 33, still at it , now 58.....

>
>Hmm. It seems so slow. How about 11 knots? I go faster than that on
>a bicycle ... why do aircraft have to taxi so slowly?

11 knots is fast. Notice , few aircraft tires have a tread suitable
for traction on other than dry, hard surface runways... and the
landing gear/steering geometry is not set up to handle turns at
higher speeds...

Some have a narrow track, and will tip easily and scrape a wingtip,
or worse...

For large aircraft, even more caution.. many tons of aircraft will
NOT stop on a dime!

One of my hangar mates is an "Alpha Jet" ,- out weighs my car by 4
times, has 1/3 of the rubber friction surface of the 4 car tires.

Dave

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Objectivity is not relevant.

Then your view is just as subjective as mine, and is thus no more
valid.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Dave writes:

> Hmmmm.... I have not seen any nose wheels "skid" sideways while
> taxying on dry pavement.. one would have to be taxying way to fast...
> I guess I would look to the sim software or a possibly misadjusted
> "null" in the rudder pedal input parameters...

Since the overshoot has to be explicitly simulated, I assume that it
corresponds to some real-world behavior of the aircraft, but I'm not
sure of the details.

> Don't give up on it, if it is really what you want to do...

There are many obstacles right now.

> 11 knots is fast. Notice , few aircraft tires have a tread suitable
> for traction on other than dry, hard surface runways... and the
> landing gear/steering geometry is not set up to handle turns at
> higher speeds...

Points taken.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> Yet you seem to expect the rest of the group to accept every answer you
> give unconditionally ...

I don't specify any expectations. Their interpretations are their
own.

> No one would fault you for asking for more details or for support regarding
> an answer that you received. But many of your responses seem to be
> inflammatory, belittling the people who tried to genuinely help you.

I am probably one of the few in this group who does _not_ personally
attack other people.

> If you really only wanted correct answers, you would read the appropriate
> documentation.

You're saying that nobody here would have the correct answers?

> Some of your questions evidence the likelihood that you may
> have read the documentation, and are specifically looking to bait pilots so
> you can prove that pilots are humans who make mistakes.

So if I read up, I'm bad. And if I don't read up, I'm bad.

> I'm not sure what the rules are in France, but in the US, you can fly
> certain types of aircraft with little or no licensing or medical
> requirements...

I want to fly the type I choose, not necessarily the types available
to me.

And I'm worried only about the U.S. I don't care much about flying in
France.

> However, disregarding your current income and medical situation (which
> perhaps could change someday), you have made comments implying or
> indicating that you have no interest in flying anything other than a sim.

Currently, I have lots of fun flying a sim, and I wonder whether the
time, expense, and trouble of flying for real would be offset by any
additional enjoyment I might get from real flight.

> Stupid people can increase their intelligence through learning.

Intelligence and acquired knowledge are two different things. Stupid
people can acquire knowledge (in time), but they cannot become more
intelligent.

> So then why do you keep doing it?

I don't. If I were manipulating people, they certainly wouldn't be
aware of it (that would defeat the purpose).

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

[Mxsmanic]

Cirrus writes:

> They aren't obstacles- IT IS A LOT OF WORK to be a safe pilot.
> I'm curious which parts you find to be unnecessary?

The disparity between regulations and practice, and outdated medical
requirements.

> Let me ask you this- would you let a friend who was a pilot take you up
> in a small airplane?

Just because he was a pilot? No. I'd have to know what type of pilot
he was.

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

[Jon Kraus]

Good job for seeing the light Peter... It won't take too much longer to
flush MXIdiot away... I see that his "Various ATC Questions" post had no
takers from regular posters... Yea!! The beginning of the end is near...

