MS Flight Sim As a Training Tool

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> You would find a higher percentage of pilots that fly according to your
> notions of IFR in an airline pilots' newsgroup, as automation has a much
> larger roll for them. However, one of your misconceptions is that if the
> autopilot is on, the pilot is free to do something other than monitor the
> status of their systems using visual and auditory sensations.

Some pilots read magazines or nap while those systems are operating,
so obviously they are indeed free to do so.

> There is *always* someone with the primary responsibility of flying
> the plane ...

In a legal sense, yes.

> However, you are posting in a group largely populated by GA pilots. GA
> pilots enjoy everything about flying, and the view of the world from our
> typical flight altitudes is one of many reasons why so few of us are IR.

And they know virtually nothing about flying jet airliners or flying
on instruments. At least I've experimented with it, using the
much-hated simulator.

> We don't want to be up in the soup anyway because it beats you up and
> there's nothing to see.

It doesn't necessarily beat you up.

There's more to aviation than looking out the window, at least for
some people. As some people have already mentioned, there's a certain
satisfaction in flying exclusively with instruments through zero
visibility for an extended period and then descending and coming out
of the "soup" only a few hundred feet from a beckoning runway,
perfectly aligned for landing. Even with automation, it's quite an
accomplishment.

GA pilots, however, tend to fly into the ground only a few minutes
after losing the ability to see anything outside the window.

> There is "seat-of-the-pants" in all real-world flying experiences,
> but more so in GA because that is the point anyway -- we fly planes.

What do those 747 captains do? Do you often advise those 15,000-hour
pilots on what flying is really all about? Do you ever tell fighter
pilots how hard it is to deal with sensations in tin-can aircraft?

Flying isn't a single monolithic experience. There are many different
types of aircraft and many different types of flying. It's not a good
idea to assume that all flying is like flying in a tin can built with
spit and baling wire and with a 70-year-old engine design at low
speed.

Some aircraft can reach the cruising altitude of a tin can before
they've cleared the runway. Others land at speeds higher than the
maximum cruising speed of a tin can. Others routinely turn at rates
that would snap the wings off a tin can. Still others can fly around
the world at high speed in darkness and zero visibility, then land
exactly on the numbers all by themselves, without ever disturbing the
cup of coffee in the captain's hand. Have you flown all these
aircraft?

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

[Marty Shapiro]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> Source or cite?
>
> Compare weather reports to FlightAware. Obviously, some aircraft are
> flying and landing in essentially nil visibility. That's what Cat
> IIIc and autoland are for.
>

Really? At which airports did you observe Cat IIIc landings? MIA? DEN?
ORD? DFW? SFO? ATL?

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> You would find a higher percentage of pilots that fly according to
>> your notions of IFR in an airline pilots' newsgroup, as automation
>> has a much larger roll for them. However, one of your misconceptions
>> is that if the autopilot is on, the pilot is free to do something
>> other than monitor the status of their systems using visual and
>> auditory sensations.
>
> Some pilots read magazines or nap while those systems are operating,
> so obviously they are indeed free to do so.
>
>> There is *always* someone with the primary responsibility of flying
>> the plane ...
>
> In a legal sense, yes.
>
In this case, what else matters? That some people shirk their
responsibility is not a legitimate rebuttal of those responsibilities.

>> However, you are posting in a group largely populated by GA pilots.
>> GA pilots enjoy everything about flying, and the view of the world
>> from our typical flight altitudes is one of many reasons why so few
>> of us are IR.
>
> And they know virtually nothing about flying jet airliners or flying
> on instruments. At least I've experimented with it, using the
> much-hated simulator.
>
Some of the contributors of this group are or were airline pilots and
instructors, and I'd expect them to know all that is associated with them.
However, that is a separate issue from "flying on instruments". Every
pilot has been trained to do that and have demonstated the ability to do
so in the real world.

>> There is "seat-of-the-pants" in all real-world flying experiences,
>> but more so in GA because that is the point anyway -- we fly planes.
>
> What do those 747 captains do? Do you often advise those 15,000-hour
> pilots on what flying is really all about?
>
I'm not advising any pilots on what flying is really all about, as we
already know what it's really all about. I'm advising you; a non-pilot,
non-student, non-wannabe what flying is about, because it isn't about
MSFS, as you think.

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> In this case, what else matters?

The question of who or what is actually flying the plane.

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> In this case, what else matters?
>
> The question of who or what is actually flying the plane.
>
Not really. Responsibility begins and ends with the PIC.

Neil

[Just go look it up!]

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 02:12:38 GMT, A Guy Called Tyketto
> wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Nomen Nescio > wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> From: Mxsmanic >
>>
>>>Pilots land planes on instruments every day. Modern commercial
>>>aviation depends on this.
>>
>> Wrong!
>>
>> NOBODY, repeat, NOBODY lands a plane on instruments.
>
> Playing devil's advocate here, please cite a reference to this.
>Judging by what you are saying, there should be no such thing as Cat.
>II or III ILS approaches when RVRs for a particular runway are less than the
>thousands of feet, yet a week ago I walked off a plane that did so.
>
> Judging from other posts from you as well, you seem to suffer
>from the same thing as Mx. You say something, but don't provide the
>documentation (even a URL) to support your claim. Should you do so, I
>will retract everything I have just said.

What part of the not so subtle distinction that the aircraft lands
itself under computer control, not the pilot handling the stick,
whilst doing an autoland has been lost here?

Nobody lands under 0/0. The computers do it. No human is touching
the controls. They monitor the readouts and abort if something isn't
just right, but they are not landing the aircraft when it is doing the
cat3 approach.

[Peter Clark]

On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 06:50:06 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
> wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>From: A Guy Called Tyketto >
>
>>> NOBODY, repeat, NOBODY lands a plane on instruments.
>
>>Playing devil's advocate here, please cite a reference to this.
>
>Oh ****, you mean I gotta support this.
>
>Well, lets look at a standard GA, Cat I approach..... notice I said approach.
>The ILS is tracked until the pilot reaches DH (decision height). At that point,
>you see the runway and land, or you don't see the runway and do a missed
>approach (notice again the word approach). If you see the runway, you are now
>flying "visual" and are not flying on instruments. The landing is visual and is
>executed the same way you would if you were making the approach on a
>clear day with 10 miles visibility. Meaning, at least in my case, the only
>instrument that I look at may be a quick glance at airspeed......if that.
>Nobody lands Cat I on instruments.

And even then on the gear I've flown, autopilot limitations require
disengagement under 200AGL.

[gatt]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...

> Gatt, nobody is saying that MSFS isn't good for what you are using it for.
> The issues I have with it are more of a problem for new student level
> pilots and those that think they can become pilots simply by flying the
> sim.

Within that context, I agree.

It -would- be useful for new student pilots in terms of understanding how to
interpret the instruments, (bearing needles, the six pack, etc), which makes
a student more comfortable interpreting these instruments in actual flight
in a quicker amount of time...worked for me. I already knew how to use a
pair of VOR receivers before my first real flight.

BUT, no way in hell would I say you could fly a sim and then go out and fly
an actual plane with any previous instruction or experience. Actually,
I -will- say it: You might be able to and get lucky once, twice, maybe a
few times in a C-152 before denting metal, as opposed to somebody who's
never heard of a stall horn or a VSI or doesn't know how flaps works.
(Land nose-first and cycle the flaps really quickly to fly!!!)

Have a great weekend.
-c

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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


Just go look it up! > wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 02:12:38 GMT, A Guy Called Tyketto
> > wrote:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>Nomen Nescio > wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>
>>> From: Mxsmanic >
>>>
>>>>Pilots land planes on instruments every day. Modern commercial
>>>>aviation depends on this.
>>>
>>> Wrong!
>>>
>>> NOBODY, repeat, NOBODY lands a plane on instruments.
>>
>> Playing devil's advocate here, please cite a reference to this.
>>Judging by what you are saying, there should be no such thing as Cat.
>>II or III ILS approaches when RVRs for a particular runway are less than the
>>thousands of feet, yet a week ago I walked off a plane that did so.
>>
>> Judging from other posts from you as well, you seem to suffer
>>from the same thing as Mx. You say something, but don't provide the
>>documentation (even a URL) to support your claim. Should you do so, I
>>will retract everything I have just said.
>
> What part of the not so subtle distinction that the aircraft lands
> itself under computer control, not the pilot handling the stick,
> whilst doing an autoland has been lost here?

None. I asked for elaboration. There is nothing wrong with
that. If you don't like that I asked for elaboration, then that is on
your conscience, not mine. Besides, you're totally lost on the subject,
or quoted the wrong reply. I asked for support to the claim that no-one
lands a plane on instruments, because if that were true, there would be
no reason for having Cat II or Cat III ILS approaches.

> Nobody lands under 0/0. The computers do it. No human is touching
> the controls. They monitor the readouts and abort if something isn't
> just right, but they are not landing the aircraft when it is doing the
> cat3 approach.

This is not true. Re-read the above once again. CAT II
approaches can be done in IMC (IIRC) if the RVRs for the runway in
question are of a good range. If you're breaking out of the clouds at
200 or 300ft, you can and should be able to land by hand.

BL.
- - --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFegeEyBkZmuMZ8L8RAqkXAJ9acaimCz6ivYTo0VvmE4 9eKNSIlgCeIcdo
5JfskY5dAJVN+Mdx42MGIig=
=tNc/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Jay Beckman]

"A Guy Called Tyketto" > wrote in message
...

<Snip>

> None. I asked for elaboration. There is nothing wrong with
> that. If you don't like that I asked for elaboration, then that is on
> your conscience, not mine. Besides, you're totally lost on the subject,
> or quoted the wrong reply. I asked for support to the claim that no-one
> lands a plane on instruments, because if that were true, there would be
> no reason for having Cat II or Cat III ILS approaches.
>
>> Nobody lands under 0/0. The computers do it. No human is touching
>> the controls. They monitor the readouts and abort if something isn't
>> just right, but they are not landing the aircraft when it is doing the
>> cat3 approach.
>
> This is not true. Re-read the above once again. CAT II
> approaches can be done in IMC (IIRC) if the RVRs for the runway in
> question are of a good range. If you're breaking out of the clouds at
> 200 or 300ft, you can and should be able to land by hand.
>
> BL.

And you do so visually...head up...looking outside...by eye...

Jay B

[Michael Nouak]

"Just go look it up!" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
> snip
>
> Nobody lands under 0/0. The computers do it. No human is touching
> the controls. They monitor the readouts and abort if something isn't
> just right, but they are not landing the aircraft when it is doing the
> cat3 approach.
>

By itself, this paragraph is incorrect. CAT3 approaches are routinely
hand-flown in a/c equipped with a certified HGS, such as the Bombardier
Q400.

HTH

--
Michael Nouak
remove "nospamfor" to reply:

[Just go look it up!]

On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 12:03:15 +0100, "Michael Nouak"
> wrote:

>
>"Just go look it up!" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
>> snip
>>
>> Nobody lands under 0/0. The computers do it. No human is touching
>> the controls. They monitor the readouts and abort if something isn't
>> just right, but they are not landing the aircraft when it is doing the
>> cat3 approach.
>>
>
>By itself, this paragraph is incorrect. CAT3 approaches are routinely
>hand-flown in a/c equipped with a certified HGS, such as the Bombardier
>Q400.

Interesting. I stand corrected. It was my understanding that CAT3
and autoland were universally coupled. That having been said, there
must be some interesting special aircrew training required to hand fly
something to 0/0.

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> Who claimed otherwhise?

Some pilots seem to believe that if you've flown one, you've flown
them all. While some of the basics of flight are indeed very
consistent from one aircraft or environment to another, often many
other things change. Sometimes pilots comment on details that they
would not know anything about from their flying experience alone (or
from typical pilot training).

> Not necessarily, because some GA pilots have IFR licences.

Apparently very few.

> Well it does in VFR.

In that case there would be no reason not to fly in IFR that does the
same.

> Make that: "VFR pilots tend to fly into the ground after losing the
> ability to see", because VFR is about looking out the window by
> definition. We know that, you don't have to tell us.

Then why do pilots with an inability to fly without being able to see
out the window seem to believe that they know all about it?

> You tend to confuse these distinctions. You also tend to not
> distinguish VFR from IFR in a lot of what you write.

I've seen worse here.

> We know that.

I'm not so sure.

> In general IFR and VFR don't have a lot in common, and specifically
> flying small GA planes and flying airliners are like alien planets
> towards each other.

That doesn't seem to stop VFR pilots from pontificating on IFR or on
airline operations.

> However there are some things common to _all_ types of piloting.

All aircraft have pitch and roll control. That's about it.

> Therefore, when you make claims that
> contradict some of that basic knowledge, "even" the spam can pilot has
> the competence to correct you.

What basic knowledge have I contradicted?

What I find is that even the basic knowledge is misunderstood or
simply missing among pilots. They only need 40 hours or so of flying
experience to get a license. That's like driving to work in a car for
ten days; are drivers with 40 hours of experience experts?

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Wolfgang Schwanke writes:
>
>> Who claimed otherwhise?
>
> Some pilots seem to believe that if you've flown one, you've flown
> them all.
>
I've never met one that thought that way. Where did you meet such pilots?

> While some of the basics of flight are indeed very
> consistent from one aircraft or environment to another, often many
> other things change. Sometimes pilots comment on details that they
> would not know anything about from their flying experience alone (or
> from typical pilot training).
>
And, yet, you comment on things that you not only have no experience at
all with, but are equally clueless about the theory. So, if I had to place
bets on who might have more useful information about aviation, I'll go
with the pilots' viewpoint.

>> In general IFR and VFR don't have a lot in common, and specifically
>> flying small GA planes and flying airliners are like alien planets
>> towards each other.
>
> That doesn't seem to stop VFR pilots from pontificating on IFR or on
> airline operations.
>
Nor does it prevent you from pontificating about piloting in general. To
put some focus on this, every pilot in the US has been trained and gets
regularly tested on flying by instruments, so at the very least, every
pilot will know *something* about IFR and have demonstrated competence
with the basic skills involved. OTOH, you aren't even a student, so by
your own criteria what makes you think you know *anything* about IFR?

>> However there are some things common to _all_ types of piloting.
>
> All aircraft have pitch and roll control. That's about it.
>
Just because that exhausts your knowledge does not mean that there isn't
more.

> What I find is that even the basic knowledge is misunderstood or
> simply missing among pilots. They only need 40 hours or so of flying
> experience to get a license. That's like driving to work in a car for
> ten days; are drivers with 40 hours of experience experts?
>
Since you think you're so bright, why don't you try to pass the knowledge
test (another prerequisite to getting a certificate)? One day of ground
school (yet another prerequisite to getting a certificate, btw) and one
hour of training would eliminate a large amount of the misinformation
about flying that you've posted here, and yet you won't even go that far
to educate yourself. You are in no position to evaluate a pilot.

Neil

[Mxsmanic]

Neil Gould writes:

> Since you think you're so bright, why don't you try to pass the knowledge
> test (another prerequisite to getting a certificate)?

What purpose would that serve?

> One day of ground
> school (yet another prerequisite to getting a certificate, btw) and one
> hour of training would eliminate a large amount of the misinformation
> about flying that you've posted here, and yet you won't even go that far
> to educate yourself. You are in no position to evaluate a pilot.

John F. Kennedy, Jr., was a poor pilot.

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

[Marty Shapiro]

Wolfgang Schwanke > wrote in :

>> Apparently very few.
>
> True. Yet it seems there are some GA pilots in this NG who do have an
> IFR licence, including at least one poster from Europe where the
> percentage is even lower than in the US. These people have expertise to
> talk about it.

I wonder what definition of "few" people are using when they say very
few pilots are IFR rated.

The FAA web pages have US pilot statistics. For 2005, if you exclude
student and recreational pilots (all 278 of them!) 60% of the pilots have
IFR ratings. Even including student and recreational pilots, you are over
51% with IFR ratings.

I don't think 60% (or 51% for that matter) qualifies as "few".

The statistics for the past 10 years (1996 to 2005) can be found at
http://tinyurl.com/ycupo4 Table 11 shows the % of IFR rated pilots. Table
1 has more detailed pilot statistics. All the tables appear to be in Excel
format.

For those who don't trust tinyurl, the full url is at
http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/aviation_data_statistics/civil_airmen_st
atistics/2005/

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Mxsmanic]

Marty Shapiro writes:

> The FAA web pages have US pilot statistics. For 2005, if you exclude
> student and recreational pilots (all 278 of them!) 60% of the pilots have
> IFR ratings. Even including student and recreational pilots, you are over
> 51% with IFR ratings.

And if you exclude pilots who fly for a living?

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

[Matt Whiting]

Marty Shapiro wrote:
> Wolfgang Schwanke > wrote in :
>
>
>>>Apparently very few.
>>
>>True. Yet it seems there are some GA pilots in this NG who do have an
>>IFR licence, including at least one poster from Europe where the
>>percentage is even lower than in the US. These people have expertise to
>>talk about it.
>
>
> I wonder what definition of "few" people are using when they say very
> few pilots are IFR rated.
>
> The FAA web pages have US pilot statistics. For 2005, if you exclude
> student and recreational pilots (all 278 of them!) 60% of the pilots have
> IFR ratings. Even including student and recreational pilots, you are over
> 51% with IFR ratings.
>
> I don't think 60% (or 51% for that matter) qualifies as "few".

I don't think that few is the right description either, however, your
analysis is flawed as well. I don't think most ATPs are engaged in GA
flying as you need to exclude those flying for the airlines. I suspect
that most commercial pilots are flying in GA operations, however, I
don't know how to determine that. I suspect that if you limit to GA
operations as the OP stated, the percentage of those pilots that are
instrument rated is much less than 60% and probably a fair bit less than
51%.