Jon

Peter Dohm wrote:
>>>Thus simulating nothing.
>>
>>Not quite. Some things that are time-consuming in the sim would be
>>extremely fast and easy in real life. Thus, pausing the sim to carry
>>them out is actually more realistic than doing them in real time.
>>
>
> I have been a long time proponent of simulation as a safer and more cost
> effective method to practice and prepare for a variety of operations.
> However, you have finally convinced me that Allen, Jim, and several others
> have been correct in their assessment--that this series of threads is a huge
> waste.
>
> Therefore, Mx, fairwell to you and I hope that you are finding enjoyment in
> almost simulating.
>
> Peter
>
>

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> Objectivity is not relevant.
>
> Then your view is just as subjective as mine, and is thus no more
> valid.

As a pilot, my subjective view is in line with the charter of this group.

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> People blowing smoke simply become emotional and resort to personal
> attacks, and I promptly write
> off anything they've said.

Is that your definition of "refractory"?

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> I am probably one of the few in this group who does _not_ personally
> attack other people.

A comment like, "I don't trust small aircraft or general-aviation pilots, as
a general rule," which you posted on this newsgroup designed specifically for
General Aviation Pilots, is inflammatory and belittling to General Aviation
Pilots. Especially those who trusted your questions to be geniune and
answered them genuinely.

> So if I read up, I'm bad. And if I don't read up, I'm bad.

Reading up does not make you bad.
Not reading up does not make you bad.

> Currently, I have lots of fun flying a sim, and I wonder whether the
> time, expense, and trouble of flying for real would be offset by any
> additional enjoyment I might get from real flight.

An intro flight or two would probably assist you in determining this. You
have been advised here of that before, but stated that you will not get an
intro flight.

Enjoy your wondering then.

>> So then why do you keep doing it?
>
> I don't. If I were manipulating people, they certainly wouldn't be
> aware of it (that would defeat the purpose).

Some of us are more aware of it than others. It's admittedly difficult to
determine your purpose, though. There has been some debate on the subject.

Perhaps it's time you enlighten us all.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> As a pilot, my subjective view is in line with the charter of this group.

The charter of this group says nothing about subjectivity.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> Is that your definition of "refractory"?

It's part of it. I have limited time, so if I have reason to believe
that someone isn't going to contribute anything useful to the
discussion, I don't spend a lot of time reading his posts. I don't
killfile anyone, however.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> A comment like, "I don't trust small aircraft or general-aviation pilots, as
> a general rule," which you posted on this newsgroup designed specifically for
> General Aviation Pilots, is inflammatory and belittling to General Aviation
> Pilots.

It's not a personal attack. It's just an expression of opinion. Do
you have a problem with expressions of opinion?

> Especially those who trusted your questions to be geniune and
> answered them genuinely.

What makes you believe that my questions are not genuine?

> An intro flight or two would probably assist you in determining this.

No time or money for that right now.

> Enjoy your wondering then.

I don't lose any sleep over it.

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

[Cirrus]

Ok MX,
How would you know what type of pilot he was?
Someone here once got on my case for saying that you aren't worth our
time, and I felt bad. I've tried to see your point of view. But the
guys here are right. These arguments aren't worth the time to write
them. It's so hard to steer clear of your manipulative baited posts,
but it seems clear that you aren't in this for the same reason the rest
of us are. Goodbye MX - I hope your threads get quieter and
quieter.....

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Cirrus writes:
>
> > They aren't obstacles- IT IS A LOT OF WORK to be a safe pilot.
> > I'm curious which parts you find to be unnecessary?
>
> The disparity between regulations and practice, and outdated medical
> requirements.
>
> > Let me ask you this- would you let a friend who was a pilot take you up
> > in a small airplane?
>
> Just because he was a pilot? No. I'd have to know what type of pilot
> he was.

[A Lieberma]

"Cirrus" > wrote in
oups.com:

> It's so hard to steer clear of your manipulative baited posts,
> but it seems clear that you aren't in this for the same reason the
> rest of us are. Goodbye MX - I hope your threads get quieter and
> quieter.....

Thanks Cirrus :-)

Allen

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> What makes you believe that my questions are not genuine?

If you do not trust General Aviation Pilots, why would you come to a forum
designed for them and ask questions of them?

[Mxsmanic]

Cirrus writes:

> How would you know what type of pilot he was?