Matt

[Marty Shapiro]

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Marty Shapiro wrote:
>> Wolfgang Schwanke > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>>>Apparently very few.
>>>
>>>True. Yet it seems there are some GA pilots in this NG who do have an
>>>IFR licence, including at least one poster from Europe where the
>>>percentage is even lower than in the US. These people have expertise
>>>to talk about it.
>>
>>
>> I wonder what definition of "few" people are using when they
>> say very
>> few pilots are IFR rated.
>>
>> The FAA web pages have US pilot statistics. For 2005, if
>> you exclude
>> student and recreational pilots (all 278 of them!) 60% of the pilots
>> have IFR ratings. Even including student and recreational pilots,
>> you are over 51% with IFR ratings.
>>
>> I don't think 60% (or 51% for that matter) qualifies as
>> "few".
>
> I don't think that few is the right description either, however, your
> analysis is flawed as well. I don't think most ATPs are engaged in GA
> flying as you need to exclude those flying for the airlines. I
> suspect that most commercial pilots are flying in GA operations,
> however, I don't know how to determine that. I suspect that if you
> limit to GA operations as the OP stated, the percentage of those
> pilots that are instrument rated is much less than 60% and probably a
> fair bit less than 51%.
>
>
> Matt
>

Matt -

If you use just the data for private pilots, then the IFR ratio is
25.6%. 1 out of 4 is more than a "few", let alone "very few".

And,then there is the question of what is "flying for a living." For
example, how do you classify a commercial pilot who is a CFI, only
instructs part time, and has a full time, non-flying job, which provides
the main portion of his income? With mandatory retirement at 60 for
airline pilots, what about the 15% of the ATPs who are over 60? They may
no longer fly for a living, but are instrument rated. Do their numbers get
added to both the private pilot count and IFR rated pilot count bringing
the ratio of IFR rated pilots up?

Should we also subtract the glider only pilots from the pilot count?

My instrument instructor had a full time job as an executive in the
computer industry. He also had an ATP, MEI, SEI, MEII, SEII, and a 737
type rating among others (and was nowhere near 60). Where should he be
placed?

By looking at the various tables, my feel is that 25% is a low ball
number and simply adding back in the ATPs over 60, removing the glider only
pilots, and adding 2/3 of the flight instructors, you are at 45% IFR rated,
which is far more than a few, let alone a very few. Just adding in the
ATPs over 60 and excluding all CFIs (assuming all 90,000+ CFIs make their
living solely by flying), and also assuming a glider only pilot would have
a reason to go for an IFR rating (keeping them in the private pilot count),
the ratio of IFR rated pilots is slightly over 32%.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Marty Shapiro]

Wolfgang Schwanke > wrote in :

> Marty Shapiro > wrote in
> :
>
>> The FAA web pages have US pilot statistics. For 2005, if you
>> exclude
>> student and recreational pilots (all 278 of them!) 60% of the pilots
>> have IFR ratings. Even including student and recreational pilots, you
>> are over 51% with IFR ratings.
>>
>> I don't think 60% (or 51% for that matter) qualifies as
>> "few".
>
> I'll admit to being Eurocentric if you admit being US centric. In
> Europe the percentage is much lower (no statistics that I know of) due
> to costs. An IFR licence here is 10,000 EUR minimum on top of an
> existing PPL, which is prohibitive for most. The cost of staying
> current is another obstacle. I'm surprised at the US figures, probably
> due to much lower costs?
>
> Regards
>

I wasn't trying to be anything centric. I just kept seeing statements
that "very few pilots are instrument rated" and knew too many IR rated
pilots for that to seem right. To see if my gut feeling was right, and
knowing were to find the FAA FAA statistics without doing a search, that
was the easiest data for me to look at, which is why I was careful to
identify the information as applying to US pilots.

The price you quoted for the IR is about double what it would cost
here, using the rule of thumb that your IR takes about as many hours as
your private. However, insurance down once you get the IR, even if you are
no longer IR current, so you have an annual savigns which should be
factored in to the cost of the IR. Depending on what you fly and how long
you continue to fly after getting the IR, it can pay for itself even if
your only IFR flight is your IR checkride.

The numbers I quoted were IR ratings as a percentage of all US pilots.
If I just use those who hold private pilot certificates, the ratio drops to
26%.

What is the European percentage of private pilots to all pilots? If
the European percentage of private pilots out of the total pilot population
is less than it is in the US (55%, counting student, recreational, sport,
private, and glider only as private pilots), then you might have a higher
percentage of all pilots having an IR rating, even with a lower percentage
of just the private pilots having an IR.

If anyone has these statistics for other countries, I'd be interested
in seeing them.

---
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

[Thomas Borchert]

Wolfgang,

> I'm surprised at the US figures, probably
> due to much lower costs?
>

I'm convinced that's only one of the reasons. The key factor IMHO, on
which all other factors including cost hinge, is the mindset of the
regulators: The FAA is actively encouraging private pilots to get the
IR and sees it as a valuable enhancement in safety. OTOH, the German
LBA actively discourages private pilots to get the IR, thinks it is a
nuisance to deal with all those amateurs going for higher ratings and
makes it as cumbersome and expensive a process as could be. I've just
been through it...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> I'm convinced that's only one of the reasons. The key factor IMHO, on
> which all other factors including cost hinge, is the mindset of the
> regulators: The FAA is actively encouraging private pilots to get the
> IR and sees it as a valuable enhancement in safety. OTOH, the German
> LBA actively discourages private pilots to get the IR, thinks it is a
> nuisance to deal with all those amateurs going for higher ratings and
> makes it as cumbersome and expensive a process as could be. I've just
> been through it...

That's one of the advantages of the US: fewer social obstacles and
classes. In America, nobody thinks it's odd for a private pilot to go
for whatever rating he chooses. In Europe, only certain pilots are
expected to do certain things, and others are not encouraged to follow
their desires, and may even see obstacles set in their way.

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

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
>> I'm convinced that's only one of the reasons. The key factor IMHO, on
>> which all other factors including cost hinge, is the mindset of the
>> regulators: The FAA is actively encouraging private pilots to get the
>> IR and sees it as a valuable enhancement in safety. OTOH, the German
>> LBA actively discourages private pilots to get the IR, thinks it is a
>> nuisance to deal with all those amateurs going for higher ratings and
>> makes it as cumbersome and expensive a process as could be. I've just
>> been through it...
>
> That's one of the advantages of the US: fewer social obstacles and
> classes. In America, nobody thinks it's odd for a private pilot to go
> for whatever rating he chooses. In Europe, only certain pilots are
> expected to do certain things, and others are not encouraged to follow
> their desires, and may even see obstacles set in their way.
>

Careful here. You've already ****ed off the bulk of the pilots
here. You really don't want to **** off the rest of the aviation world
with the assumptions above. Unless you've flown there, and have
experiences with getting licenses/ratings there, you're not one in any
position to rate or berate them.

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFf1+yyBkZmuMZ8L8RAv9YAJwKhXiRRXRfOOxo9/mnOAGFofxjoACcDXuQ
zuLo6AGDEPuzaW0E1OVCoYY=
=xhpy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mxsmanic]

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

> Careful here. You've already ****ed off the bulk of the pilots
> here. You really don't want to **** off the rest of the aviation world
> with the assumptions above.

I'm not concerned with whether or not I **** people off. Some people
are irritated by anything, and I can't do anything about that.

> Unless you've flown there, and have
> experiences with getting licenses/ratings there, you're not one in any
> position to rate or berate them.

It's in the culture, and not limited to aviation, although aviation is
obviously affected by it.

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

[Tony]

Are not some some carrier landings are flown entirely coupled?

For what it's worth, we sometimes practiced SEL (Mooney) landings under
the hood, just in case. . . We kept the needles crossed to the MM,
then flew the localizer only. Never tried it with a serious cross wind
though. Most often we bouced a little, being afraid we'd be going too
slow, but every time brought the airplane to well under flying speed on
the runway remarkably close to the centerline. The safety pilot had to
restrain himself from taking the controls!

I think the Mooney with its very low wings has got to be the easiest GA
airplane to fly all the way doen, ground effect is pronounced. I wonder
what it would be like in a high wing like a 182.


On Dec 9, 6:03 am, "Michael Nouak" > wrote:
> "Just go look it up!" > schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:1jojn2h0d3ssuu9jer8ibs9r1to5daj3kv @4ax.com...
>
> > snip
>
> > Nobody lands under 0/0. The computers do it. No human is touching
> > the controls. They monitor the readouts and abort if something isn't
> > just right, but they are not landing the aircraft when it is doing the
> > cat3 approach.By itself, this paragraph is incorrect. CAT3 approaches are routinely
> hand-flown in a/c equipped with a certified HGS, such as the Bombardier
> Q400.
>
> HTH
>
> --
> Michael Nouak
> remove "nospamfor" to reply:
>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"A Guy Called Tyketto" wrote

> Careful here. You've already ****ed off the bulk of the pilots
> here. You really don't want to **** off the rest of the aviation world
> with the assumptions above.

Brad, don't respond to this p*ss ant. He has already ****ed off everyone.
Responding to trolls only allow them to stick around. It is time that he was
gone.
--
Jim in NC

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> That's one of the advantages of the US: fewer social obstacles and
> classes.
>

Are you nuts? YOU are the one telling us all the time that only the
idle rich could possibly afford to fly. Who in the world do you expect
to take yourself seriously?