By talking with him extensively, and especially by watching him fly.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> If you do not trust General Aviation Pilots, why would you come to a forum
> designed for them and ask questions of them?

Some of them are smarter than others. I listen to the smart ones, and
ignore the stupid ones. Just being a GA pilot in itself doesn't make
one smart or stupid. And it's easy enough to spot the ones who know
what they are talking about.

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

[Judah]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Judah writes:
>
>> If you do not trust General Aviation Pilots, why would you come to a
>> forum designed for them and ask questions of them?
>
> Some of them are smarter than others. I listen to the smart ones, and
> ignore the stupid ones. Just being a GA pilot in itself doesn't make
> one smart or stupid. And it's easy enough to spot the ones who know
> what they are talking about.

If you don't trust GA Pilots, intelligence is not relevant.

[Mxsmanic]

Judah writes:

> If you don't trust GA Pilots, intelligence is not relevant.

I don't trust anyone by default. On that path lies danger.

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

[Dudley Henriques]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Judah writes:
>>
>>> If you do not trust General Aviation Pilots, why would you come to a
>>> forum designed for them and ask questions of them?
>>
>> Some of them are smarter than others. I listen to the smart ones, and
>> ignore the stupid ones. Just being a GA pilot in itself doesn't make
>> one smart or stupid. And it's easy enough to spot the ones who know
>> what they are talking about.
>
> If you don't trust GA Pilots, intelligence is not relevant.

Judah my friend; I'm afraid you and some others are missing the obvious with
this poster. Read his answer above once again and study it this time around.
The real answer is right there for all of you to see if you step back long
enough to see it.
He's said it all right here in this one post to you.

Follow his thought line carefully;

" Some of them are smarter than others"

What he's actually saying here is that with only his simulation background,
he's completely and thoroughly qualified to make this judgment after asking
a QUESTION to a real pilot, on how smart that pilot actually is. If you look
just a bit deeper into the psychology involved here, it becomes immediately
apparent that someone having the knowledge and experience to differentiate
in this manner after asking a question wouldn't have to ask the question in
the first place :-)

Again....
"it's easy to spot the ones who know what they are talking about".

Same thing. If he already knows enough to differentiate in this manner, why
the question in the first place?

This poster and the scenario he has managed to generate on these forums is
an absolute hoot!!!! :-)))
My wife and I watch it progress on a daily basis. She says it's better than
watching a daytime soap.....she calls it "All my Pilots"
:-))))))))))))))))))
Dudley Henriques

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Cirrus writes:
>
>> How would you know what type of pilot he was?
>
> By talking with him extensively, and especially by watching him fly.
>
You like a person who talks a good game, because that person is much like
yourself. You think that you can determine how he flys by watching from
the ground, because that's how you "fly"; from the ground. Good luck with
either of those approaches, because neither will provide you with the
remotest clue of the real experience you'd have.

Neil

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

I listen to the smart ones, and
> ignore the stupid ones.




You have no way of making that determination.

[Jose[_1_]]

> My wife and I watch it progress on a daily basis. She says it's better than
> watching a daytime soap.....she calls it "All my Pilots"

Who's ahead in the betting?

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.

[TxSrv]

Newps wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> I listen to the smart ones, and
>> ignore the stupid ones.
>
> You have no way of making that determination.

Not even looking in a bathroom mirror? ;-)

F--

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
>> My wife and I watch it progress on a daily basis. She says it's better
>> than watching a daytime soap.....she calls it "All my Pilots"
>
> Who's ahead in the betting?
>
> Jose

I decided to quit while I was ahead 3 steaks at the Outback. I discovered a
long time ago that if I hung in long enough betting with my wife, I ALWAYS
end up losing....one way ot the other :-)
Dudley Henriques

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Judah writes:
>
>> If you don't trust GA Pilots, intelligence is not relevant.
>
> I don't trust anyone by default. On that path lies danger.
>
Well, I give you credit for realizing that you're on a dangerous path.

Neil

[Jon Kraus]

What a hoot Dudley!! LMAO!! The sad part about it is that the regular
responders to MXidiot don't even realize that they have a part in the
show.

They "feel" that he deserves to be answered and that every single person
who asks questions here should be addressed no matter how disruptive
they are.

I am glad to see you post here because you were one of the ones I was
referring to that I thought might have left the group and that would
have been sad.

Jon

Dudley Henriques wrote:

......she calls it "All my Pilots"
>

[A Lieberma]

Jon Kraus > wrote in news:gNJah.34986$OE1.13012
@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:

> I am glad to see you post here because you were one of the ones I was
> referring to that I thought might have left the group and that would
> have been sad.

Well said Jon,

Hopefully Gene is also still lurking out there too!

Gene, Dudley and the others that have set the tone for this group the past
six years, their experience would be sad to lose to the antics of Mx......

Not only to us regulars, but future student pilots that we so need to give
the best support possible.

Experience after all, is priceless.....

Allen

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
. ..
> What a hoot Dudley!! LMAO!! The sad part about it is that the regular
> responders to MXidiot don't even realize that they have a part in the
> show.
>
> They "feel" that he deserves to be answered and that every single person
> who asks questions here should be addressed no matter how disruptive they
> are.
>
> I am glad to see you post here because you were one of the ones I was
> referring to that I thought might have left the group and that would have
> been sad.
>
> Jon

Nope, still very much here and going strong as always :-) The regulars are
still here as well. Many of us are just sitting back and enjoying the "show"
:-)) A lot are keeping in touch back channel as well.
If there was anything either myself or any of the other "regulars" felt we
could do to help someone from the simulation community who came here to this
group seeking genuine advice and assistance, we'd be most happy to help in
any way we could.
As it is for this specific "situation".....well, can't speak for the rest of
the folks here, but I for one just "ain't that masochistic :-)))
Dudley Henriques

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> You like a person who talks a good game, because that person is much like
> yourself.

I like a person who knows what he is talking about. And as I've said,
I'd also want to see him fly.

> You think that you can determine how he flys by watching from
> the ground ...

I didn't say that, although I was pretty sure you'd infer it.

I meant watching him fly in a full-motion simulator, so that I can
observe his piloting skills safely before trusting him to fly me
around for real.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> You have no way of making that determination.

There are reliable indicators, even in written messages. I also have
known standards against which to compare them.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> And you lack the basic knowledge the determine which is which.

Actually, I do not. I have a certain background knowledge of methods
of intelligence estimation and measurement, as well as some
significant experience with both people of very low intelligence and
people of very high intelligence. It is possible to estimate the
intelligence range of a person with a certain amount of interaction.

> Let me guess. The smart ones agree with you and the stupid ones
> don't.

No. The smart ones explain their position in detail, and everything
fits, and their reasoning and premises are sound and free of obvious
flaws. The stupid ones get emotional, engage in personal attacks, and
believe that simply asserting their answers to be correct should be
sufficient reason for anyone to accept them without further question.
The contrast is usually very obvious.

Everyone tends to rely on emotion when intellect runs low. The lower
the intellect to start with, the quicker the resort to emotion. Thus,
people who fly off the handle as soon as their assertions are
questioned often are not very bright. Those who explain why they
believe their assertions to be correct often are.

There are also many fallacies in debate that are highly correlated
with low intelligence.

> But they ALL know more about flying than you.

No, unfortunately, they do not. If that were actually true, things
would be much easier.

What I see is that most real pilots know certain things that I do not,
and from that they incorrectly extrapolate that I know nothing and
they know everything, or that they know more across the board than I
do. Logically, at least the latter would be consistently the case,
but I see too many exceptions.

Too many of my questions, for example, have produced debate between
real pilots that would not occur if they all knew exactly what they
were talking about. Clearly, they don't know. If I cannot get a
consensus, I usually discard everything or nearly everything I've been
told and I look to other sources.

> They're the ones that don't think you are an idiot. Right?