GO AWAY, IDIOT!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Are you nuts? YOU are the one telling us all the time that only the
> idle rich could possibly afford to fly. Who in the world do you expect
> to take yourself seriously?
>
> GO AWAY, IDIOT!

In other words, you disagree.

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> In other words, you disagree.

No, you disagree. With yourself.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> Are you nuts? YOU are the one telling us all the time that only the
> idle rich could possibly afford to fly.

clearly everyone in the USA is "idle rich" ;-)

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

[Mxsmanic]

Bob Noel writes:

> clearly everyone in the USA is "idle rich" ;-)

There are more rich people in the USA than in most of the rest of the
world. They aren't usually idle because they typically earned their
own wealth (unlike a significant proportion of the small number of
wealthy Europeans), but there are lots of wealthy people.

You won't find brush salesmen or checkout cashiers flying aircraft,
though. You won't find too many young people doing it, either, since
most people have to save up to get enough money to start. They might
get their license earlier, but they won't really be able to fly
regularly for years.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> How would you know that?

Because I live in Europe, and I see the culture firsthand. Not only
that, but I'm also very familiar with U.S. culture, which allows me to
see contrasts that the locals miss.

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

[Jim Logajan]

Mxsmanic > wrote:
> You won't find brush salesmen or checkout cashiers flying aircraft,
> though.

There is reason to believe that you _could_ find such people flying
aircraft. For example, on a web forum for people who are building Van's
Aircraft kitplanes[1] someone started a thread titled "What do you
do?"[2] and here is a sampling of some of the less-than-usual replies of
people who not only presumably have pilot certificates, they are actually
building their own plane:

"Used car and commercial truck dealer."

"I'm a maintanance mechanic/ fabricator/ electrician/ welder for a
distillation plant"

"I work w/ Dish Network as a Level 2 Tech."

"Captain on the Omaha, NE Fire department."

"Police Officer at Miami International Airport."

"I am a Houston Police Officer"

"im cabinet maker with 12 years of experience"

"I'm a real-estate agent in Gatineau, Qc"

"I've been a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for 32 years."

"I’m a 20 year 2nd shift factory worker. I fix machines that assemble
light bulbs"

"I torture Jr. High kids all day ... oops...that word should be
teach...teach!"

"I am a Farrier a.k.a blacksmith"

"I'm a Border Patrol Agent."

(Seemed to be a surprising number of cops building Van's airplanes!)

[1] http://www.vansaircraft.com/
[2] http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=6303

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Logajan writes:

> There is reason to believe that you _could_ find such people flying
> aircraft. For example, on a web forum for people who are building Van's
> Aircraft kitplanes[1] someone started a thread titled "What do you
> do?"[2] and here is a sampling of some of the less-than-usual replies of
> people who not only presumably have pilot certificates, they are actually
> building their own plane:

Point taken, although I don't consider a homebuilt plane to be a step
up from a manufactured plane--in fact, I think it's the other way
around. I presume they build their aircraft because they don't have
the money to buy aircraft.

This is all well and good, if you'll be content to fly your own balsa
wood GA plane all your life. But if you want anything more, you have
to be rich.

The aircraft I prefer in the sim, a Baron 58, costs nearly two million
dollars new. And it's still a _tiny_ plane. A Boeing Business Jet
(essentially a 737) costs about $35 million.

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Bob,

> clearly everyone in the USA is "idle rich"
>

Ah, ok. Makes sense. ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> There are more rich people in the USA than in most of the rest of the
> world. They aren't usually idle because they typically earned their
> own wealth (unlike a significant proportion of the small number of
> wealthy Europeans)

And the statistics supporting these statements can be found where? Ah,
thought so.


> You won't find brush salesmen or checkout cashiers flying aircraft,
> though. You won't find too many young people doing it, either,

Yes, you will. I know several of the former category, and airfields are
awash in the latter. You have no clue...


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[BDS[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> Point taken, although I don't consider a homebuilt plane to be a step
> up from a manufactured plane--in fact, I think it's the other way
> around. I presume they build their aircraft because they don't have
> the money to buy aircraft.

Weeeeelllllll.... no. You are way off base with that guess.

> This is all well and good, if you'll be content to fly your own balsa
> wood GA plane all your life. But if you want anything more, you have
> to be rich.

Balsa wood GA plane??!! Too funny! Is that the sum total of your knowledge
regarding homebuilts??!!

Define "more" and "rich". What are the specs of your base level GA plane?

BDS

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> Define "more" and "rich". What are the specs of your base level GA plane?

Well, like the Baron 58 I fly in my sim, although I guess the A36
isn't too bad. Deal-breakers including the absence of an autopilot
and non-retractable gear. Potential deal-breakers include no RNAV
capability, no provision for icing, only one active comm or nav radio,
and various other things. Apparently there are more primitive
aircraft out there than the A36 and its ilk, but I'm not sure that I'd
want to fly them. Some people might enjoy just the sensation of
bouncing around in a little tin can, but physical sensations are not a
major attraction to me. I need instruments and safety features.

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

[BDS[_2_]]

Why do you feel you need retractable gear?

Can you explain what the "provision for icing" does for you in the Baron 58?

What is it that the Baron 58 has that other GA planes do not have that keeps
it from bouncing around like a little tin can?

BDS

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> BDS writes:
>
> > Define "more" and "rich". What are the specs of your base level GA
plane?
>
> Well, like the Baron 58 I fly in my sim, although I guess the A36
> isn't too bad. Deal-breakers including the absence of an autopilot
> and non-retractable gear. Potential deal-breakers include no RNAV
> capability, no provision for icing, only one active comm or nav radio,
> and various other things. Apparently there are more primitive
> aircraft out there than the A36 and its ilk, but I'm not sure that I'd
> want to fly them. Some people might enjoy just the sensation of
> bouncing around in a little tin can, but physical sensations are not a
> major attraction to me. I need instruments and safety features.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Thomas Borchert]

Bds,

> Why do you feel you need retractable gear?
>

You are talking to a gamer playing MS Flight Sim that has been trolling
this group for some time.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> Why do you feel you need retractable gear?

I just like to fly clean at cruise. Having gear sticking out seems
terribly inefficient.

> Can you explain what the "provision for icing" does for you in the Baron 58?

It keeps me from dying if I accidentally fly into icing conditions.

> What is it that the Baron 58 has that other GA planes do not have that keeps
> it from bouncing around like a little tin can?

Nothing, but it has instruments that tell me which way I've bounced,
and which way to go to get home safely despite the bouncing.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> A used C152 is cheaper than a most new cars.

Maybe, but perhaps not everyone wants to fly a used C152. After all,
it's easy enough to drive a new car--the average driver doesn't have
to settle for a 20-year-old Lada.

> I drive a stretch limo in my road simulator, it costs half a million in
> real life. A new Bugatti even costs 1.5 million, and that's a _tiny_
> car compared to double decker buses. Therefore I conclude that driving
> is only for rich people.

If these are the cars you like to drive, that's true.

Driving _is_ quite expensive, but it's affordable to a much larger
segment of the population than flying.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> Oh rubbish, of course you will. I know someone who's unemployed & flies.

How does he pay for it?

> A glider for example licence is within pocket money budget,
> and can be legally obtained starting at 14, I told you earlier.

A lot of people might like to have a motor.

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

[BDS]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> BDS writes:
>
> > Why do you feel you need retractable gear?
>
> I just like to fly clean at cruise. Having gear sticking out seems
> terribly inefficient.

Aren't there some fixed-gear aircraft out there that are faster than some
retractable gear aircraft, and singles that are faster than some twins? If
so, what is the advantage of retractable gear?

> > Can you explain what the "provision for icing" does for you in the Baron
58?
>
> It keeps me from dying if I accidentally fly into icing conditions.

Why do you think you will die if you accidently fly into icing conditions
without your provision for icing?

> > What is it that the Baron 58 has that other GA planes do not have that
keeps
> > it from bouncing around like a little tin can?
>
> Nothing, but it has instruments that tell me which way I've bounced,
> and which way to go to get home safely despite the bouncing.

Which instruments are these and which GA aircraft do not have them?

BDS

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> Aren't there some fixed-gear aircraft out there that are faster than some
> retractable gear aircraft, and singles that are faster than some twins?

Probably. I don't think a Baron can outrun a P51.

> If so, what is the advantage of retractable gear?

The aircraft is cleaner with retractable gear.

> Why do you think you will die if you accidently fly into icing conditions
> without your provision for icing?

Because icing can develop insidiously and quickly and can develop to
the point that the aircraft is no longer controllable in a very short
time. Having some provision for avoiding or eliminating ice gives you
more time to find better weather conditions.

> Which instruments are these and which GA aircraft do not have them?

RNAV and other IFR navigation aids, radio altimeters, EHSIs, and the
like. Some GA aircraft don't have much of anything in the way of
instruments. I wouldn't want to fly them. You can if you want. I
always err on the side of caution.