No, they are the ones who can successfully support any statement they
make, with a cool head.

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

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote

> However, you have finally convinced me that Allen, Jim, and several others
> have been correct in their assessment--that this series of threads is a huge
> waste.
>
> Therefore, Mx, fairwell to you and I hope that you are finding enjoyment in
> almost simulating.

Thanks, Peter, for coming around. I hope everyone will. I will miss some of
the other's posts, but I'm glad you get to stay on my screen.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote

> My wife and I watch it progress on a daily basis. She says it's better than
> watching a daytime soap.....she calls it "All my Pilots"
> :-))))))))))))))))))

Tooooo Funny!!!
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"A Lieberma" > wrote

> Hopefully Gene is also still lurking out there too!

Gene made a post, here or in the student group, in the last day or two. He said
he has been really busy, in a nutshell.
--
Jim in NC

[Judah]

Hi Dudley,
I don't think I missed it by much. Maybe I helped bring it out into the open
more clearly than some of the other posters who simply cursed at him and/or
told him to go away, so I have served my purpose.

Perhaps foolishly, I hoped to stop him by knocking down all of his
ridiculous diversionary arguments so that all that was left was the truth or
quiet. But he is extraordinarily talented with his sophistry, and probably
won't be silenced until he finds somewhere new and exciting to troll,
regardless of my attempts. I guess now that it's all out in the open, I'll
try Jim Morgan's idea.

I enjoyed parrying with Mr. Manic during this liesurely holiday weekend. But
it's time for me to get back to work.

If he's still at it at Christmas time, and I have nothing better to do,
perhaps I will have another go at it then.

Be sure to tell your wife to look out for my next Holiday Cameo in her Soap,
if it is still running. Just one question - is my character the villain, the
hero, or just the village idiot? ;-)


"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
:

> Judah my friend; I'm afraid you and some others are missing the obvious
> with this poster. Read his answer above once again and study it this
> time around. The real answer is right there for all of you to see if you
> step back long enough to see it.
> He's said it all right here in this one post to you.
>
> Follow his thought line carefully;
>
> " Some of them are smarter than others"
>
> What he's actually saying here is that with only his simulation
> background, he's completely and thoroughly qualified to make this
> judgment after asking a QUESTION to a real pilot, on how smart that
> pilot actually is. If you look just a bit deeper into the psychology
> involved here, it becomes immediately apparent that someone having the
> knowledge and experience to differentiate in this manner after asking a
> question wouldn't have to ask the question in the first place :-)
>
> Again....
> "it's easy to spot the ones who know what they are talking about".
>
> Same thing. If he already knows enough to differentiate in this manner,
> why the question in the first place?
>
> This poster and the scenario he has managed to generate on these forums
> is an absolute hoot!!!! :-)))
> My wife and I watch it progress on a daily basis. She says it's better
> than watching a daytime soap.....she calls it "All my Pilots"
>:-))))))))))))))))))
> Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
> Hi Dudley,
> I don't think I missed it by much. Maybe I helped bring it out into the
> open
> more clearly than some of the other posters who simply cursed at him
> and/or
> told him to go away, so I have served my purpose.

The patience of Job I believe :-)

>
> Perhaps foolishly, I hoped to stop him by knocking down all of his
> ridiculous diversionary arguments so that all that was left was the truth
> or
> quiet. But he is extraordinarily talented with his sophistry, and probably
> won't be silenced until he finds somewhere new and exciting to troll,
> regardless of my attempts. I guess now that it's all out in the open, I'll
> try Jim Morgan's idea.

I agree. He's anything but stupid. Actually, it's a shame to see all his
native intelligence wasted so uselessly in these baiting and denigrating
exchanges. Someone with his natural interest in flying could have easily
enjoyed being part of the group instead of uselessly attempting to take it
apart. In the end, he will lose, the waters will settle down and he will be
gone, as no one can survive the atmosphere he has created. One by one, even
the die hard folks trying in every way possible to give him some slack will
finally get wise to what's going on.