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> I wouldn't want to fly them.
>

You don't, anyway.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[BDS[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> BDS writes:

> Probably. I don't think a Baron can outrun a P51.

Isn't that a military aircraft? I thought we were talking about GA?

> The aircraft is cleaner with retractable gear.

What is the advantage of being cleaner?

> Because icing can develop insidiously and quickly and can develop to
> the point that the aircraft is no longer controllable in a very short
> time. Having some provision for avoiding or eliminating ice gives you
> more time to find better weather conditions.

How does ice affect the controlability of the aircraft?

What equipment does your Baron have that helps you to avoid icing
conditions?

What kind of weather do you need to avoid in order to stay away from ice?

> > Which instruments are these and which GA aircraft do not have them?
>
> RNAV and other IFR navigation aids, radio altimeters, EHSIs, and the
> like. Some GA aircraft don't have much of anything in the way of
> instruments. I wouldn't want to fly them. You can if you want. I
> always err on the side of caution.

OK, so are you saying that you need RNAV, a radio altimeter, and an EHSI to
determine which way you "bounced" while you were flying along?

How is RNAV better than GPS?

How does the radar altimeter help you?

BDS

[Thomas Borchert]

Bds,

> > The aircraft is cleaner with retractable gear.
>
> What is the advantage of being cleaner?
>

And what does "cleaner" mean anyway? Is a Baron "cleaner" than a Cirrus
or a Columbia or a Diamond Star? I doubt it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> Isn't that a military aircraft?

It was, yes. Now some general-aviation pilots fly them.

> I thought we were talking about GA?

I was simply illustrating a point.

> What is the advantage of being cleaner?

Higher practical speeds, lower fuel consumption, mainly.

> How does ice affect the controlability of the aircraft?

By increasing the weight of the aircraft, and by modifying the shape
of aerodynamically important parts of the aircraft, such as the wings.
It can also interfere with the operation of instruments and the
engine.

> What equipment does your Baron have that helps you to avoid icing
> conditions?

Pitot heat, windshield heat, wing deicing boots, prop heat, fuel vent,
and stall warning.

> What kind of weather do you need to avoid in order to stay away from ice?

Any weather that may allow moisture to condense and freeze on the
aircraft, or weather that provides liquid moisture that may come into
contact with the aircraft and freeze. Avoiding clouds is a good idea
as they often contain conditions favorable to icing.

> OK, so are you saying that you need RNAV, a radio altimeter, and an EHSI to
> determine which way you "bounced" while you were flying along?

No, I'm saying that I want these on board as aids to navigation at all
times.

> How is RNAV better than GPS?

GPS is a form of RNAV in most implementations, so the question is
moot.

> How does the radar altimeter help you?

It gives me an accurate estimate of my actual altitude above the
surface, as opposed to my altitude above sea level. If the surface
below is not at sea level, it is important to know exactly where it
is, when flying at altitudes that are near the surface. Radar
altimeter is not useful for primary terrain avoidance because of the
lag in altitude indications from which it suffers (it will not tell
you that there is a mountain ahead, but it will tell you when you are
over it), but it can be useful in situations such as approaches when
you want a specific altitude above the ground, as opposed to a
specific altitude above sea level.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> And what does "cleaner" mean anyway?

Less aerodynamic drag.

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Less aerodynamic drag.
>

Well, in that case, you are (again) plain wrong. There is a ton of
planes out there with retractable gear and more drag than fixed-gears
of comparable size. I mentioned some.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> If the surface
> below is not at sea level, it is important to know exactly where it
> is, when flying at altitudes that are near the surface.
>

You just have no idea how unimportant a radio altimeter would be in CAT
I GA operations...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Stealth Pilot]

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 06:29:36 +0100, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Blanche writes:
>
>> yes -- there's no way MSFS can provide nor produce the same tactile and
>> physiological feeling of air pockets, the landing "bump", turbulence,
>> spins, the need to land *immediately* when you have one of those
>> "bad sushi" episodes, seeing an F-16 along side (or these days, a
>> Coast Guard helicopter), and so on...
>
>None of these sound worth experiencing. The sim does have advantages
>in some respects.

I took my niece's then boyfriend for a flight on her request.
he was a mad keen ms flight sim flyer.
took him out and taught him to do straight and level turns to the left
and right (it wasnt just a sit and look experience)

after the landing his comment was
"real flying is nothing like the sim"

lots of sim "flying" can replace real flying reactions and learned
experiences with sim reactions. a friend almost lost his cherokee 140
in a crosswind learning this the hard way.

microsoft flight sim has no valid place in a real flying environment.

mxsmanic deludes himself if he thinks otherwise.
Stealth Pilot
Australia

[Mxsmanic]

Stealth Pilot writes:

> after the landing his comment was
> "real flying is nothing like the sim"

Which did he prefer?

> lots of sim "flying" can replace real flying reactions and learned
> experiences with sim reactions.

That cannot be, if one is nothing like the other.

> a friend almost lost his cherokee 140 in a crosswind learning
> this the hard way.

Explain the circumstances.

> microsoft flight sim has no valid place in a real flying environment.

Most people don't bring their PCs aboard the aircraft, so that's not a
problem.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> Well, in that case, you are (again) plain wrong. There is a ton of
> planes out there with retractable gear and more drag than fixed-gears
> of comparable size.

That's not what I meant. An aircraft will have more drag with gear
extended than with gear retracted. And two otherwise identical
designs, one with non-retractable gear and one without, will show
different drag profiles (when the gear is retracted for the aircraft
with retractable gear).

This is pretty elementary, and I rather wonder why you argue the
point.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Thomas Borchert writes:

> You just have no idea how unimportant a radio altimeter would be in CAT
> I GA operations...

It never hurts. How many hours of experience do you have with this?

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

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> But those who are satisfied with it, can fly affordably.

Sure. Those who are satisfied with a skateboard for commuting need
not be able to afford a car.

> What's true for the general public doesn't depend on what I or you
> like. Your logic is flawed. If you decide to set your personal
> standards absurdly high, that makes a given activity expensive for you,
> personally, but not for everyone else.

What is absurdly high about wanting to fly, say, a Baron?

> You have no base for such a conclusion.

Yes, I do. The initial and continuing costs of flight are many times
those of driving an automobile, and this is one reason why so many
people drive and own a car, but so few fly and own an aircraft.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> He helps out at the flight school and gets flying hours in return.

How does he eat and pay rent?

> There are affordable methods to do that too. I've named a couple in
> earlier postings, and in this one too.

Only if one has extremely modest standards. Not everyone wants to fly
an ultralight or an aircraft built before WWII.

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

[Jay Honeck]

> Only if one has extremely modest standards. Not everyone wants to fly
> an ultralight or an aircraft built before WWII.

If you really want to fly, you'll find a way -- and the aircraft hardly
matters.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[BDS]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> It was, yes. Now some general-aviation pilots fly them.

Yes, but that doesn't change the design intent of the aircraft, does it?

> > I thought we were talking about GA?
>
> I was simply illustrating a point.

I don't follow you, we were talking about GA aircraft and your point is made
outside the scope of our discussion?

> > What is the advantage of being cleaner?
>
> Higher practical speeds, lower fuel consumption, mainly.

OK, but aren't there some single-engine fixed-gear GENERAL AVIATION
airplanes that are faster on less fuel than some twins that are retractable?
If so I ask again, what is the advantage of retractable gear?

> > What equipment does your Baron have that helps you to avoid icing
> > conditions?
>
> Pitot heat, windshield heat, wing deicing boots, prop heat, fuel vent,
> and stall warning.

How do those things help you AVOID icing conditions - that's what you
claimed initially (you said you had instruments that helped you avoid icing
conditions in your original post)?

> > OK, so are you saying that you need RNAV, a radio altimeter, and an EHSI
to
> > determine which way you "bounced" while you were flying along?
>
> No, I'm saying that I want these on board as aids to navigation at all
> times.

Originally you said that your Baron bounced just as much as any other "tin
can" but that you needed those instruments to help you know which way you
bounced in turbulence. It is difficult to have a discussion when you keep
changing the focus like this - see the statement about avoiding icing
conditions above as another example.

> > How does the radar altimeter help you?
>
> It gives me an accurate estimate of my actual altitude above the
> surface, as opposed to my altitude above sea level.

Are there any situations in which you need to be careful about relying on
what your radar altimeter is telling you?

What types of approaches require a radar altimeter?

If you must stay out of clouds to avoid icing, why do you need a radar
altimeter?

Can you fly your Baron upside down in your simulator?

BDS

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> There are much cheaper planes who fly just as well.

It's not a question of flying well. It's a question of flying the
aircraft that I prefer. I don't like toy planes.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> He receives dole money, of course.

He's lucky.

> But it's a feasible option - one among several, each of which refute
> your claim that only rich people can afford to fly.

Since unused cardboard boxes are cheap, this refutes the claim that
some people cannot afford shelter.

> I should think that would be quite expensive, as it probably has a
> collector's price tag and spares will be hard to find.

Collectors tend to keep their collections in glass boxes. I'd want
something flyable.

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

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> Yes, but that doesn't change the design intent of the aircraft,
> does it?