> Be sure to tell your wife to look out for my next Holiday Cameo in her
> Soap,
> if it is still running. Just one question - is my character the villain,
> the
> hero, or just the village idiot? ;-)

I'd say from viewing all that's happened on this group recently that all of
us share a little bit of each character in this play :-))
Dudley Henriques

[Dudley Henriques]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>
>> My wife and I watch it progress on a daily basis. She says it's better
>> than watching a daytime soap.....she calls it "All my Pilots"
>> :-))))))))))))))))))
>
> Tooooo Funny!!!
> --
> Jim in NC

How's "As the prop turns" :-))

Dudley Henriques

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote

> How's "As the prop turns" :-))

Pretty good!

How about "As the Oil Boils" :-)
--
Jim in NC

[Dudley Henriques]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>> How's "As the prop turns" :-))
>
> Pretty good!
>
> How about "As the Oil Boils" :-)
> --
> Jim in NC

Ouch!! :-)
DH

[Judah]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
:

> it apart. In the end, he will lose, the waters will settle down and he
> will be gone, as no one can survive the atmosphere he has created. One
> by one, even the die hard folks trying in every way possible to give him
> some slack will finally get wise to what's going on.

I agree. I think the process has already started. But perhaps you misjudge my
patience, because it was a lack of patience on my part that drove me to
respond to some of his more recent posts and try accelerate the process...

> I'd say from viewing all that's happened on this group recently that all
> of us share a little bit of each character in this play :-))

Indeed!

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Judah" > wrote

> I agree. I think the process has already started. But perhaps you misjudge my
> patience, because it was a lack of patience on my part that drove me to
> respond to some of his more recent posts and try accelerate the process...

I think I'm on the same page of the playbook with you. I may have showed my a**
a little, but if it sped up the process, I'll think it was well worth it.

I do think the tide has turned, too.

It sure looks like it, with a few people blocked, but I hope that they really
have stopped, too. I already took one person out, after I saw a post saying he
had passed the limit. Thanks, Ron.
--
Jim in NC

[A Lieberma]

Judah > wrote in
:

> I agree. I think the process has already started. But perhaps you
> misjudge my patience, because it was a lack of patience on my part
> that drove me to respond to some of his more recent posts and try
> accelerate the process...

Yep, can fully relate Judah! Been there done it myself...... Took his
bait, hook line and sinker for a bit.

Still takes some serious self control for me not to respond to some of the
silly stuff, but I think if we band together with the "sounds of silence",
our message will come out loud and clear in the long run.

Allen

[Dudley Henriques]

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
> :

>But perhaps you misjudge my
> patience, because it was a lack of patience on my part that drove me to
> respond to some of his more recent posts and try accelerate the process...

I've read your exchanges with him. I'd say you simply went out of your way
to be reasonable and kind to someone you sensed might just have a chance to
join and belong to the group if only someone could turn him around.
Being a nice person is an attribute, not a detriment. I would classify your
effort as an exact definition of patience.
Dudley Henriques

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> I meant watching him fly in a full-motion simulator, so that I can
> observe his piloting skills safely before trusting him to fly me
> around for real.

I can't believe I'm actually reading this, or perhaps I just
don't get the joke.

F--

[TxSrv]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Actually, I do not. I have a certain background knowledge of methods
> of intelligence estimation and measurement, as well as some
> significant experience with both people of very low intelligence and
> people of very high intelligence.

As do we all, amazing arrogance set aside.

F--

[Judah]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
:

> I've read your exchanges with him. I'd say you simply went out of your
> way to be reasonable and kind to someone you sensed might just have a
> chance to join and belong to the group if only someone could turn him
> around. Being a nice person is an attribute, not a detriment. I would
> classify your effort as an exact definition of patience.
> Dudley Henriques

I appreciate the compliment. As well as your timely alert to prevent me from
continuing what was sure to be a long and non-productive path...

As you said, I think that if he were somehow able to get past whatever is
stopping him from actually flying (and I think it's more than just money), he
might have been a well-received, contributing member of the group. He would
also have to put away some of his arrogance, but I suspect that also stems
from whatever handicap is preventing him from flying...