No, it doesn't. So? The point was that some single-engine small
aircraft perform better than some twin-engine small aircraft.

> I don't follow you ...

I agree.

> ... we were talking about GA aircraft and your point is made
> outside the scope of our discussion?

I was illustrating a case of a single-engine aircraft that performs
better than a multi-engine aircraft, which was a point raised by
someone else.

> OK, but aren't there some single-engine fixed-gear GENERAL AVIATION
> airplanes that are faster on less fuel than some twins that are retractable?

Perhaps, but they are not the general rule.

> If so I ask again, what is the advantage of retractable gear?

Since my reasons do not appear to suffice, why don't you ask the
manufacturers? All but the smallest aircraft have retractable gear.

> How do those things help you AVOID icing conditions - that's what you
> claimed initially (you said you had instruments that helped you avoid icing
> conditions in your original post)?

They help me to avoid the build-up of ice on the airframe should I
enter icing conditions.

> Originally you said that your Baron bounced just as much as any other "tin
> can" but that you needed those instruments to help you know which way you
> bounced in turbulence.

Yes, they help me to determine my attitude and position, irrespective
of any movements imparted to the aircraft.

> It is difficult to have a discussion when you keep
> changing the focus like this - see the statement about avoiding icing
> conditions above as another example.

Then I suggest you stop discussing with me.

> Are there any situations in which you need to be careful about relying on
> what your radar altimeter is telling you?

All situations. But more information is better than less.

> What types of approaches require a radar altimeter?

I think ILS Cat II and III require a radar altimeter, but I haven't
really looked into the regulatory requirements. I use the radar
altimeter to some extent for every approach, and occasionally in any
circumstances that involve flight at low altitudes.

> If you must stay out of clouds to avoid icing, why do you need a radar
> altimeter?

So that I know my actual height off the ground when the ground isn't
clearly visible. It's extra information that can always come in
handy. If I think I'm more than 2500' AGL but the radar altimeter
starts to move, I know that I have a problem.

> Can you fly your Baron upside down in your simulator?

I haven't tried. The aircraft isn't intended for aerobatic flight.

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

[Jeff[_1_]]

>
> microsoft flight sim has no valid place in a real flying environment.
>

don't lump me in with mxsmanic, but I would take issue with that comment.
As has been pointed out in this forum many, many times, MSFS (or any of the
more realistic Flight sims) does have a very good place in real flying
environment. When I was working on my private, my CFI was amazed at my
understanding of VOR's, ADF, DME etc. All of my "learning" had come from
"flying" short cross-country trips on MSFS 98. To this day, I know most of
the VOR freq's from my "training" during my pre-flying days on the pc. And
before flying to an un-familiar area, I can easily fire up MSFS 10 and
actually get an idea of what the terrain will look like and have fun at the
same time (I fly these "practice approaches" in my FS King Air 250....I can
afford the fuel for the sim version :) ).

To think that you can learn to fly a plane on FS...no...can't. And yes, it
can cause you to have some very unsafe habits that don't work in the real
world. But for navigation, instrument scan, etc. I feel sorry for the
person paying $130/hr to learn the basics of those.

MHO,

jf

[BDS]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> No, it doesn't. So? The point was that some single-engine small
> aircraft perform better than some twin-engine small aircraft.

If a P-51 is a small aircraft by your definition, then where does your Baron
fit in?

> > If so I ask again, what is the advantage of retractable gear?
>
> Since my reasons do not appear to suffice, why don't you ask the
> manufacturers? All but the smallest aircraft have retractable gear.

I was just curious as to what YOUR reasons were. One disadvantage of
retractable gear is that the mechanism occasionally fails to work. Did that
ever happen to you in msfs? Do you know what the emergency gear extension
procedure is for your Baron? No? Tsk...tsk...

> Yes, they help me to determine my attitude and position, irrespective
> of any movements imparted to the aircraft.

OK, but any instrument pilot worth his ticket can do that with just
airspeed, altimeter, and a turn-and-bank. If you truly need all of those
other gizmos in order to fly safely, what will you do when one or more of
them fails? - because if you fly long enough, you will experience failures.

> Then I suggest you stop discussing with me.

I am just trying to understand how you arrived at your conclusions about GA
aircraft. You certainly seem to have a lot of misconceptions.

> > Can you fly your Baron upside down in your simulator?
>
> I haven't tried. The aircraft isn't intended for aerobatic flight.

I think you will find that you can fly it inverted without too much trouble.
However, I wouldn't advise trying that in the real thing - just one more
area where the sim will allow you to do things that you aren't likely to get
away with in the real world.

You seem to rely on your experiences with msfs as your basis for all of your
conclusions about flying in general and GA aircraft in particular. So, I
suggest you try some things that you might be faced with in the real world
such as electrical failures, mechanical failures, unforcasted weather,
instrument failures, etc., and see how you fare, because simulated
emergencies and procedural training are areas where sims can really help.
Like one of my instructors said once, "airplanes are easy to fly when
everything is working".

Of course, one thing missing from the equation is the possibility that, if
you aren't up to the task, you may die, even in a Baron.

BDS

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> If a P-51 is a small aircraft by your definition, then where does your Baron
> fit in?

It's a small aircraft, too.

> I was just curious as to what YOUR reasons were.

I've explained them: fuel economy, higher speeds.

> One disadvantage of retractable gear is that the mechanism occasionally
> fails to work.

Engines have the same problem.

> Did that ever happen to you in msfs?

I have failures turned off.

> Do you know what the emergency gear extension
> procedure is for your Baron?

I did, but I've forgotten it.

> OK, but any instrument pilot worth his ticket can do that with just
> airspeed, altimeter, and a turn-and-bank.

Yeah, right. Show me.

> If you truly need all of those other gizmos in order to fly safely,
> what will you do when one or more of them fails?

I'll work with what I have.

> ... because if you fly long enough, you will experience failures.

Not in a simulator.

> I am just trying to understand how you arrived at your conclusions about GA
> aircraft. You certainly seem to have a lot of misconceptions.

List them.

> I think you will find that you can fly it inverted without too much trouble.

The aircraft is not designed for aerobatic flight, so I won't be
flying it upside down. Whether it can do this or not is irrelevant.

> However, I wouldn't advise trying that in the real thing - just one more
> area where the sim will allow you to do things that you aren't likely to get
> away with in the real world.

I don't try to "get away" with anything. I don't fly upside down in
an aircraft that isn't designed for the purpose.

> You seem to rely on your experiences with msfs as your basis for all of your
> conclusions about flying in general and GA aircraft in particular.

No. I read a lot, too.

> So, I suggest you try some things that you might be faced with in the
> real world such as electrical failures, mechanical failures, unforcasted
> weather, instrument failures, etc., and see how you fare, because simulated
> emergencies and procedural training are areas where sims can really help.

Maybe someday. Nothing is unexpected when you are operating your own
sim. If you want something unexpected, you need someone else.

> Of course, one thing missing from the equation is the possibility that, if
> you aren't up to the task, you may die, even in a Baron.

That is not a major consideration.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> And yet, that's all you've ever "flown".

I've never flown toy planes at all, except for a simple model aircraft
once, which was very disappointing.

Simulators don't fly; they simulate flight.

> An ultralight is more "real" than anything you've played with.

Not compared to the aircraft I'm simulating.

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Then I suggest you stop discussing with me.
>

That's your solution to being proven wrong?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> This is pretty elementary, and I rather wonder why you argue the
> point.
>

Because it is not necessarily true. Think gear doors. Think excess
weight of the retraction mechanism. I know, that's weight, not drag,
but you were praising the efficiency of retracts. Failure modes (you,
of all people, should like that one) and maintenance cost enter the
picture, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> > OK, but any instrument pilot worth his ticket can do that with just
> > airspeed, altimeter, and a turn-and-bank.
>
> Yeah, right. Show me.
>

It's part of basic instrument flying instruction. Every instrument
rated pilot can do it - at least up to and during the practical test.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> It's part of basic instrument flying instruction. Every instrument
> rated pilot can do it - at least up to and during the practical test.

And during each BFR, and each proficiency check.

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

[BDS]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> > OK, but any instrument pilot worth his ticket can do that with just
> > airspeed, altimeter, and a turn-and-bank.
>
> Yeah, right. Show me.

Misconception. Lots of others in your other posts.

> > ... because if you fly long enough, you will experience failures.
>
> Not in a simulator.

I see. I thought you were using your sim as a training device instead of a
game.

> List them.

See above for one in this post.

> > I think you will find that you can fly it inverted without too much
trouble.
>
> The aircraft is not designed for aerobatic flight, so I won't be
> flying it upside down. Whether it can do this or not is irrelevant.

Not really because if the sim allows something to be done that isn't
possible in the real world, then it casts doubt as to how authentic
everything else it simulates is.

> > You seem to rely on your experiences with msfs as your basis for all of
your
> > conclusions about flying in general and GA aircraft in particular.
>
> No. I read a lot, too.

You apparently don't read enough, or you are reading the wrong material. If
you were reading the right material you would know that your misconception
about flying on partial panel is wrong - in the US it's a requirement in
order to get an instrument rating.