[Judah]

A Lieberma > wrote in
. 18:

> Yep, can fully relate Judah! Been there done it myself...... Took his
> bait, hook line and sinker for a bit.
>
> Still takes some serious self control for me not to respond to some of the
> silly stuff, but I think if we band together with the "sounds of silence",
> our message will come out loud and clear in the long run.
>
> Allen

I sure hope so...

[Judah]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

> I think I'm on the same page of the playbook with you. I may have
> showed my a** a little, but if it sped up the process, I'll think it was
> well worth it.

A little? ;)

> I do think the tide has turned, too.

I hope so.

Time will tell...

> It sure looks like it, with a few people blocked, but I hope that they
> really have stopped, too. I already took one person out, after I saw a
> post saying he had passed the limit. Thanks, Ron.

Yeah, Ron wised up quicker than I expected him to based on one of his posts
from earlier in the weekend. I think we opened Cirrus' eyes too. We'll see
how long Doug takes. I don't think there are many left. And maybe they will
heed Allen's advice and move it over to the sim forums...

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> You like a person who talks a good game, because that person is much
>> like yourself.
>
> I like a person who knows what he is talking about. And as I've said,
> I'd also want to see him fly.
>
From your comments, below, it's clear that you *don't* want "to see him
fly".

>> You think that you can determine how he flys by watching from
>> the ground ...
>
> I didn't say that, although I was pretty sure you'd infer it.
>
If you use the word "fly" in a piloting group, it does have certain
implications from which one can infer.

> I meant watching him fly in a full-motion simulator, so that I can
> observe his piloting skills safely before trusting him to fly me
> around for real.
>
Unfortunately, this isn't one of the implications of the word "fly" in a
piloting group. It's also an equally unreliable point of reference, though
I can see it now; two "toy pilots" in a real plane... scary thought.

Neil

[Newps]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Newps writes:
>
>
>>You have no way of making that determination.
>
>
> There are reliable indicators, even in written messages. I also have
> known standards against which to compare them.
>

You have nothing of the sort and prove it day in and day out.

[Robert M. Gary]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Is it better to use just the rudder or differential braking to turn on
> taxiways? I understand that steering mechanisms vary considerably
> from one aircraft to another, but I'm still curious. In this case,
> I'm wondering about a Baron 58, the aircraft I fly in my sim (most of
> the time).

You use the brakes to stop. Using brakes to stear in most aircraft is a
bad habit, something we CFIs are always watching for when flying with
students.

> I note when taxiing that the aircraft seems to oversteer, especially
> as speed increases. That is, I'll move the rudder to straighten out
> on the centerline of the taxiway, but the aircraft still continues to
> drift slightly in the turn and overshoots the centerline. Is this the
> way the real aircraft works?

Its also hard to ride a bike w/o falling down. Once you get it you're
fine. Most nosewheel planes aren't very difficult but your issues may
be fundamental. This is usually stuff we are able to get worked out by
the second lesson with a student (unless its a tailwheel). I would also
bet that you're taxiing with too much power, most students do that too.

-Robert, CFII

[Thomas Borchert]

Robert,

> Using brakes to stear in most aircraft is a
> bad habit,
>

That "most" is changing rapidly, at least with regard to new aircraft.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Peter Dohm]

"A Lieberma" > wrote in message
. 18...
> Judah > wrote in
> :
>
> > I agree. I think the process has already started. But perhaps you
> > misjudge my patience, because it was a lack of patience on my part
> > that drove me to respond to some of his more recent posts and try
> > accelerate the process...
>
> Yep, can fully relate Judah! Been there done it myself...... Took his
> bait, hook line and sinker for a bit.
>
> Still takes some serious self control for me not to respond to some of the
> silly stuff, but I think if we band together with the "sounds of silence",
> our message will come out loud and clear in the long run.
>
> Allen
>

It is difficult, but that makes success all the more rewarding.

Peter