> Maybe someday. Nothing is unexpected when you are operating your own
> sim. If you want something unexpected, you need someone else.

Some sims allow you to operate in a mode where a failure is possible, but
not guaranteed. You don't know when, or if, it will happen. That's not the
same as just failing something and seeing if you can control the aircraft.
Doesn't msfs allow you to do this?

> That is not a major consideration.

That's true in any game, isn't it?

BDS

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> I thought you were using your sim as a training device instead of a
> game.

Neither. It's a hobby.

> Not really because if the sim allows something to be done that isn't
> possible in the real world, then it casts doubt as to how authentic
> everything else it simulates is.

Have you flown the Baron upside down in MSFS? In real life? Which
model of the Baron did you fly in the sim?

I don't fly inverted, just as I don't fly outside the atmosphere. I
don't know if these aspects of the simulation are correct or not, but
even if they are not correct, it matters not, since the aircraft is
not intended to fly in these configurations.

I've rolled the aircraft successfully, but just about any aircraft can
do that.

> Some sims allow you to operate in a mode where a failure is possible, but
> not guaranteed.

Yes, but you select the failures, and the unexpected aspect of the
failure is pretty weak. You know something is going to happen, and
you know roughly when that will be.

> You don't know when, or if, it will happen. That's not the
> same as just failing something and seeing if you can control the aircraft.
> Doesn't msfs allow you to do this?

No more so than a real aircraft. You can shut down an engine on
take-off to practice engine failures, which I have done. That's too
risky to attempt in real life.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> No, what _you_ prefer is irrelevant to your claim that _anyone_ who
> flies needs to be rich.

Anyone who wants something more than a toy plane has to be rich. But
some people are satisfied with toys; I suppose they are the lucky
ones.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> Not really, it's the law.

He's still lucky. It's not the law everywhere, and the law is not
always observed.

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

[Walt]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Thomas Borchert writes:
>
> > You just have no idea how unimportant a radio altimeter would be in CAT
> > I GA operations...
>
> It never hurts. How many hours of experience do you have with this?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Heh. So, when you say radio altimeter I'm assuming you mean radar
altimeter. I'm not really following this thread that much.

Back in my old instrument days, it was all CAT I (I think, maybe I'm
not as old as I think).

We had a radar altimeter on board. It was good for two things.

(1) When flying overwater, we'd compare it to our pressure altimeter
(you know MX, the one with the Kollsman window) and determine whether
we were flying into or out of a low or high pressure area. Depending on
how fast the altitude difference was changing, we could determine how
close the isobars were together, and calculate a wind offset. It was a
"backup" to our really accurate navigation system, which was celestial.
Using both we never busted an ADIZ.

(2) We were supposed to turn the radar altimeter off when below, um,
10,000' agl (just guessing, it's been a while). It was kind of a
broadband radar. But, we found out that, back then, it transmitted on
the same frequency as many garage door openers. So, sometimes, just for
fun we'd turn the thing on when we were starting the ILS. Didn't do a
thing for the approach -- you fly the needles to MDA, radar altimeter
be damned -- but it let my wife know when I'd be home.

"Oh, the garage door just went up. Walt will be home in 30 minutes.
He's on final".

Or somesuch. Maybe I'm remembering it wrong. And, maybe there's a
reason why she wanted 30 minutes warning before I got home. :>)

Anyway, radar altimeters are way overrated, unless you're completely
cluess like some people or an old fart like me.

--Walt

[Mxsmanic]

Walt writes:

> Heh. So, when you say radio altimeter I'm assuming you mean radar
> altimeter.

Yes. As far as I know, the two terms are synonymous.

> We had a radar altimeter on board. It was good for two things.
>
> (1) When flying overwater, we'd compare it to our pressure altimeter
> (you know MX, the one with the Kollsman window) and determine whether
> we were flying into or out of a low or high pressure area. Depending on
> how fast the altitude difference was changing, we could determine how
> close the isobars were together, and calculate a wind offset. It was a
> "backup" to our really accurate navigation system, which was celestial.
> Using both we never busted an ADIZ.

Clever. And you were using celestial navigation, eh? Hmm. Where and
when was this?

> Anyway, radar altimeters are way overrated, unless you're completely
> cluess like some people or an old fart like me.

I consider them one of many available tools that help ensure that I
get home safely. I watch the radar altimeter when I'm at low
altitudes AGL in poor visibility to make sure that it agrees with what
I expect.

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

[Walt]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Walt writes:
> > (1) When flying overwater, we'd compare it to our pressure altimeter
> > (you know MX, the one with the Kollsman window) and determine whether
> > we were flying into or out of a low or high pressure area. Depending on
> > how fast the altitude difference was changing, we could determine how
> > close the isobars were together, and calculate a wind offset. It was a
> > "backup" to our really accurate navigation system, which was celestial.
> > Using both we never busted an ADIZ.
>
> Clever. And you were using celestial navigation, eh? Hmm. Where and
> when was this?

I'm clever! Whoo-hoo!

Where did I use celestial navigation? Hmm...

Over the Pacific.

Over the Atlantic.

Over the North Pole.

Finding my way to Thule.

Finding my way back from Thule.

Somewhere north of Norway.

Among other places.

It was some time in the last century.

>
> > Anyway, radar altimeters are way overrated, unless you're completely
> > cluess like some people or an old fart like me.
>
> I consider them one of many available tools that help ensure that I
> get home safely. I watch the radar altimeter when I'm at low
> altitudes AGL in poor visibility to make sure that it agrees with what
> I expect.

And it's always good to know that if you have a radar altimeter you can
always use it to open your garage door.

The best tool for the job, my friend.

A sense of humor helps too. If you got out more you'd know that.

--Walt
>

[Flatulence]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:
>Walt writes:
>
>> Anyway, radar altimeters are way overrated, unless you're completely
>> cluess like some people or an old fart like me.
>
>I consider them one of many available tools that help ensure that I
>get home safely.
>

Look around you. You're playing a game. You're already home safely.

[Mxsmanic]

Walt writes:

> It was some time in the last century.

I was thinking aircraft and missions.

> And it's always good to know that if you have a radar altimeter you can
> always use it to open your garage door.

Yes. Why use a $10 handheld opener from the driveway when you can
just hold a $500,000 aircraft 2500 feet above the door instead?

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

[Mxsmanic]

flatulence writes:

> Look around you. You're playing a game. You're already home safely.

I take it you don't do much simming.

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

[Flatulence]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:
>flatulence writes:
>
>> Look around you. You're playing a game. You're already home safely.
>
>I take it you don't do much simming.
>

Nope, I do the real thing. I tried MSFS during my primary training but it
was so unlike a real plane I didn't see any point.

[Mxsmanic]

flatulence writes:

> Nope, I do the real thing.

I thought so. Simulation isn't any fun if you don't take it
seriously.

> I tried MSFS during my primary training but it
> was so unlike a real plane I didn't see any point.

You mean a real plane was so unlike the sim that you didn't see any
point.

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

[Flatulence]

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:
>flatulence writes:
>
>> Nope, I do the real thing.
>
>I thought so. Simulation isn't any fun if you don't take it
>seriously.
>
>> I tried MSFS during my primary training but it
>> was so unlike a real plane I didn't see any point.
>
>You mean a real plane was so unlike the sim that you didn't see any
>point.
>

Nope. If that were my perspective I'd be reading a simming group.

[Mxsmanic]

flatulence writes:

> If that were my perspective I'd be reading a simming group.

I do.

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

[Walt]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Walt writes:
>
> > It was some time in the last century.
>
> I was thinking aircraft and missions.

KC135. A typical day's work.

>
> > And it's always good to know that if you have a radar altimeter you can
> > always use it to open your garage door.
>
> Yes. Why use a $10 handheld opener from the driveway when you can
> just hold a $500,000 aircraft 2500 feet above the door instead?
>

You betcha. Why send a man to do a boy's job? Anybody can push a button
to open a garage door. I've taught my dog how to do that. But, it takes
an inventive mind to find other ways to open a garage door. Subtly, of
course. Nuclear weapons don't count.

I'll be in Paris next summer starting a datacenter for a company I'm
contracted to. Let's do lunch. I'll buy. You show me Paris. I'll pay
for the gas. What do you think?

--Walt

[Mxsmanic]

Walt writes:

> KC135. A typical day's work.

I thought it would be something like that.

> I'll be in Paris next summer starting a datacenter for a company I'm
> contracted to. Let's do lunch. I'll buy. You show me Paris. I'll pay
> for the gas. What do you think?

Unfortunately, I have a rule against meeting people in real life, but
thanks, anyway.

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

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

No, it never hurts, but your statement was "One can't sensibly fly IFR
without it" or something to that effect.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jay Honeck]

> > I'll be in Paris next summer starting a datacenter for a company I'm
> > contracted to. Let's do lunch. I'll buy. You show me Paris. I'll pay
> > for the gas. What do you think?
>
> Unfortunately, I have a rule against meeting people in real life, but
> thanks, anyway.

That's silly. Every year we have a rec.aviation gathering (in Oshkosh,
WI, at the word's biggest aviation event), and it's a real blast
meeting people from this group. Several have become fast and good
friends.

We've also got a website called the Rogues Gallery, where you can go to
see what participants look like, and what they're flying. See it here:
http://alexisparkinn.com/rec_aviation.htm (There are pictures of
our annual get-together there, too, under the "O"s...)

Bottom line: Folks off this 'group are genuinely outstanding people.
You would do well to get to know them. (And, if you want your pic in
the Rogues Gallery, just email a few to me...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> > I'll be in Paris next summer starting a datacenter for a company I'm
>> > contracted to. Let's do lunch. I'll buy. You show me Paris. I'll pay
>> > for the gas. What do you think?
>>
>> Unfortunately, I have a rule against meeting people in real life, but
>> thanks, anyway.
>
> That's silly. Every year we have a rec.aviation gathering (in Oshkosh,
> WI, at the word's biggest aviation event), and it's a real blast
> meeting people from this group. Several have become fast and good
> friends.
>
> We've also got a website called the Rogues Gallery, where you can go to
> see what participants look like, and what they're flying. See it here:
> http://alexisparkinn.com/rec_aviation.htm (There are pictures of
> our annual get-together there, too, under the "O"s...)
>
> Bottom line: Folks off this 'group are genuinely outstanding people.
> You would do well to get to know them. (And, if you want your pic in
> the Rogues Gallery, just email a few to me...)

I have to agree. This newsgroup does seem to stand out from all
the other groups in USENET, as they are very sincere people who
actually are who they say they are. I haven't met any of the people
here, but from the stories they've told, the vibe is that they are very
much down to earth.

I've already made a note to myself that whenever I fly back
home to OMA or MLE, to take the extra couple hours drive to visit Jay
and see how his home base is. I'm already guaranteed to be impressed.

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFhu74yBkZmuMZ8L8RAlItAJ9DxwHCIuVzFOjMuyOcjH zV+B+hPwCcCagm
YXVN95kelnbASunBI/La19o=
=5Smv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Steve Foley]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> > I'll be in Paris next summer starting a datacenter for a company I'm
>> > contracted to. Let's do lunch. I'll buy. You show me Paris. I'll pay
>> > for the gas. What do you think?
>>
>> Unfortunately, I have a rule against meeting people in real life, but
>> thanks, anyway.
>
> That's silly. Every year we have a rec.aviation gathering (in Oshkosh,
> WI, at the word's biggest aviation event), and it's a real blast
> meeting people from this group. Several have become fast and good
> friends.

He didn't say he has a rule against meeting usenet people, or rec.avation
people. He said he won't meet people in real life.

That does explain a lot, though.

He thinks usenet is a simulation of real life.

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> He thinks usenet is a simulation of real life.

USENET is a part of real life. I simply prefer the channeled and calm
interaction of USENET to the relatively intense and undirected
interaction of in-person meetings. Additionally, the deferred nature
of e-mail and USENET make it easier to organize and control one's time
and the time spent on interactions.

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

[Walt]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Walt writes:
>
> > KC135. A typical day's work.
>
> I thought it would be something like that.
>
> > I'll be in Paris next summer starting a datacenter for a company I'm
> > contracted to. Let's do lunch. I'll buy. You show me Paris. I'll pay
> > for the gas. What do you think?
>
> Unfortunately, I have a rule against meeting people in real life, but
> thanks, anyway.
>

Okay. It's an open offer. I'm not yet sure when I'll be in Paris. I'm
sorry to hear you don't like meeting people. Like Jay said, that's what
makes the aviation community something special.

"I thought it would be something like that"
--Care to expound on this statement? Did you think I was flying a 172?

Just curious.
--Walt

[Mxsmanic]

Walt writes:

> Okay. It's an open offer. I'm not yet sure when I'll be in Paris. I'm
> sorry to hear you don't like meeting people. Like Jay said, that's what
> makes the aviation community something special.

I thought the attraction of aviation was aviation.

> "I thought it would be something like that"
> --Care to expound on this statement? Did you think I was flying a 172?

No, it just sounded like something military.

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

[Walt]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Walt writes:
>
> > Okay. It's an open offer. I'm not yet sure when I'll be in Paris. I'm
> > sorry to hear you don't like meeting people. Like Jay said, that's what
> > makes the aviation community something special.
>
> I thought the attraction of aviation was aviation.

<sigh>

I give up.

--Walt

[Tony]

I'll remind you MX had at one point told us he used inflable dolls to
simulate joining the mile high club. Are you really sure you want to
meet him?

On Dec 18, 11:00 pm, "Walt" > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Walt writes:
>
> > > KC135. A typical day's work.
>
> > I thought it would be something like that.
>
> > > I'll be in Paris next summer starting a datacenter for a company I'm
> > > contracted to. Let's do lunch. I'll buy. You show me Paris. I'll pay
> > > for the gas. What do you think?
>
> > Unfortunately, I have a rule against meeting people in real life, but
> > thanks, anyway.Okay. It's an open offer. I'm not yet sure when I'll be in Paris. I'm
> sorry to hear you don't like meeting people. Like Jay said, that's what
> makes the aviation community something special.
>
> "I thought it would be something like that"
> --Care to expound on this statement? Did you think I was flying a 172?
>
> Just curious.
> --Walt

[Walt]

I've already changed my mind. :>)

--Walt

Tony wrote:
> I'll remind you MX had at one point told us he used inflable dolls to
> simulate joining the mile high club. Are you really sure you want to
> meet him?
>
> On Dec 18, 11:00 pm, "Walt" > wrote:
> > Mxsmanic wrote:
> > > Walt writes:
> >
> > > > KC135. A typical day's work.
> >
> > > I thought it would be something like that.
> >
> > > > I'll be in Paris next summer starting a datacenter for a company I'm
> > > > contracted to. Let's do lunch. I'll buy. You show me Paris. I'll pay
> > > > for the gas. What do you think?
> >
> > > Unfortunately, I have a rule against meeting people in real life, but
> > > thanks, anyway.Okay. It's an open offer. I'm not yet sure when I'll be in Paris. I'm
> > sorry to hear you don't like meeting people. Like Jay said, that's what
> > makes the aviation community something special.
> >
> > "I thought it would be something like that"
> > --Care to expound on this statement? Did you think I was flying a 172?
> >
> > Just curious.
> > --Walt

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

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

Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>
> I think you could probably shave several hours off of your Private by
> practicing in the Kiwi -- and it will be invaluable to me as an
> instrument procedures trainer.
>
> Besides just being a helluva lot of fun, of course!

I don't doubt this whatsoever, Jay. In fact, This may be some
inspiration for you as far as MSFS goes:

http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?t=5194

http://forums.vatsim.net/viewtopic.php?t=5083

This was posted by a student pilot at ERAU Daytona Beach who
flies with MSFS on VATSIM, and while any of the time he spent with MSFS
did not earn him any flight hours towards his license, it did help him
with the fundamentals of what he was trying to achieve.

Disclaimers apply. MSFS isn't FAA-certified by any means (and I
think that point has been made clear). But this and the following
should kill some misconceptions pilots have in this group regarding
MSFS.

It is a simulator, yes. It does not simulate full feelings or
give you full sense bearings as a real plane does. We all know that,
and common sense tells us that as people are sitting in a chair using
this, or have put together a motion sim as Jay has.

There are some things that MSFS can NOT do as well. It can not fully
fly over the poles whatsoever. It does not not take you geographically
over the poles. For those of you that have it, try flying out of Alert
(CYLT), fly north, and see what happens.

What most of the real world pilots are missing here is that
while 'as real as it gets' is a lot of marketspeak and you don't get
the full sensation of flying as you do in a real plane, simulators do
at least give you the ability to understand the fundamentals of flying,
even at the very basic level. You can understand the concept of
bearings, VORs, (non)precision approaches, traffic and holding patterns,
the whole lot. It doesn't help you totally, but it DOES help you. It is
not to be a replacement for real world flying or navigation, but it can
help you with the goal of getting to where you can fly in the real world.

If you don't believe that or object to it, any objection you
have has been proven wrong by Andrew and his passing of Part 141 oral
and practical tests in those links.

Food for thought, and perhaps it will kill some
holier-than-thou attitudes some pilots here tend to have, as well as
open the eyes of some people who think sims are total replacements for
the real world, as they are not.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFiMacyBkZmuMZ8L8RAuuTAKDO6AWNIDIHUN/cAzU6/lQNROmPRgCg2rD3
GDvuPOgefcDWBR7GUVsacCo=
=RaUJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Like Jay said, that's what
> > makes the aviation community something special.
>
> I thought the attraction of aviation was aviation.
>

There's a connection between your thinking that way and your rule
against meeting people.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Wolfgang,

> if you want to better your situation.
>

If he did, what would he have left to complain about?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> I simply prefer the channeled and calm
> interaction of USENET to the relatively intense and undirected
> interaction of in-person meetings.
>

You have a problem. But I guess you know that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> If he did, what would he have left to complain about?

trust me, those like the troll can complain about anything.

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